kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
public awareness about cord blood donation and how to ensure availability and access to cord blood and bone marrow across the eu need careful consideration.
the tissues and cells directive stipulates that compensation must be strictly limited to making good the expenses and inconveniences related to the donation.
however despite such progress much work still needs to be done.
in addition the report rightly highlights the need for member states to share best practices so as to increase donations and foster international collaboration.
the donation of tissues and cells depends on public trust in our transplant systems.
we plan to present a proposal on this issue by the end of next year.
regarding stem cell transplantation the commission would like to thank parliament for expressing its support for cord blood storage and use as an alternative source to bone marrow transplantation.
a transparent and safe donation system is essential for public support.
overall the national application of the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation for tissues and cells therefore requires careful and judicious analysis within each and every member state.
the eu is a long way from being able to meet the challenge of self sufficiency so making it easier to find matches across europe and save lives is a challenge which should know no boundaries.
in producing this report i firmly believe this is an area where the eu can truly be said to offer scope for added value.
this report looks towards increasing voluntary donations raising awareness and increasing transparency.
this report is about saving lives. i would firstly like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation and for their input which made this a stronger report.
there are three specific areas i felt were important for the future and which would enable this report to be forward looking and progressive.
the first of these was the question of the umbilical cord.
the report looks to raising awareness about the harvesting of cord blood. a single umbilical cord provides ten times as many stem cells as the average bone marrow donation.
yet tragically too few mothers across europe are donating cord blood.
indeed in many member states the option is rarely open to them.
i therefore look towards extending cord blood collection to as many sites as possible.
this report highlights the fact that collection methods and opportunities between public and private banks already exist in some member states.
i would like to stress that both sectors have a role to play in meeting this serious challenge.
the second area the report focuses on is the use of stem cells.
these are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of disease.
these cells are capable of unlimited self regeneration thus they can cure many diseases and repair damaged tissue.
an important point here is the issue of traceability.
traceability ensures the quality of the donation but also guarantees that it is truly a voluntary donation.
traceability of tissues and cells is non negotiable particularly when it comes to the import of tissues and cells from third countries.
equivalent standards of quality and safety must apply and i appeal to the member states who have not yet done so to review reconsider and revise their national provisions in this regard.
traceability and transparency go hand in hand with taking measures to prevent the development of a black market in gametes particularly on the internet.
the potential for such a market undermines the quality and safety of such donations not to mention the associated legal and ethical problems. the third area which is important to address is the question of compensation for potential donors.
let me be clear i do not support the idea that the human body should ever be seen as a source of financial gain and i absolutely reject the idea of an unregulated financial market in tissues and cells.
nevertheless if we wish to attract sufficient people to come forward and provide life saving donations we need to consider granting a fair and proportionate financial compensation to the donor.
such compensation should be transparent regularly audited and limited to making good the expenses incurred in making the donation.
in summary it is my sincere hope that this report acts as a wake up call for all member states to explore possible opportunities to widen international cooperation.
the epp will be on the side of the irish people we will not accept a hard border and will not risk the peace process.
europe is
that is a principle.
that is what we want to achieve.
like. one principle is clear for us a country outside the eu cannot have the same standards and the same rights as a country inside the european union.
don't play with the future of the young generation in northern ireland.
one point is still open and that is the question of what these long term relationships will look
one of the fundamental threats to the future of the european union is divergence within and between member states and we need to put taxpayers' money to good use to restart the engine of convergence in our union. of course the benefits of eu membership go far beyond the budget.
so this is going to be a major task.
the other german word that i know is in both the italian and the english languages is but probably there's no relation between the two.
at the same time the commission made it clear that savings on redeployments would be needed for some parts of the budget if new priorities were going to be properly funded.
the second topic on the agenda was our future budget.
so of course we want to strengthen our position in parliament and our democratic legitimacy as you've explained mr president but we also have to face the reality that the european council has a say as well.
i think that we should be talking more in terms of the eu dividend which is not just a balance sheet but much more than that.
we've run i think four hundred and seventy eight citizens' dialogues so far and before the end of our term we want to do five hundred more.
perhaps if we can talk more in terms of eu dividends we can also come to an agreement on how the eu budget should be structured in the future.
many member states expressed a willingness to increase the level of their contributions. some did not.
discussion among the leaders was less abrasive than some might have expected and that should be welcomed they all understand that at the end of the day we will need a budget.
some of these benefits can be quantified others not.
we will come back to this in.
it will be a budget for seven years in which the next parliament will have no say no say in five years!
legitimacy on the democratic front.
secondly i fear it will be again a list of fifty sixty rebates exceptions earmarkings and exceptional monies to buy the support of all the member states and eighty of it will be money paid by the member states going back to the member states and not going to the new priorities that we have border management innovation migration defence and things like that.
i appreciate that during the informal european council meeting our proposal was broadly supported. let me however underline the fact that after a formal decision is taken by the european council it will have to come back to the european parliament so that we can have a final vote as part of the consent procedure.
this should happen by summer this year.
two thousand and nineteen we reduced the size of the house from seven hundred and fifty one to seven hundred and five seats and proposed a composition that is fair based on objective principles respects the eu's treaty and adheres to the principle of digressive proportionality.
there are very complex logistical supply chains in danger customer relationships supplier relationships and in the end britain will become the largest british customer.
instead the commission should focus on placing the interests of the european union as priority number one.
for me this is a very clear sign that brexit is a declaration of war on european industry not only on british industry. are you aware of the fact that economically brexit is equivalent to nineteen countries leaving the european union at the same time?
i wonder why we are continuing to try to punish britain for their decision.
you intend to impede and delay that process and overturn it if at all possible.
it means we are not bound by european union law.
to make that happen the government should take control of the process.
the british government should stop asking the european union how it might leave please and it should start telling them how it's going to work.
it means we don't have open borders and it means that we are not subject to the jurisdiction of the european court of justice.
what the commission is proposing is not a withdrawal agreement so much as a uk not really leaving at all' agreement leaving in name but not in reality.
in the referendum the british people voted to leave the european union and what that means is that we don't give any more money to the european union.
now i do not blame you because you do not want us to leave and you have no incentive whatsoever to help us do it but i do blame the british prime minister.
a number of eu member state governments know that their voters do not want them to simply sign blank cheques to fund the ambitions of the commission and the leaders of two or three of the larger member states. members of this house can no longer dismiss those voters those politicians and those governments who question the agenda of political integration or simply label them as being anti eu for once you step outside the eu bubble it is clear that the call for more europe whatever the problem is the voice of an elite not the voice of citizens in many of our countries. national governments and voters want to feel that they get value out of the eu for what they pay in.
but and members of the ecr group would want me to be very clear on this point a budget should not be used to buy solidarity to bribe member states into taking asylum seekers or to control or punish the actions of individual member states especially when the member state pushing for the policy itself broke the rules and in the process nearly destroyed the eu's asylum system.
about how the eu will face the massive hole after the uk leaves and whether the eu budget will be one of coercion rather than cooperation between twenty seven equal member states.
a clear signal that there is still a long way to go to persuade member states to sign up to a bigger budget and also how to select the next commission president.
so the ecr group's question to the council and the commission is simple is the eu facing a future where decisions continue to be made by all twenty seven member states or a future where decisions are dictated by the few?
not all of them want to see a one thousand nine hundred and fifty s agenda of political integration. on the whole the voters want to see a budget that is well managed and matches their priorities a budget that provides security and wellfunctioning asylum and immigration systems and a budget that encourages a cleaner environment innovation and job creation.
so as president tusk has already admitted agreeing a budget before the next election is probably unrealistic but even if all of you here and the eu institutions cannot agree on a budget those politicians facing their electorates in two thousand and nineteen should all be clear about what modernising the budget really means
not all ideas are good ideas and only a fraction will become reality.
personally i do not believe in the idea of a transnational list but i think it's important that we had the debate and found a clear majority both in parliament and in council of the same opinion.
we need to adopt the budget so it represents the real needs and concerns of our citizens.
we wholeheartedly support additional eu spending to stop illegal migration trafficking and to counter human smugglers and criminal networks who prey on those who are already most vulnerable.
but at the same time europe cannot and will not isolate itself from the world.
we need to step up our engagement with and in africa.
we will decide on our borders for our citizens. to paraphrase margaret thatcher we have not voted successively to take back control of our frontiers in britain only to see them reimposed at a european level in a european superstate exercising a new dominance from brussels.
the uk is not for turning.
what matters is people's jobs industry and their gdp.
your companies want to have a free trade deal with us.
if you do not want to see this parliament split apart because that is what is happening because of the populist vote my side of the parliament is actually gaining control of governments or being in opposition then i suggest you listen to mr henkel if you don't listen to us.
we have to be careful with where we invest taxpayers' money and i can think of quite a few cases where we can save on some of them from big pieinthesky projects like iter to the way we choose to travel ourselves dear colleagues.
there are also plenty of examples of how eu money is being misspent in the member states and there we need more control and more guidance before the damage is done.
eu money always needs to be spent well and in the interests of the people living in europe and it must never ever contribute to corruption.
the fight between member states about who should pay what shows that we need to put the eu's budget on a more independent footing.
own resources should be introduced now and we think they should be done in a way that enables us to actually tax and take the money from what is destroying our very own habitat.
the budget will always reflect what we value most.
it is a tool to finance the vision that we have for this place where we all live for the future and we must put the money where we think the eu should be going. we should not forget either that we have actually agreed some important international commitments. i am thinking of the paris agreement and climate protection sustainable development goals to name just a few.
i need to react briefly to the many comments that were made on the issue of brexit especially because of the decision today by the commission on the draft treaty.
the right is there of a member state to decide to leave.
at the same time i shan't hide the fact that this saddens me greatly and i also do not want to hide the fact that if they change their minds and want to come back to the european union i think we would all welcome them warmly back into the european union family.
but i do think there is one responsibility nobody can shy away from whatever your position is on brexit and that is to explain in great detail the consequences of brexit.
that is the reason why the commission translated the decisions from december into concrete text on concrete issues and we will be putting it before your parliament very soon.
it will do harm to the uk.
most of all we need to ensure strong means to provide social and territorial cohesion in europe because without that there is no unity among european citizens.
well the answer is easy.
we have to accept once and for all that we need new own resources to finance our common budget.
the report will if appropriate be accompanied by legislative proposals.
the commission in a spirit of compromise and in order to ensure the immediate adoption of that proposal can accept the substitution of the obligatory provision on correlation tables included in the text with the provisions encouraging member states to follow this practice. however the position followed
we have sacrificed enough.
i am now asking for the support of the supposed solidarity that we have in the european union to destroy these odious promissory notes.
that is enough to build a state of the art water supply system but instead at the behest of the ecb this broke country borrows billions to destroy in order to pay for the legacy of bailing out the european banking system.
the irish people have suffered enough at this stage.
so the free movement of workers is not only a fundamental right but also a fundamental blessing to our economies.
it is also a fact that migrant entrepreneurs are helping to create jobs.
this underscores the complete baselessness of the claim that our national welfare systems are under attack from eu labour mobility.
it is a fact that european immigrants to the uk have made a net fiscal contribution of gbp twenty billion to our economy in the past decade. it is also a fact that migrants from the original fifteen member states contributed a staggering sixty four more in taxes than they received.
whatever some on the right may contend economic policy is too important for us to allow it to be based on phantom stories created by populist parties out of electoral interest.
it makes clear that the national governments have the necessary tools in hand to address any possible negative effects that are brought about by intra eu freedom of movement.
the more recent migrants often vilified in our press handed over more than twelve more than they received.
a recent study shows that migrants founded one in every seven uk companies with fellow eu member states figuring among the top ten countries of origin of these entrepreneurs.
in england malnutrition is on the increase and there has been a tenfold increase in those dependent on food banks.
people can no longer afford fresh fruit and vegetables but rather are eating junk foods high in saturated fats and sugar.
the already high levels of child poverty in the north of ireland will be made worse as a result of the westminster tax and benefit policies. millions have been wasted on an it system that is not fit for purpose and despite all this the british government in pursuit of its failed policies is financially penalising the northern executive.
thus we urge the lao authorities to inform sombath somphone's family about the progress of the investigations and call on the government to ensure that all steps are being taken to locate rescue and return him safely to his family as soon as possible.
people's forum.
during this forum farmers invited by him brought to the attention of participants the situation of lao farmers being deprived of their land for the building of mega projects some of them cofinanced by international financial institutions some of them european.
the length and the lack of transparency of the investigation is also a major problem.
is really reaching out to the other eu member states.
high representative vice president ashton issued a statement on twenty one december expressing deep concern and urging the authorities to investigate this case.
his situation is of great concern and has been since his disappearance in december last year.
more pressure needs to be placed on the laotian authorities to aid his safe return. given the video footage the government response has so far been unacceptable. we all know the horrible prison conditions and corruption of the authoritarian states and it is our responsibility as stewards of democracy and human rights to ensure
we are deeply concerned by the lack of progress and information regarding investigations by the lao authorities into the facts of his disappearance.
it is absolutely crucial that the lao authorities take all necessary steps to end the practice of arbitrary arrests and secret detention.
it is also urgent that they make enforced disappearance a criminal offence.
they are a clear violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms the core values of the european union.
i would recommend that colleagues read the report.
we also need to protect and promote cultural heritage such as through the blue shield programme and we need to engage in cultural policy dialogues with third countries.
this is a priority but there are many more concrete suggestions in the report for which the foundations are already laid down in both the lisbon treaty and the ratification of the unesco conventions.
when we look in particular at today's uprisings of the young generation in north africa and the middle east we can see that today an open internet is that decisive element for moving into the world of freedom.
we also call for capacity building through the funding of initiatives independent of government and we want to promote eu cultural activities in the rest of the world on line also.
eeas staff should be trained and a cultural attach is needed in each eu representation. there needs to be coordination streamlining and mainstreaming through an interinstitutional taskforce which should report back to the european parliament.
we ask the commission to adopt a green paper in two thousand and eleven followed by a communication on a strategy for cultural cooperation in the eu's external actions.
i want to start with a quote from a hungarian diplomat in the united states mr simonyi who said that rock and roll culturally speaking was a decisive element in loosening up communist societies and bringing them closer to the world of freedom'.
existing programmes such as the european neighbourhood policy and the european instrument for democracy and human rights have cultural components which need to be coordinated and strategically deployed.
they now need practical implementation. the external action service should coordinate the work of different directorates general and create a directorate general for cultural and digital diplomacy.
we need an internet freedom strategy to facilitate free expression press freedom access to information and access to cultural and educational content.
these include in particular plans for a european student lending facility the european youth guarantee to ensure that young people are in either training or employment within four months of leaving school and the recently announced youth at work plan designed to build contacts between young people and businesses.
cultural and creative industries are important as many of you have mentioned as a motor for development and for job creation. however let us also remember that these creative and cultural industries have a value per se.
our values in the world.
nor do i accept that one in five of our young children cannot read properly.
once again i plead with the member states and governments not to do that especially in times of crisis because this will have very negative repercussions in the future. we must
let us not forget that we have all signed and adopted the unesco convention on cultural diversity.
cultural and creative industries in order to develop and produce the results that we expect them to.
we do not dictate to member states.
we give them the platform to work together to exchange good practices and to learn from each other.
sarajevo is a city which despite everything that happened has maintained its multicultural spirit and strength. in order to recognise this it would be a strong symbolic gesture to name sarajevo european capital of culture two thousand and fourteen to reaffirm europe's message of peace and stability.
mr president when referring to youth on the move we are talking about money but first of all we are talking about the future.
investing early is much more effective than intervening later.
we will then prepare a proposal which we expect to adopt at the beginning
the commission therefore very much appreciates parliament's approach focusing on the long term benefit of investing in early years learning.
pack for the european capitals of culture and sarajevo's interest in holding the title.
this legal text lays down all the rules concerning the selection of the cities and you know better than i do that a decision of this nature can be changed only through a new initiative following the ordinary legislative procedure. the decision states
i had the pleasure of meeting eunics in both china and brazil recently and i heard from them how much they need cooperation and coordination in order to promote our culture in the countries where they serve.
maximising these industries' potential for regional and local development promoting their spillover effects in terms of innovation and promoting a creative europe on the world stage.
two thousand and ten looking to the future of the european capitals of culture the commission is currently working on renewal of the initiative beyond.
by including a wider range of factors.