kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we can also make use of the eu budget in particular the structural funds and the research programmes.
two thousand and fifteen despite the economic crisis we also reaffirmed our willingness to progress further on climate change.
in this context in accordance with the treaty the european council intends to fulfil its role of setting political directions and priorities for the union including economic strategy and governance.
i know that some in this house and elsewhere have expressed misgivings and asked whether the europe two thousand and twenty strategy can produce better results than the previous lisbon strategy generally held to have been insufficient.
is it as some have claimed too much of an intergovernmental working method?
some ideas might require treaty change but that is a more lengthy and cumbersome procedure.
i consider this meeting of the european council to have been a further important step in combating the crisis which started as a financial crisis and became an economic budgetary and nearly a monetary crisis.
we are currently increasing the scope of this coordination just as we are increasing the scope of what we do through eu legislation such as the banking legislation.
i reported back on the work undertaken so far by the task force that the european council asked me to chair.
the economic challenges facing europe remain immense. we were very close to the edge of the precipice just a few weeks ago and we have not yet reached safety.
it was a normal meeting and the decisions we took were of considerable significance not least in terms of dealing with the ongoing economic situation and looking beyond the crisis at how we can improve europe's long term economic performance.
at a european level we can and do adopt common legislation for our common market on the regulation of financial services on competition policy on trade on consumer protection and on other matters.
we also reconfirm the european union's position on achieving the millennium development goals in particular our development aid targets by.
that is the level at which the bulk of european decisions must be taken through the institutional structures and procedures of our union.
i would simply point out that improving europe's economic performance requires the use of a range of instruments some of them a european competence and others a national competence.
we will give priority to those proposals that can be enacted more speedily and more easily. anyway there seems to be an emerging consensus that we do not need to create new institutions for our economic governance but to make better use of those that we already have.
provided we persevere i have every confidence that europe will turn the corner.
the task of the european council bringing together as it does both the leaders of the national governments and the president of the commission is to determine the guidelines and political direction of both these elements.
i will be meeting your delegation before and again after the summer break in order to ensure parliament's contribution is fully integrated into our work.
there will be national breakdowns of targets and not just europe wide aggregates thereby providing realistic yardsticks to measure national performances.
it includes among its members the president of the commission.
regarding the financial sector our priority is to have a solid and healthy banking system.
there was agreement that we need to strengthen both the preventive and the corrective arms of the stability and growth pact; the system of sanctions for sealing the pact needs to be reviewed so as to have a coherent and progressive system.
at the same time i know that there are some in this chamber and elsewhere who have expressed concerns about the method being used to implement the strategy.
in any case we should not assume that heads of national governments are not capable of perceiving the wider common interest or that they are unaware of the fact that their own national interest is indeed to have a well functioning union.
your contribution the contribution of parliament is vital and your responsibility is great in this matter.
other ideas from the commission of course from the central bank from your parliament and from member states from whom we have had nearly a dozen written contributions are still to be discussed.
it is now an eu institution.
the euro was a victim of its own success. we forgot that the common currency needs convergence and reforms.
taking account of national budgetary procedures.
the measures taken are differentiated according to the varied situations of each member state and they are gradual.
i was pleased that when your president addressed the heads of state and government at the start of last week's meeting of the european council you drew attention to parliament's support for the europe two thousand and twenty strategy.
this was the decision to establish a scorecard and a system of surveillance to better assess competitiveness developments and imbalances so that we can detect unsustainable or dangerous trends at an earlier stage.
we ask the commission to quickly make proposals on naked short selling and credit default swaps.
no one would endorse such an infringement of parliamentary competences.
according to the treaty and i quote article one hundred and twenty one member states shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the council.
in doing so we proved that the union can have a common position on one of the most delicate issues in world politics today.
whole if they restore confidence in the economy thereby stimulating both consumption and investment.
if we are to maintain our european way of life with an ageing population and if we want to remain a world player.
indeed we agreed a common position on a number of other items that will be dealt with at the g twenty toronto summit where mr barroso and i will have the honour of representing the union.
we are drawing lessons from all of this and correcting the course step by step.
we agreed subject to certain conditions to commence the accession negotiations for iceland to join the european union and welcomed estonia's application to join the eurozone both signs of confidence in the future of our union.
while specific decisions will sometimes be necessary at the level of the eurozone countries and when required i will convene a eurozone summit as i have done twice already it is at the level of the whole of our union that the main aspects of our economic governance must be decided.
the longer that we are out of the loop the longer it is going to take us to understand and agree the decisions you make; and we have some ideas too. turning to the council conclusions i note that they urge rapid action on the supervision package on aifm and on derivatives. they do not give prominence to the capital requirements directive crd iii which puts capital on the trading book.
now trading book capital was shirked under pressure from banks from before the crisis and it is what made speculative proprietary trading attractive and cost free an activity that was fundamental to the crisis. crd iii would automatically shrink casino banking without having to sort out bands and splits;
so why is it not top billing for early action and implementation?
finally i appreciate the decision to apply bank stress tests and make them public.
this is at least a year overdue and might have saved some of the current sovereign debt problem if it had been done sooner.
but it is essential now that the stress tests applied cover all the challenges and concerns of the market otherwise that would actually make matters worse.
i have three points that i would like to comment on. the first one is about the euro.
that will be a contribution to the future of european economy.
i welcome the clear goals set out here but i would like to remind us all that hard work and difficult choices have to be made.
we have learned that from the lisbon process.
finally we are now entering a phase of global economy which will be characterised by the reduction of deficits. it will be so in the us and it will be so in europe. we all know the risks associated with the contraction of economic development.
and i think it should be strengthened in a way to make it consistent. i cannot understand a financial transaction tax which will hinder trade and liquidity and which will do more damage to poor countries and countries with big deficits.
we have not been very good at that as a european union in the last ten
better regulation can mean replacing twenty eight national regulations by one clear eu regulation but it can also mean that the eu refrains from making regulations where perhaps the differences between the member states are so big that if you make an eu regulation it becomes so complicated that
of years. yes this is part of the better regulation exercise that will be complicated but necessary for growth in the european
it also looks at the economic impact of this legislation.
it looks at the environmental impact of this legislation.
that is the main goal of my operation in the next five
issue; for me this is a rational
this impact assessment is then reviewed by the impact assessment board and until now approximately forty of what was presented to the board was sent back because it was not good enough and had to be reviewed.
some of you have suggested that this impact assessment board should be removed from the commission.
job. my intention is to look very carefully at the composition of the impact assessment board.
i am not of that opinion.
so i am fully conscious of the fact that the commission services should do a better job at incorporating impact assessment when they draft legislation. what we are doing now is revising the guidelines so that we do a better job.
issue. how do we attain the goals of sustainable growth in europe without an undue burden on citizens and enterprises?
sense. it is not just about whether it is legally well drafted legislation.
them. they have the feeling as some of you rightly pointed out that the only thing europe does is add more burden to them and we should be very aware of that feeling in european society and we should be able to do something concretely about this jointly as the commission european parliament.
it looks at the social impact of this legislation.
create tremendous results in a very short period of time. but the smes have to be aware of this and until now my impression is that whatever we have done at the european level smes today do not have the feeling that we are taking the burden away from
i believe it should remain within the commission because what we do is assess drafts we make in the commission before these drafts go to parliament and the council.
yes we need to do better in impact assessment than we have done in the last couple
this is all of extreme importance for better regulation.
years. i think mr telika rightly pointed to that problem and i really undertake to have a dialogue with this parliament on how we can also remove outdated legislation or legislation that no longer attains the goals it was intended
so it is a significant issue with significant implications for growth and for employment.
i would like to see independently carried out impact assessments professionally done.
i would even like to see financial targets.
now this is not an issue just for the commission.
i am ready to come to you and be accountable for it but i desperately need your support because when parliament acts in terms of impact assessment it makes a huge contribution to attaining that goal.
as i said at my hearing i have a very special interest in helping small and medium sized enterprises in europe to use the opportunities they have.
helping those enterprises by lifting some of the administrative burden by making sure when we legislate for them that the legislation achieves the goal we intend and nothing more than that is a direct contribution to creating more employment in the european union.
on employment and on fighting unemployment in the european union.
we need to make sure that we do not burden our citizens and our enterprises with undue regulation;
we need to deliver on growth and jobs;
the impact of what we finally decide to do and of how to ensure that what it does is precisely what it is intended to do and not more than that.
just imagine for argument's sake that we can lift the burden of administration from a baker or a butcher by.
from various studies i know of and also through the contacts i have had with impact assessment authorities in member states it is increasingly clear to me that removing some of the administrative burden or undue regulation from small and medium sized enterprises can have a catalytic effect
i am dead set on this goal.
the commission needs to put itself in the shoes of a small business which often has neither the time nor the resources to take part in heavy and too frequent consultations.
i would therefore very much like to know what actions are foreseen to better reach out to small businesses to assess the impact of a proposal.
impact assessments form part of better law making better regulation and reducing the cost of regulation for businesses is absolutely crucial for growth and jobs.
we need a regulatory framework that fosters innovation skilled jobs and access to world markets.
it is important that we recognise that the needs of all businesses are not the same. there is no one size fits all and each type needs a tailored solution that will help them.
the commission will re evaluate after the european council when is the right time to table its labour mobility package.
in the meantime i am at your disposal of you all to continue our exchange which i value a lot and will take into account.
when exactly we will be tabling it also depends on the political context. as you know the european council will this week discuss security alongside migration the internal market the deepening of the emu and the
to implement the principle of equal pay for equal work.
they want rules which are clear fair and enforced on the ground and it is precisely our job as lawmakers to provide for such rules.
about the free movement of european citizens and the entitlement of mobile citizens to social benefits.
those exchanges with many people and representatives of many organisations many member states and many parliaments have convinced me that irrespective of the differences there is also a lot of common ground in what most people want.
i have listened carefully to the very different views that exist on these matters.
fundamentally the right to move across borders to travel to study to work or to retire is not put into question.
but people want this right of free movement to be exercised in a way which is fair for everybody.
we will also outline our priorities to support and facilitate labour mobility across europe. we are finalising the technical work on the package.
we repeat it and operationalise it further in the commission's work programme for two thousand and sixteen announcing proposals for a revision of the social security coordination regulations as well as a targeted revision of the posting of workers directive
my ambition is for it to be a balanced package taking the interests of all twenty eight member states and of course of all their citizens into account.
uk all topics related directly or indirectly to labour mobility.
the juncker commission has committed in its political guidelines to reviewing the existing rules on social security coordination and the posting of workers and to table legislative proposals for amendments where appropriate.
we also have the millions of cross border workers on a daily basis and people filling vacancies in the labour markets at all skill levels. i want to stress that it is at all skill levels.
i also want to remind people that it is not only workers who move.
i really hope that this package will also look at the gaps in systems and between systems where people are not catered for and we can see that through the committee on petitions through cases at solvit.
we should realise that there are twenty seven countries that were extremely interested in this and that they should not have to hang around waiting for just one.
i would like us to look at how we really match skills rather than seeing people employed well below their skill levels.
so the extension of the scope of the two thousand and four regulation was important and i hope we are not touching that.
but this really needs to work for those individuals and it is important that they can access their entitlements.
you have said that you want a balanced package but the situation now is highly unbalanced with a severe imbalance to the detriment of workers.
commissioner if we are serious about building a balanced european union you cannot afford to pay less attention to the severe problems of labour mobility than to market competitiveness.
so often we see directives that are unenforceable so it is very important that we take care to have things that are enforceable and are fair.
i think social security coordination is important.
however i frankly cannot see why one would want to be opening up the posting of workers directive while we still do not have the enforcement directive in place. this seems very premature and i do not understand why one would want to do it. on the question of equal pay for equal work
this is a very noble objective and one we can support but one has to look at the practicalities.
i would urge you to look at the cases in britain where thousands of cases are stuck in the courts because equal work cannot be defined.
free movement is an individual right of every european citizen and as such it must be protected but this should not blind us to the fact that there are pluses and minuses to labour mobility.
yes it can provide opportunities for job seekers and it can help to deal with issues like labour shortages and skills shortages.
but equally there can be a brain drain from sending countries and also if in a receiving country there are significant numbers of posted workers arriving in a particular sector it can have the impact of driving down wages.
we need to recognise that in some cases our legislation needs updating either to take account of new realities and there are many in the european union or to deal with the unintended consequences of previous legislation.
i presume none of us in this parliament think we get it right first time every time or indeed that past parliaments did. as always it depends on politics in the commission in parliament and in the council.
so that is three politics politics politics and more politics.
right now i think we need to put our minds to finding workable pragmatic solutions to the challenges we face and are likely to face in the future.
our citizens deserve that they expect it and they deserve it.
finally your comments on equal work for equal pay in the same place.
i agree with you on that because it is well established in european legislation and as you have said yourself on many occasions we do it for part time workers for fixed time workers for seasonal workers for temporary agency workers.
so the question i want answered is why do we not do it for posted workers?
i have taken advantage of the great freedom to choose where i want to work and what i want to do an internship in barcelona a phd in stockholm or working for a company in tallinn.
we have seen especially lately due to the crisis that many europeans are not freely moving to other eu member states but are forced to do so accepting any working conditions not getting the same pay or even losing access to basic social rights.
with this labour mobility package we need to tackle these problems.
to do this we need to put the rights of european citizens at the core of this debate instead of only looking at economic gains which labour mobility certainly entails.
we in this parliament need to be the voice of the citizens and their social rights security and protection.
make a proposal that guarantees the european principles of equality nondiscrimination and social justice.
if this commission really wants the eu to get a triple a for social standards this is the time to prove it. and this will be crucial for the trust of the european citizens in the european project.
at least we know where we are and it is nice not to be patronised.
but perhaps i could also suggest to her that if this deal had been done if this package had been finalised a year ago then rather than the whole of europe being in angst ridden negotiations with david cameron about in work benefits we could have been a year into a situation
in which we were paying the same rate for the same job in the same place and providing a living wage and decent conditions for european workers.
earlier this year in march the council approved recommendations from the employment committee and i am convinced that they are of great importance for the implementation of the youth guarantee after.
the same goes for the announced new skills agenda which should contribute to the achievement of the eu's targets of cutting the early school leaving rate to below ten and getting more young people into higher education or equivalent vocational education.
let me also remind you that the new eures regulation should enter into force in the coming days and i sincerely hope that the modernised eures network can also substantially contribute to the fight against the unemployment of young people.
with specific measures like the youth guarantee and above all with the ongoing structural reforms in the member states we should be able to take advantage of the improving economic situation and thus to make further progress in the reduction of youth unemployment.
funding was increased and we tried to speed things up although it should be clear to all of us that first of all member states are the ones that have to implement structural reforms.
we need more job creation and we also need to exploit the full potential of the exchange of best practices among the eu member states and also beyond the union.
while remaining at overall high levels it has been declining since the year. two thousand and thirteen in two thousand and fifteen and early this year two thousand and sixteen youth unemployment continued to fall and at a faster rate than overall unemployment.
taking stock of what has been done and above all what is still to be done is another thing.
funds from the youth employment initiative have been frontloaded and the member states are implementing the guarantee through their youth guarantee implementation plans.
let me be clear though because we should not hide the fact that the overall level of youth unemployment still remains very worrying and i would like to underline once more that the situation differs significantly among the member states.
obviously implementing is just one thing.
this recommendation has been without any doubt a cornerstone of european policy measures on youth employment.
the gradual improvement in the economic situation over the past two years has translated into a somewhat better situation regarding youth unemployment.
as you all know youth employment has always been a central subject in the countryspecific recommendations and will continue to be so.
let me also underscore that the social partners have a very important role to play within this context.
three years after the adoption of the youth guarantee the employment committee has been tasked with monitoring the implementation of the guarantee and for that purpose a framework for indicators has been developed.
what did we do and what is still to be done to address this?
this means to reshape the way we are using the youth initiative the structural funds and the investment plan which should tackle economic and social cohesion.
their long term disengagement from the labour market could have severe consequences both for them and for the economy and society as a whole.
today young people represent the group most exposed to social exclusion in europe;
madam president unfortunately despite the increase in employment rates across europe young people still experience difficulties in getting access to the labour market.