kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
that is why waste reduction and modern waste management are essential parts of the material loops in a circular economy.
a swift adoption of the waste legislative proposals will further boost the markets for secondary raw materials and support a viable recycling sector and what is more the draft legislation we are discussing today has the potential to change for the better the whole life cycle of products in the wider economy. i would like once again to thank simona bonaf for her excellent work and all the colleagues involved for their commitment and ambition
we have learned our lessons from the current waste legislation which does not offer methodological clarity
i very clearly recall the antagonistic position that we the commission and parliament had at the beginning of this process of re evaluating our waste proposals and i am therefore very happy that we are in such a cooperative forwardlooking mood
it is equally important to agree the package so that it starts making a real difference on the ground.
i share the view that the calculation rules need to be both robust and practical.
in order to ensure tangible results on the ground we need to focus our
waste. so the priority that this house gives to waste prevention has my wholehearted support and i underscore the remarks just made by rapporteur
list. so let us do all we can to come to a viable agreement during the first reading.
land filling is decreasing. but europe still loses around six hundred million tons of waste materials per year which could otherwise be recycled or reused.
future. the waste package is also about improving the means to achieve higher recycling rates on the ground while promoting a broader circular economy transition.
this means comprehensive impact assessment sound data and agreed methodologies.
at european level more efficient and transparent extended producer responsibility rules are key to encouraging better design and production techniques to enable more efficient recycling.
last but not least the commission has to do everything it can to ensure the implementation of the existing provisions.
we should encourage the adoption of more and better schemes but allow flexibility in their design across member states.
i have concerns on two areas.
firstly on the levels of the waste targets i will be supporting a return to the commission targets.
epr has an important role to play in improving environmental delivery but the proposal to include minimum operating conditions is too prescriptive.
mr president negotiating multiple legislative proposals at the same time particularly when they have been withdrawn and rewritten is no easy task.
with the establishment of targets in the producer pays' principle affirmed i believe that it is not necessary to apply such a rigid approach in setting requirements for member states' epr schemes.
in my work as a shadow rapporteur on the packaging and packaging waste directive i had two objectives a binding target on marine waste and a minimum level of recycled plastic in new packaging. i am glad that these ambitions have played a role in the development of this report.
the package recognises the scale of action that is needed to meet the joint challenges of achieving our climate change commitments conserving our resources and also beginning to address the disastrous levels of plastics in our environment particularly in our rivers seas and oceans.
i look forward to voting for this package but even more to the work that must follow to deliver real change in our society.
that is what i read.
the way forward is to integrate resource efficiency in the way we do business.
where the output of one industry becomes the input of another.
the resources we have out there are all we have;
they are finite. this is the reason why we cannot continue building an economy that uses things up and creates waste.
this is our chance to inspire young people who see new openings where others see challenges.
this is their opportunity to be creative and innovative and to help rebuild an entire system that actually works.
the transformation required will not come about through legislation alone.
we need smart regulation together with market based instruments innovation and incentives.
investors need a clear and positive signal and regulatory certainty because this in turn will help create jobs.
mr president although i sympathise with the ideology behind the aims of creating a circular economy i believe that we should be circumspect bearing in mind what is happening globally. we are told that an eu circular economy is an efficient economic model that ensures that the environment receives adequate protection at the same time as promoting reindustrialisation and competitiveness in europe.
however i am yet to be convinced.
as always such ambitious eu policies need to be backed by a clear legislative framework.
however such legislation will not be binding on our competitors in china india or the united states.
i was one of the very few meps who was positive about the proposal because it was inclusive and we could already sense at that time that if we handled it well it could lead to a real transformation of our industry creating a completely new sector.
we will produce our next reports towards the end of this year.
the commission's conclusions on the cvm are firmly in the mainstream of european opinion;
i am pleased to know that the council has once again this week welcomed the commission's methodology its analysis and its recommendations.
it has had a tangible impact in supporting reform and many of its recommendations have inspired the positive steps taken in the two member states over the past five years.
it is not realistic to expect quick results.
over seven out of the ten in both also believed that the european union action should continue until they reached a standard comparable to that of other member states.
most importantly this work is recognised by bulgarians and romanians themselves.
it made other recommendations on points where further progress is needed.
important questions were raised about the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in romania. the commission made a number of specific recommendations to romania and undertook to look again at these issues at the end of the year.
when romania and bulgaria joined the european union in two thousand and seven the council recognised that certain weaknesses remained in the areas of judicial reform and corruption and in the case of bulgaria organised crime.
last summer in the fifth year of the cvm the commission decided to produce a longer term assessment.
the council therefore decided to set up the cvm four benchmarks for romania and six benchmarks for bulgaria were set out to help the commission to chart progress.
the commission has regularly reported on progress making recommendations setting out where further measures are needed in the two member states.
the concern was that these weaknesses could prevent an effective application of european union laws policies and programmes and that they would prevent romanians and bulgarians from enjoying their full rights as european union citizens.
these reports concluded that some of the key building blocks were in place particularly in terms of laws and institutions so the focus has shifted to filling the gaps implementation and the ownership needed to maintain the momentum of reform. around the time of the july report
mr president honourable members i would like to thank you on behalf of president barroso under whose remit the cooperation and verification mechanism falls for this opportunity to set out the commission's approach to this measure.
however it has to be recognised that this is a process which often needs deep societal change.
the commission believes that the cvm has proved to be an effective driver of reform.
i would like to underline here once again that the commission does not support this link.
for example many of the issues raised in the commission's report have been echoed in the venice commission of the council of europe.
the cvm is not designed to duplicate or replace these.
the cvm was misused by the commission to discredit the parliament to strip parliamentarians of their seats to limit the freedom of speech the freedom of the media the right to a fair trial and even the independence of the judiciary.
the judges went on strike to protest against the politicised supreme council of magistrates and the parliament is in open conflict with the judicial authorities. all candidates under judicial accusation won this year's parliamentary elections overwhelmingly. this is not because romanians are casual about corruption but because they do not trust the judiciary shaped by the cvm.
therefore the cvm is dead; romanians' and bulgarians' rights in the european union should no longer be limited but this is not only about romanians and bulgarians it is about the credibility of the european union project.
moreover the commission has used it to press for the replacement of ministers and to impose specific chief prosecutors and even the national ombudsman. the cvm lacks transparency the commission has constantly refused to disclose the sources of the misrepresentations circulated in its reports.
i have heard many members referring to the timetable for removing the cvm. interestingly no one has referred to the timetable for delivering the recommendations put forward by the cvm.
it is important that the question of respect for the rule of law in the member states is discussed on a regular basis and the cvm is a very relevant instrument in this respect.
the commission will continue to monitor its progress towards the cvm's objective as thoroughly as it has done in the past.
remains. an appropriate tool to assist in reform efforts in order to achieve a record of concrete and lasting results to reach the objectives of the mechanism'.
the cvm has been a successful instrument for reform in the two member states but these issues are of course at the heart of our values across the union.
as stated by president barroso in his state of the union address in september last year a reflection should start on providing the commission an instrument to ensure respect for democratic principles within the union as a whole in order to ensure that all member states permanently comply
with the founding values of the european union.
a wider range of instruments in our toolbox would help us to respond to different circumstances.
it also means freedom to realise the ambitions of education and active participation in social and political life.
so what have we done so far to put this year in motion?
to a cultural community.
but the year has only just started. a wide array of activities and events lie ahead.
finally we have launched a communication campaign to give high visibility to our actions.
it is only in the light of its long term impact that we will be able to judge the year's success.
this is the message we want to pass on with the motto of the year our heritage where the past meets the future'.
by engaging with our cultural memory we can better understand and raise awareness of the many cultural influences on which our identities are based and we can develop our vision for the future.
a successful year will help us to better protect and manage tangible and intangible testimonies from our past and ensure that our fellow europeans become increasingly aware of the value of cultural heritage for our identity and for our future.
it comes at a time when the european union is grappling with issues that go to the very heart of the values it stands for and that will have a bearing on how the union will evolve.
we have developed synergies with existing initiatives in the field of cultural heritage in particular the european heritage days the eu prize for cultural heritage and the european heritage label.
furthermore commission departments have joined forces to top up the year's dedicated budget with additional projects funded through regular funds. in the case of research for example this has led to over eur one hundred million of investment in cultural heritage.
we have been working very closely with the european parliament listening to you and involving you in all our stakeholder meetings.
the member states and the european institutions.
we are now putting the final touches to ten major initiatives at european level organised around four pillars engagement protection sustainability and innovation.
as a contribution to this debate the commission issued a communication on strengthening european identity through education and culture which proposed among other things to strengthen the european agenda for culture. in december the european council followed up recognising the importance of the two thousand and eighteen european year of cultural heritage.
i do acknowledge however that there is indeed a shared european cultural heritage based primarily on the christian religion. look at our cathedrals including the astonishing one in this fair city.
yet the european year of cultural heritage does not seem to understand this talking instead of discovering diversity' and starting an intercultural conversation'.
it promises to be little more i am afraid than a multicultural group hug and yet seldom before has the cultural underpinning which ultimately advanced ideas such as female emancipation and democratic reform been more in need of honouring or affirming.
what is the assessment of the humanitarian situation in the gaza strip after the decision taken by israel in june two thousand and ten to ease the closure of the crossings and the efforts for the liberation of gilad shalit?
what will you do now to get full political and legal accountability for european collusion in human rights abuses in the name of the so called war on terror?
frankly there has been no result.
we believed that the commission and the council had not respected article six of the treaty and we urged them to ascertain the truth about what had happened and to take action if appropriate under article seven which means sanctions of human rights abuses.
this leaves the eu open to the charge of hypocrisy.
however do you not recognise the capacity for borrowing which exists as a result of the sound management of the euro?
president you answered questions on the issuance of eurobonds to provide current spending for governments. i understand and i share some of the concerns expressed about such a course of action.
since mr oettinger tells us he needs eur one zero billion over ten years for energy infrastructure investment that is about eur one hundred billion a year to help tackle the twin challenge of climate change and energy security and since that would be extremely ambitious for the european investment bank to take on could you not bring forward proposals for the issuance of eurobonds to finance investment in infrastructure rather than to finance current government spending?
these instruments are far from exhaustive.
the fact is that the commission has the sole right to propose the kind of legislation that is damaging europe's economies in the way that it is.
that you can stand up and boast about the fact that you were elected in secret and that somehow this gives you democratic legitimacy is the most bizarre concept i have come across in my entire life.
we are doing that and we are very committed to reciprocity above all.
the concept of reciprocity means that we want to keep markets open.
the european union is by far the biggest exporter in the world bigger than china and so it is important to keep markets open.
thousands of cyber attacks are committed daily against european union institutions and other public authorities. the commission recently responded to this alarming situation by proposing on thirty september a proposal for a directive on attacks against information systems repealing the relevant framework decision from.
there is reluctance on the part of several member states regarding that proposal. that is why i think we should work to reach the largest possible consensus with the current instruments.
china achieves its trade surplus by an artificially low value of its currency by suppressed wage rates so that imports into china cannot be afforded and so that export prices are considerably lower than european prices and thirdly by ignoring international patent rights so that chinese companies can benefit from research and development not carried out by themselves. china is rapidly accumulating foreign currency reserves and control over scarce global resources.
european countries are becoming the willing victims of a relentless global competitor with the instrument to destruct our livelihoods. european countries must individually my preference or collectively protect our industries. why does the commission allow eu business and workers to suffer unfair competition from china?
one of the things that concerns people is what this is going to mean for the future of cyber security right across the eu.
gaza should be viewed as a very important component of palestinian state building.
we believe this is an important concern.
i fully support those efforts.
let us try to build the necessary consensus because i think that this is one of the ways to address our current problem.
i am sorry i do not have that information myself i have nothing to do with that case.
we are discussing many issues and many possible alternative instruments.
the last euro group considered different options and different ideas and the commission is in touch with all the parties involved.
all our member states have rules that protect data and some kinds of sensitive information for the sake of the public and this is our position in terms of freedom of expression and data protection.
first of all we are not planning any kind of action against wikileaks.
we have put proposals on the table to enhance cyber security.
but this is basically not a commission issue.
firstly it preserves the fundamental principle of international trade law that countries should take corrective or retaliatory measures only when authorised or entitled to do so by an international dispute settlement body.
secondly the proposal provides for a much needed unified procedure to streamline the enforcement of unions' rights under international trade agreements.
when third countries do not respect agreed trade rules and are condemned for this the eu must be able to enforce its rights swiftly. only then can we make sure that trade agreements work for the benefit of unions businesses and workers.
in our proposal we have focused on areas where we have already gained experience and where we are sufficiently confident about the design and implementation of the envisaged measures. it would be the commission's intention to continue reflections with a view to completing over time the coverage of the regulation as there are difficult and complex issues which need to be considered in full detail
including in the light of future experience with its practical application.
we should also aim at providing for rules which apply uniformly in all member states and which allow for a truly balanced pan european solution.
enforcement is of course an important part of the union's exclusive common commercial policy and i hope that the legislative process will be successfully concluded during this commission's term.
we are aware of the importance of services and we have considered the possibility internally.
however at the moment we believe that the complexity of the service sector is such that inclusion would bring more problems than solutions and would carry us away from the main objective of the proposals. therefore we will keep studying the field and even the practicalities of extending the proposals to other areas.
on the other hand the proposal seeks to provide for a balanced mechanism that preserves the treaties' institutional balance with the commission as the executive body subject to political control by the european parliament and the council.
the eu is emphatically not trying to protect europe's interests still less the interests of its member states.
the theory of international trade is that unrestricted trade makes the world as a whole richer.
however even if that were always the case it would not follow that it made everybody or every country richer too.
the free movement of goods and services capital and labour which is of course what all globalists including eu globalists are driving for can only work if prices and wages are on undifferentiated scales.
that is almost the same amount that the united kingdom contributes to the european union.
does this say something to you?
as i advised back in october british citizens will see their contribution to the european union raised from gbp forty five million a day to gbp fifty million a day while the british government will be reducing public services so as to allow a cut of gbp twelve billion in the national budget.
does the european parliament think we should be injecting more money into programmes where we are certain abuses are taking place?
there is no question that this budget is a burden and not a way out of the crisis.
this shows that to achieve our goal we have been able to make the best use of the tools provided by the current interinstitutional agreement.
in times of difficulties i believe the message to citizens is even stronger as we have also been able to respond at the same time to the unforeseen specific needs of milk producers with the substantial support of parliament.
today we know that efforts are still to be made to put in place all the new legal instruments stemming from the entry into force of the treaty.
they are not getting enough nor receiving enough help from their national governments. where i come from there are many areas whereby they are being helped at the moment through existing funds but there are other areas where we could do more. after two thousand and fourteen there will be no funds available to them and i appeal to this house to begin now to look at how we can actually help the victims of the violence of terrorism.
these are people who have not been helped.
two four billion for the european economic recovery plan that has been committed in the two thousand and ten budget and i welcome the attempt to get europe through this difficult economic climate in this regard.
i am glad that the promised eur four hundred and twenty million for broadband in rural areas has been secured.
the northern ireland assembly has the responsibility of administering the funds.
they are about eighteen months behind in distribution of these funds.
i feel the focus of this plan should be on innovation and employment and essentially limiting job losses.
this will be a very important initiative in many rural areas and if properly implemented should encourage the development of small and medium sized enterprises in those areas.
i hope the incoming spanish presidency will be able to help me in this area.
i want to speak a little bit on what i would like to see in the budget for the future. i want to see that the people it has helped are the victims of violence the victims of terrorism because i think we can do more in this area.
i believe that in each of the institutions there should be a deputy secretary general who reports to those institutions on the efficiency and effectiveness of staff from time to time.
i think that this would be an important public service.
we are very privileged to have very professional and committed people working for parliament the council and the commission but the reality of it is that within this parliament we do not have a grasp of exactly what a lot of these staff do.
when there are twenty seven member states represented in this parliament twenty seven commissioners coming together from those member states into the commission and council ministers going back to their parliaments and coming here it is very easy for the staff elected to serve us to actually take over the agenda.
now at the beginning of this parliament and new commission it is time we turned our attention to other members of staff of the three institutions and examined the role of those staff.
our budget should follow our priorities but it should also follow the priorities of our citizens.
in particular i am pleased with the declarations on the structural funds and cohesion policy.