kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the presidency appreciated the constructive atmosphere during these negotiations.
to tackle challenges related to migration and security and to boost innovation growth and employment in europe.
and mr jens geier for their constructive approach during the whole annual budgetary procedure for their openness to compromise and for the positive atmosphere persisting among our institutions during the last weeks and months.
one of the issues that thus needed to be addressed was how to deal with the continuous challenges in migration where it is clear that europe will have to spend more. the package agreed by the conciliation committee includes two joint statements the first one on the youth employment initiative and the second one on the management of payments in. two thousand and eighteen
i would like to underline that in addition to funding our shared objectives the council had two other guiding principles.
the council has also issued a statement recalling the importance of limiting the administrative burden by fully implementing our joint agreement on reducing over the five year period the number of staff in all institutions bodies and agencies by.
firstly we considered it important to respect the agreements of the past.
in the union budget for two thousand and eighteen we have been able to translate these priorities into concrete figures.
we have been able to establish a realistic budget providing on the one hand the necessary appropriations to cover the needs expected in two thousand and eighteen but leaving on the other hand adequate margins to cope with the contingencies in the course of next year.
this would mean that for the first time since the entry into force of the lisbon treaty three consecutive annual budgetary procedures will then have been completed successfully in conciliation without having recourse to a new draft budget to be submitted by the commission and
even if there was a firm offer of tariff free access to the eu single market it would not be worth the eur fifty billion payment.
so don't think this is absolutely guaranteed.
so logic says that if for example a family has an annual income and that income declines they then have cheaper holidays they cut their cloth according to their circumstances.
and yet when we look at the two thousand and eighteen budget or the commission projections for the next few years we see that absolutely no account is being taken of the british leaving the european union.
and it would appear that in a very weak moment the british prime minister has decided to bail you out for it.
well i would just say don't bank on it' because i think there is going to be a huge public reaction to this extraordinary sum of money. honestly i do! i think there is a real prospect of there being a big rebellion within the conservative party against their own leader.
certainly the line that i have always taken is that no deal is better than a bad deal and in this case it's worse than a bad deal because we don't even know if we are going to get a trade deal in return.
so celebrate for today commissioner but i promise you it is not in the.
increasing it to eur three hundred and fifty million.
i think this is a wonderful development and a potential increase is also mentioned in due course.
you cannot have everything in a budget but i would welcome much of the progress that was made particularly in areas such as youth unemployment which remain particularly urgent.
i would say to the council in thanking everyone for their work that the least we can do when we know that the budget is coming around at the same time every year is to come to the negotiations with a proper mandate so that we can make progress in a businesslike fashion.
this is not remote stuff this is real research real students educated real lives transformed real lives saved through that research and new frontiers of humanity pushed forward.
we are also allocating eur.
the reality in turkey does not go unnoticed by the three institutions and this is why we are cutting pre accession funds to turkey by eur one hundred and five million because turkey is currently not respecting european standards when it comes to freedom of expression the rule of law and ngos' and human rights.
we are allocating a total of eur three hundred and fifty million to combat youth unemployment and we stay ready to evaluate this programme next year if more is needed we are ready to allocate more resources.
we have a budget for next year and more than that it is a good budget.
we are doing more on defence. we are financing eur forty million for a preparatory action on defence research to do more on defence at european level because member states want to do this because it makes sense and because it will enable member states to save money in their national budgets.
in order to bring more safety and more security to the people of europe we are strengthening the agencies of the union which have responsibilities in justice and home affairs and in combating terrorism.
for the time being we are allocating sufficient resources to give some prospect to those young people who are still looking for a job.
we are also supporting our immediate neighbourhood the southern neighbourhood the eastern neighbourhood and the western balkans those countries that are neighbouring the european union where it is in our fundamental interest that stability is being achieved and of course we are also giving some important political signals.
two thousand and eighteen parliament the council and the commission have managed to agree on the budget of the union for next year and the good news is that the european union is capable of acting.
two three billion for erasmus scholarships so that the young people of europe can travel can become more competitive can gain more skills and can be successful on the labour markets tomorrow.
eleven two billion for research and innovation because this makes europe's economy more competitive more future oriented and more capable of attracting investments. we are allocating eur.
we are putting eur seventy million more in reserve money that will be made available subject to an improvement of the situation there.
the fact that the office of budget responsibility is giving a bearish prognosis for the uk economy does not necessarily mean that they are right.
we had lots of people lots of big organisations telling us that if we did not join the euro we were headed for ruin and thank god we didn't do it!
yes i am aware of the extent to which our money recycled through the european union comes back to british universities and some of it comes back to be very well spent in research.
i acknowledge that and i understand that but equally much of it comes back to fund things like jean monnet professorships in british universities to teach a completely slanted distorted view of history.
do you not think that money should be cut from that budget instead of spending a lot of money saying how wonderful the european union is and how wonderful the president the chair and all the rest of them are? what do you think sir?
just an observation mr coburn in our history there were many horrors.
that is unusual but i would say that the blue cards are there to put questions.
two thousand and twenty five this is a huge step forward leading to cleaner oceans and less suffering for marine wildlife.
the only way we can tackle this shared issue is by taking action across europe.
in the uk liberal democrats fought hard in government against the conservatives to ensure a five p tax on plastic bags coming in this year and here in the european parliament conservative meps have shown their true colours by not supporting these much needed eu limits.
yet time and again conservative meps have refused to back these targets.
this shows how weak the conservative commitment to environmental protection is.
now we can dramatically curb disposable plastic bags right across the eu. the average use of around two hundred plastic bags per person will reduce to about forty by.
they are deadly for seabirds fish seals dolphins and other marine animals.
leave it up to the member states.
it consumes more energy it consumes more water and it is more inefficient in recycling.
it has driven us to use more paper bags rather than go down the road of using reusable bags and it is important to point out that paper production causes seventy more air pollution.
my grandmother already knew of this alternative it was called a hemp twine bag. i think she used about three of them in the seventy years of her life.
you do something because you want to do it.
i found it very interesting earlier to hear one mep say that we need to come up with or invent an alternative.
therefore the result that we are discussing today is i think an example of very good european policy making.
we all know that plastic bags are one of the major causes of this huge plastic pollution and many of these birds fish turtles and other marine animals have fragments of the one hundred billion european plastic bags that we use annually in their stomachs.
first of all this huge environmental problem is relatively easy to solve and secondly there is huge public support for the measures to solve this problem.
they are responsible for the crucial task of implementation. the first step they have to take is to choose from among the instruments available to them to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags. i would also like to add that this directive addresses a major problem at source from a preventive perspective and i have to say that the more preventive action we take today
the compromise reached is an important step forward in addressing the issue of plastic waste endorsed by overwhelming public support.
these are just a few and not the only member states that have actually taken action.
once this amendment to the packaging and packaging waste directive is adopted and has entered into force member states will have the tools available for effective action.
we will tackle these tasks without delay with a view to meeting the frankly more than challenging deadlines agreed in the compromise.
do prove that action is effective.
madam president much of the debate around this report has been characterised by an unjust misinformed attack on oxobiodegradable plastics technology which has a considerable contribution to make in the battle against excessive plastic bag littering which is something we would all like to stop.
yet while this technology has vast potential the report's rapporteur has given in to rival italian vested interests resting on hydro biodegradable technology which has simply sought to eliminate a competitor from the market.
thanks to the tireless work by my ecr colleagues the commission and council saw sense.
we should proceed on the basis of independently produced solid scientific evidence not misinformed smears.
this innovative technology has been driven by a company in my east of england constituency with thirty dedicated employees. as one of the local meps i applaud the work they have done and recognise the potential for thousands of jobs in the future.
yes the proposal here is a paneuropean proposal which leaves it to the countries to deliver what they feel is best to reduce plastic bag use. in the uk it was the liberal democrats in their manifesto who delivered in government a five p tax.
the underlying principle of reducing environmental damage from discarded plastic bags is of course one we can all support. yet the measures to be introduced in the second reading agreement while an improvement on the first risk being overly prescriptive and potentially unworkable.
once discarded they can last for hundreds of years often as harmful microscopic particles that threaten the environment worldwide especially the marine environment in terms of marine litter.
an early second reading agreement on amending the packaging and packaging waste directive to reduce the use of lightweight plastic carrier bags can be formalised today.
we need to tackle the problem of marine pollution which is to a great extent caused by plastic waste and we need to save resources and move to a circular economy.
the commission welcomes the agreement reached by the co legislators even though it includes some elements that would in the commission's view have been better addressed in a different and in a much broader context.
nevertheless this agreement has been possible because we all share the same objective limiting the consumption and littering of plastic carrier bags.
the very high and ever increasing consumption rates of plastic bags currently some one hundred billion bags per year in the eu alone and up to two hundred bags per person per year also imply a squandering of resources and have become a symbol of a throw away society and a symbol of unsustainable lifestyles.
action is needed.
looking at the different positions of the co legislators at the start of the legislative process it is clear that this has not been an easy task but thanks to the efforts undertaken by all parties we now have a compromise on the table.
clearly this is a global problem requiring action beyond the eu but it is important that we do our part.
i am strongly in favour of hope i am a christian but i think sometimes that we need to do something.
could i ask mrs bearder if she believes that the proposal before us now is better and will be more effective in the uk than the proposal put before and voted for in the uk parliament and supported by the liberal democrats for the reduction of plastic bags in the uk?
the use of biodegradable plastic bags is a problem.
so i think we may need to come back and look again at biodegradable plastic bags.
i welcomed the commission proposal when it was first launched as i believe absolutely that we need to tackle the issue of plastic waste particularly plastic bags in the environment.
the commission proposal when it came was relatively flexible and it set out a variety of options for member states to pursue but as a result of amendments here the final agreement lacks flexibility and contains a number of overly prescriptive and in my view potentially unworkable requirements.
i cannot support the requirement for the adoption of a label for biodegradable and home compostable bags without an impact assessment given the possible additional administrative burden for the member states and economic operators.
there are certain provisions which i believe would have been better addressed in the context of the follow up to the commission green paper on plastic waste such as the report on the use of oxo biodegradable bags.
i have concerns that the possibility to vary the measures taken towards plastic bags based on their environmental impact or other properties could be problematic as regards the principle of non discrimination and proportionality as well as the possible impact on the smooth functioning of the single market.
should member states opt to achieve the reduction target in the either or' scenario they would need to meet the levels predetermined by the directive. i cannot support this approach as these levels were set in the absence of statistical consumption data for all member states.
this is patently not the case because whilst all of this was going on my own member state was objecting to the lack of flexibility but at the same time putting forward its own measures for reducing plastic bags which are in fact now statute.
so it simply is not the case that if europe does not do it member states will not they do and they do it at their own pace and that is the best way to do legislation.
you talked about compromise.
this is how i personally see the capital markets union as the tool that connects the dots between the capital markets of twenty eight individual states.
my last point is connecting and analysing success stories.
it will definitely create an overall regulatory environment that strikes the right balance between managing risk and supporting growth.
i hope that you forgive me by starting off with a quote from an american and not a european entrepreneur but actually this quote comes from a place where smes get about five times more funding from the capital markets than european companies do.
my second point is about connecting achievements and aspirations or to put it differently what we have done so far and what we aim at in the future.
only through the combination of both for europe can we unlock and diversify financing quickly and as soon as possible.
the call for evidence on the impact of existing reforms is i believe also a very important step.
the success of the european economy really does depend on connecting the dots between the individual markets and on unleashing the free movement of capital.
the commission has proposed gathering best practices in non bank sme funding an exercise that i personally have been endorsing for a long time.
i would also like to emphasise three points out of the six proposed immediate actions that are particularly important in my view. the first is connecting the cmu with the juncker plan.
we need to seek best practice wherever it may have developed and remove all existing barriers to capital flow.
beyond all the detail which i am sure we will debate at length in the much needed review of the prospectus directive and the securitisation legislation we are expecting are several other measures to ensure a more effective single market for financial services.
achieving diversity in retail financial products available cross border will be important but more time dependent will be securing a more diverse array of funding models for our businesses to access capital both equity and debt via our broad capital markets. we need to ensure that while emerging companies do not always get bank financing they can access other forms of capital from our capital markets.
but the cmu should not solely be about legislation nor should it be about spending money on new institutions to achieve single supervisors.
i would suggest that the real measure of success of the cmu will be whether it becomes relevant to all twenty eight member states whether those countries of the eu that currently do not have an active and well functioning capital market develop one and whether all countries can nurture a culture of investment at both personal and institutional level to fuel investment in their businesses.
mr president i would like to thank commissioner katainen for coming to present the capital markets union action plan today a plan which sets out the ambition to free up capital flows across the eu and a plan which encourages eu savers to become investors so that they can derive a sustainable income in their old age.
it should be about cultural change so that investors can take appropriate risk and so that companies do not see bank loans as the only way to finance investment and growth.
european companies need to grow to be competitive.
the resolution you passed earlier this summer provided useful input as did the consultation result from over seven hundred responses.
capital. the commission has delivered a comprehensive package
this is for example the case for covered bond markets for private placements.
moreover we are fully exploiting the synergies that exist when using the different tools at our disposal. it is therefore important to judge the measures not just in isolation but also as part of the comprehensive package.
that is why the capital markets union represents a very important part of the plan when we are trying to get more investment to europe.
will define when a securitisation counts as sts and again it will set lower capital requirements that will apply when it meets those criteria.
i received important feedback as to what to fix in the single market and more especially in financial services.
unfortunately they can be lengthy and expensive.
the commission is committed to working with the european supervisory authorities to strengthen supervisory convergence and to ensure that the rules of the game are interpreted with consistency across different jurisdictions.
example. personal pensions have the potential to inject more savings into capital markets and to channel more of that money to productive investments.
market. finally let me stress that we will be watchful of emerging risks to financial stability.
with the efsi we are financially supporting fresh investments in critical infrastructure projects. in parallel the amendments to solvency ii that we are putting forward under cmu to create a well defined infrastructure asset class with appropriately calibrated capital requirements should draw in long term investors such as insurance companies. risk charges on infrastructure investment will come down by some.
i will give you a couple of examples.
personally i have visited twenty seven member states in the context of the investment roadshow.
on time. it is our strong desire now to work together with the council and with parliament to achieve swift agreements on our proposals for the benefit of the european economy and our citizens.
first we have been listening very carefully to the feedback provided to us by stakeholders and the european parliament.
personal pensions are another
third given that member states' attempts to level the tax playing field for debt and equity have sometimes provided new mechanisms for tax avoidance i will be scrutinising this proposal very carefully.
mr president there is much within the commission's proposal which i believe is to be welcomed. it should be easier for investors to spend money on infrastructure something my own group has long championed.
second when it comes to the commission's proposals on securitisation safety transparency and simplicity are all relative terms given the carnage caused to our european finance markets by contagion from security fuelled financial problems in the us.
measures to make it easier for businesses to provide information about themselves and for investors to access that information are also positive and it does make sense to try and simplify the process for issuing shares.
the commission must err on the side of caution here.
above all the commission should be very wary of those who are using their action plan as an opportunity to push deregulation.
first the vast majority of smes will continue to be best served by the banking system to provide financing even with the capital markets union so i was encouraged to see the comment from commissioner hill when he spoke to the brookings institution that cmu is not and must not be explained as solely a set of measures that will benefit
however in order to truly and sustainably boost growth far more attention must be paid by the commission firstly to those eu funded mechanisms intended to support smes becoming investment ready and secondly to the ability and above all the willingness of the banking system to finance smes.
so an important task is to get rid of the hindrances that are making it more difficult to facilitate all the things we could
i would also like to underline a difference between the usa and europe and that is that we are for historical reasons more dependent on banks. that is why it is important to look upon european banks as part of the broader capital market. i would also like to say that it is important to look upon the
that is why it is very good that the commission has taken these initiatives.
fact that we have a number of well functioning capital markets in the union.
we already have an awful lot of expertise within the european union as gunnar hkmark said.
if we can make sure that some of that saving can be used for productive purposes people will go back to work and we can ensure that the economic cycle is put in place and is helped.
so we need to find new ways to make sure that that funding gap is bridged.
of course europe will still depend on its banks for funding to businesses big and small but over a period of time we need to provoke more non bank lending and the way you do that is to have a harmonised approach across the european union in order to encourage more funds to invest especially in the equity markets.
this is not just about smes.
we are losing out to the united states of america especially when it comes to venture capital.
of course smes are crucial but it is also about establishing a financial escalator whereby businesses can grow quickly in europe.