kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it was not voted for by the people of northern ireland and it is an issue that the british government has to face up to its responsibilities on.
it is not enough to simply wish this issue away.
we need real political leadership and we need this to be addressed.
providing financing to financial institutions corporations and governments.
if you want to get the result we need clear understanding on what the european union wants.
the official eu position is that we should help people who need protection according to the geneva convention.
the main aim of this deal is to prevent not only illegal economic migration but also a real refugee movement to the european union.
if eu countries prefer to adopt trump's approach we should say this openly and not pretend to be angels that do not understand why these poor people do not come to us.
if we adhere to formally declared principles we should show now real solidarity on the issue of development aid and refugee policy.
and predictably when he went back to the people of the united kingdom he ended up losing and he ended up losing because he went back with nothing because he was told that the four freedoms were sacrosanct. yet at the moment we are now embarking on another process.
a white paper where we look at the future of europe where two options could potentially have satisfied the united kingdom's grievances.
option two is nothing but the single market so we could potentially have a situation next december where we have decided to restrict freedom of movement whilst still negotiating with great britain on the basis that market access cannot happen without freedom of movement of people.
someone please explain this contradiction.
the empty nationalistic rhetoric and flagwaving that characterised the debate last year and again in the last week has always resulted in damaging our interests. it angers me that people wrap themselves in the british and gibraltarian flags when they had actively worked against the interests of citizens of both places.
we are about to enter detailed negotiations with our friends about the future of our country.
it is time to settle down to serious politics recognising through the process that we have lost some of our sovereignty and focus on ensuring that eventually we will reach a deal that works for the citizens of the uk and gibraltar as well as our european colleagues.
it is clear that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible. this is a red line for us.
we want at the same time to ensure an orderly brexit.
we want the negotiations to be fair and in the interests of european and uk citizens the future relationship with the uk to be balanced and comprehensive and for the united kingdom to remain a close political economic and strategic partner of the european union.
mr president i have worked on this dossier for almost five years with other colleagues so it is a good day that we have approved tougher and better legislation on medical devices because public health is our primary concern here and that is vital.
but so too is the medical devices industry it is a vital part of our economy and it produces products that sustain lives quality of life improves and our lives are extended by it.
so good work has been done across the house.
the next step is implementation and here the commission and member states and we ourselves must keep a watch so that what is in the legislation is put into effect.
there are two core issues but i will deal with one in particular and that is post market surveillance of products.
many of the problems with faulty devices were made worse because there was not adequate post market surveillance.
in other words there was no reporting system and the problems were not identified.
two thousand and seventeen as stipulated in article thirty one of this regulation the commission after having assessed the evaluation report and recommendations made on that basis by the agency's management board may consider submitting any proposals for amendments to the regulation which it considers necessary.
thousand and seven this is essential to ensure the continued functioning of the agency which makes such an important contribution to fundamental rights in the union a work that the council highly values. i would like to inform you about the statement of the council concerning the review of the multiannual framework two thousand and eighteen two thousand and twenty two made in december two thousand and sixteen and entered into the council minutes.
in this context the council agrees that it will consider carefully any proposals for amendments to the regulation that the commission may decide to submit including those pertaining to the remit of the agency to cover the areas of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
the agency is doing targeted research mapping the situation explaining the trends collecting data and providing all those findings to us to politicians so that we can take responsible political decisions.
the commission prepared a formal written declaration regretting the exclusion of the set thematic areas which we will ask to have included in the european parliament as well as coreper and council minutes.
there are also sensitive areas from the point of view of fundamental rights. it is important that the agency can provide support through reliable and comparable data and the collection of best practices and initiatives.
there is no reason why the agency should not collect data on all aspects relating to the area of freedom security and justice especially in the current context.
the commission made all efforts to have these thematic areas in the fundamental rights agency's new framework but the council has unfortunately not achieved the unanimous agreement necessary.
the pillars have disappeared there is only one law of the union.
at the end of this process we will see whether any modification to the fundamental rights agency founding regulation will prove necessary.
two thousand and eighteen two thousand and twenty two like the rapporteur the commission deeply regrets that the text agreed in the council excludes the thematic areas of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and indeed this is not for the first time.
we cannot ignore the entry into force of the lisbon treaty and its consequences.
the commission will thus continue to ask the agency to carry out tasks in these areas even if they are kept outside the multiannual framework.
let me also underline that the external evaluation of the fundamental rights agency is ongoing and will deliver its findings at the end of this year and on that basis the agency's management board will make recommendations to the commission.
police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are extremely important in the fight against trafficking of human beings organised crime and combating terrorism.
the commission has always insisted on the inclusion of these thematic areas in the agency's multiannual framework.
this includes the possible amendments to extend the remit of the agency also in the areas of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. i am not in a position to say more at this stage. i speak on behalf of the council and therefore on behalf of all its
we should deeply value fundamental rights for all both in our nation states and in our cooperation.
the fundamental rights agency fra has a duty to gather data on how well we are doing and to offer solutions to the institutions and member states seeking to safeguard them.
as such we must carefully cost and evaluate the added value to be gained if new areas of competence are to be given to them or not.
i cannot therefore support any expansion of fra topics and i would question whether this would be given real value for taxpayers' money.
i understand your position but you can also be sure that we will not give up.
the second reason is related to the evolving reality in the field of fundamental rights.
a change in this direction would send a very important signal especially given the recent and ongoing legislative developments at eu level in this field.
as already mentioned this is not the first time that the council has refused to include these areas of competence as suggested by the commission in its initial proposal hiding its political will behind a legal argument.
tomorrow hopefully and i am pretty sure that this will happen parliament will give its consent to the council decision and will vote on a joint motion for a resolution which i proposed with the support of the majority of my colleagues in this house.
however fair interinstitutional cooperation will require additional action to be taken in the near future starting with the council and commission agreement on the interpretation of the agency's founding regulation.
moreover without prejudice to its right of initiative i warmly invite the commission once the external evaluation of the agency has been concluded to present the proposal for amendments to the agency's regulation.
this revision is necessary in order to improve the procedures for governance and for the functioning of the agency and to align the regulation with the lisbon treaty.
i would also like to say a big thank you to the fundamental rights agency for all the great work it has been doing all the staff there for supporting us in our work for fundamental rights inside the european union. what the fundamental rights agency has been doing over these last years is something we definitely need.
to fra for their excellent work which has become essential in recent years.
just as in all the other thematic areas we need fra's data and recommendations relating to the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters as well.
that is why i would like to urge the council and the commission to make the necessary legislative changes to open the agency's mandate to the former third pillar matters.
i would also like before the commission and the council to express my special appreciation for fra's research into the situation of roma in the eu which is vital for monitoring the efficiency and shortcomings of the policies of the eu and those of its member states.
finally on confidentiality we have no problem disclosing the texts that we are discussing but we are not alone.
secondly acta is only about enforcement of existing intellectual property rights.
another area where discussions are disappointing for eu interests relates to which intellectual property rights will be covered by the agreement.
it should set minimum rules on how innovators can enforce their rights in courts at the borders or over the internet.
furthermore acta will be consistent with the declaration on trips and public health of two thousand and one whilst the obligations on border controls which is the most sensitive issue as regards access to medicines will not apply to patents.
this is why i remain committed to the success of these negotiations.
the answer is that our legislation is one of the most effective and that if other countries adopt it it will help our innovators.
fourthly we will make sure that acta does not hamper access to generic medicines.
this will be at the expense of the level of ambition and effectiveness of the agreement.
we strongly disagree and will continue to firmly push for these offensive eu interests to be respected.
as you can see from the draft texts resulting from the negotiations held since march which we have shared with you the commission has kept its word and has consistently stuck to these principles.
this is the ultimate objective on which i am sure we all agree.
and this is about issues of concern to eu citizens not only jobs but also consumer safety security and health.
indeed if we want to remain a competitive economy we will have to rely on innovation creativity and brand exclusivity.
so we need the tools to ensure that they are adequately protected in our main export markets.
what we are aiming at is simply setting an international standard in ipr enforcement that is reasonable balanced and effective and thus goes beyond the current wto rules on ipr the trips agreement.
last march i came here to outline the key principles on which the commission's participation in these negotiations is based and committed myself to enhance transparency vis vis parliament on these negotiations.
the eu has a wide and diversified basis of right holders.
on the digital environment which is one of the most sensitive but also the most innovative' chapters of acta there was a considerable step back in the last round with the parties unable to agree on a common liability exemption regime for internet service providers.
the problem is that several of our partners insist that only copyright and trademarks deserve' to be included in acta.
but regrettably in the last two rounds it has been made increasingly clear that a consensus including all the current acta parties will only be reached on the basis of the lowest common denominator given the variety of views and practices on this issue with the various acta participants.
i remain firmly convinced of the importance of tackling the systematic and widespread abuse of european intellectual property around the world and of the essential contribution that acta can make towards this goal.
it will not include provisions modifying substantive intellectual property law.
it is good for european consumers and citizens and it is also important for european businesses as has been pointed out. it is good that we protect trademarks and the trademark acquis including geographical indications.
there are concerns that the agreement may in fact harm development harm european businesses and harm the way we take advantage of this new technology.
in the case of medicinal products counterfeit medicines might at best be ineffective and rob people of a cure;
i was pleased to hear the commission's assurance that any large scale infringements would be targeted and not consumers. however some actor supporting lobbyists do indeed want internet access to be withdrawn from people suspected of repeated unauthorised downloading and the same people would like deep packet inspection looking at customers' communications.
we also need to understand the difference between the digital world and the world of atoms.
it must be galling for companies who invest millions sometimes billions in new products and new designs to see those products undercut by counterfeit products elsewhere.
finally the commission welcomes the balanced approach of the social investment pact concerning the need to tackle both short and medium to longer term challenges.
by investing in social policies that empower people from an early age strengthen their capability to cope with risks and enhance their opportunities to participate in society and the labour market we can anticipate and prepare rather than simply repair.
two thousand and twenty the commission agrees on the need highlighted in the social investment pact for public policies that prepare people to adapt to societal and economic challenges. for this to happen sustained investment in our human capital to raise our competitiveness must go hand in hand with social inclusion and proper social protection.
the commission shares the view that better alignment of guidance assessment and support for member states' reforms is needed which acknowledges the interconditionalities of our social and economic policies.
these challenges call for a broad range of actions including the identification and elimination of inefficiencies in social protection systems and the strengthening of their activating and investment orientation.
these are the right tools to support economic growth democracy and political stability in central america.
they include democratic government human rights the rule of law sustainable development and regional integration.
it will further cement our strategic alliance which is based on common values and mutual respect and is a fundamental tool to address the root causes of many problems that our partners in central america face.
through this agreement we shall further ensure that the region can count on the eu's support to address these challenges.
so please help us with respect to this and set apart this linguistic question which i think is very important especially in the european parliament.
if you do not do that you will never shorten that period.
a more diverse customer base' for central american exports means more resilience in difficult times and more growth in good times.
these direct consequences are complemented by an important indirect benefit.
on top of this you have to do the legal scrubbing' to ensure that in all of these languages every word has exactly the same meaning which is an enormous task.
it offers an excellent opportunity to boost all aspects of our relationship in particular security which is one of the most serious problems with which the central american region is confronted.
that is because we negotiated it keeping in mind the needs of economic operators on both sides and the different levels of development of our central american partners.
given the relative size of the economies involved central america's gdp represents less than one of the eu's gdp most of the economic impact at a macroeconomic level will be on the central american economy.
increases in central american exports to the european union mean that our partners become less dependent on their other trading partners.
in my view these real economic and political results are more than sufficient reason for the european parliament to give its consent to this deal.
through the trade pillar we help implement internationally recognised core labour standards and key multilateral environment agreements in central america and we strengthen the role of civil society.
finally the trade pillar completes the picture of this comprehensive agreement.
it will allow us to coordinate our positions take joint initiatives in the international arena and both cooperate and expand our engagement in fields of mutual interest.
this ever stronger political dialogue is complemented by the cooperation pillar which will give us the opportunity to work as partners in the region.
in the political pillar both parties have committed to a set of shared principles.
i agree with all those who say that we should have those two aims we should of course work to the benefit of our own people;
similarly making a region to region agreement with a region that is not homogenous is not easy either but i am very pleased that we managed to have a region to region agreement because i believe that especially for these kinds of regions made up of multiple rather small states it is very important that we have a region to region agreement so that it can also foster
but having been a lawyer for twenty five years i have always appreciated that when you defend a case before the court you should stick to your dossier you should stick to the facts in the dossier you should not plead against the dossier as has been done this evening by a number of
two thousand and twelve so i hope it will also help our economy but i am very much convinced that because of its balanced nature it will also help those economies develop.
again that is not right because the agreement provides for recourse to appropriate measures in case any of the parties has failed to fulfil an obligation under the agreement and this can as a last resort result in the suspension of the agreement.
nevertheless so far none of the agreements have been concluded.
the association agreement with the andean community has failed and instead tomorrow we will approve i am convinced a multi party agreement with colombia and peru.
at the same time the negotiations with mercosur are rather hectic and unpredictable due to a number of things including the versatile membership of mercosur which means that the association agreement we are discussing today with central america is the first concluded by the eu after the entry into force of the lisbon treaty.
more importantly it is the first comprehensive partnership between the regions which marks the result of the parties' unbending political will.
this association agreement contains three main pillars political dialogue cooperation and trade thus marking a decisive step forwards in the integration of central america and going far beyond mere questions of free trade.
otherwise can we sincerely believe that the eu particularly now in these times of economic and social crisis within its own territory would conclude association or partnership agreements with each and every country in central america? of course i am aware of the asymmetries which exist between the two regions and among the central american countries and i am conscious of the efforts to be made in order to generate greater synergies between both regions but i also truly hope that this agreement will bring benefits to all parties and boost integration on a regional social economic and cultural level.
trade liberalisation is of course a euphemism for globalisation which actually leads to mutual detriment. the european union will export its industrial technology to central america or possibly even relocate its manufacturing there employing cheaper labour working in inferior conditions.
cheap duty free goods will flow into the eu jeopardising profits wages and jobs in member states.
the report boasts of the expansion of the quantity and range of goods that will be tariff free.
the commitment to public tendering will allow multinationals based in the eu to swallow up public procurement contracts in central america.
this agreement like globalisation of which it is a part is not for the benefit of ordinary people there or here but in the interests of multinational corporations.
i believe that parliament should have a say on this.
crucial decisions were taken by the ecofin for all twenty seven member states such as that capital adequacy requirements will go up to.
we are taking the time to debate the short medium and long term solutions which are on the table.
this european dualism is perceived from outside as our weakness and it is used against our common strategic european interest.
it is clear that short and medium term solutions should be anchored in the eu institutions. for the longer term there are discussions on a possible treaty change.
some competences may be national competences but most member states agree that we need to coordinate much better at european level.
in the long term perspective we need to draw conclusions from this crisis and reflect on the eu's future. if we truly want a strong eu treated seriously by the global players then this crisis gives us an opportunity to act quickly.
there are two other proposals on how to strengthen the firewall by creating a special purpose vehicle and by creating a trust fund with imf involvement.
in practice we talk about the eu but we build our politics mostly on national levels.
the main conclusion is that we cannot afford the situation of a unity which is a kind of fragmentation in reality.
the union is like a dream whereas the nation state is current business.
the question is what kind of change do we expect? are we ready to accept any changes?
the important question is how do we move all these issues from an intergovernmental framework to the community method?
the second point recapitalisation of european banks.
on sunday in the opening speech at the european council i argued that a decisive and comprehensive package needs to be defined to overcome the euro zone crisis and that all eu institutions must come together. i reminded the european council that we are also the parliament of the euro zone. this is why i welcome that today between the european summit on sunday and tomorrow's meeting
the social costs of alcohol related harm are estimated to be over eur one hundred and fifty five billion every year. i think members will agree that this is quite alarming and shows the need for urgent action to reduce alcohol consumption and the harm it causes.