kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
in short the multiannual financial framework is what it takes to translate great ideas into tangible action both within the union and globally.
the vote on the mff is eagerly awaited by many and first and foremost by our citizens. they will be able to use new roads new infrastructure and new telecoms networks;
therefore i consider it a success which we have achieved together.
you have injected more transparency into the eu budget and you also ensured that the process will continue since we are already preparing to set up a high level group on own resources.
so we can now look forward to releasing the funds that will provide a major boost to our economies in areas such as research innovation education culture cohesion and agriculture.
on the mff more than two years ago.
it wanted new own resources.
thankfully almost none of this has materialised.
of course it did not go as far as we would have hoped.
that is why it is not going to happen.
and of course those who call for new own resources are the same people who consistently call for more europe somehow as the answer to all of our ills as if throwing money at the problem will somehow solve it.
nine months on and we are voting fundamentally on the same agreement that we had in february.
it is time that the eu learned to live within its means. a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations does not dampen our demands for root and branch budgetary reform.
we cannot and must not end up in a situation whereby we are regularly returning to national governments like oliver twist constantly asking for more.
however these programmes are by their very nature multiannual and they rely on certainty.
the treaty is clear the own resources remain within the council's power under unanimity and i think in our heart of hearts we all know it is just not going to happen.
that is why we generally welcome the outcome of the negotiations on the various spending regulations.
because new own resources would fundamentally change the relationship between the eu and national governments.
many of these programmes will help to promote cross border research to plug the holes in the single market's infrastructure and to support the newer members of the union.
this parliament has postured and strutted during this unedifying process but in reality we can be clear that the council's common position and common sense has prevailed.
the posturing that we have seen from many in this parliament since february and particularly since the summer will make it difficult for many of those schemes to be properly up and running by one january.
when overspends do occur savings should be made from elsewhere to compensate.
instead of being their servants it would become their master forcing them to raise revenue to spend on whatever new scheme takes this chamber's fancy.
just as we need a better europe we need better and more effective spending.
only in the area of own resources has parliament achieved a very minor concession which will see a gaggle of so called independent wise men' from the three institutions dreaming up a whole host of new ways to spend more taxpayers' money on their pet eu projects.
it wanted taxes on anything from flying to sails to co two and it called for the abolition of fully justified national rebates.
mr president well here we are nine months on an awful lot of hot air has been expended an awful lot of threats have been made that of course have never materialised and at its core we still have the mff deal that our governments negotiated in february. my group has always said that the next seven year budget should achieve two key principles firstly of course to reduce it and secondly to reprioritise it away from headings that do not add economic value in a twenty first century global economy. this mff in our view is a small step in the right direction.
however it shows that the costs of the eu can be reduced and the value to taxpayers can be increased.
fully satisfied with the way the negotiations were conducted.
seventeen four million in allocations to build a bridge between part of my constituency in louth and northern ireland.
to say yes' is a responsible position to hold and to fight for better in the future so we will be saying yes'.
i know that the atmosphere was not always warm but i think it has thawed now so well done to you for doing that.
that money has now been withdrawn by the special eu programmes body but it is not the eu itself that has withdrawn this money and it is an issue which the irish authorities and the uk authorities should resolve.
through the connecting europe facility we can look forward to funding for developing the energy interconnectors that will help realise the tremendous opportunities for marine energy off scotland's coasts;
we have a smaller budget but the challenge now is to spend it more effectively and make it deliver more with fewer resources. in scotland my own region the mff will provide eur six billion for the next seven years.
well we are left in the uk with us paying gbp fifty three million a day into an organisation that has not had its accounts signed off for nineteen years!
do not be fooled by this agreement it is merely papering over the cracks.
of course our friends the conservatives did not even have the bottle to vote against this and abstained in another stunning victory for mr cameron whilst we have cuts at home more money for the european union.
so no change there then.
above all the multiannual framework is about predictability and about stability of investment over seven
does that include the needs of the twenty seven million unemployed people in europe?
the meps from the big groups are the biggest hypocrites here. they posture opposition for months then declare this is the best possible budget deal and that they have no alternative but to vote in favour of it.
it is not long ago that commission president barroso declared that austerity had reached its limits but today we have the commission saying that a seven year savage cuts budget will better respond to the needs of europe.
to conclude it is my hope that now we can go from talking about making the mff a success to actually implementing it because that is what europe needs and it is what our citizens expect from us.
the council is absolutely committed to this group.
that is the commitment which i give parliament here and now on behalf of the council.
many have joined us in welcoming the fact that we have reached the end of this long process. many have also recognised that we have reached a difficult compromise but the best possible compromise and that this has required considerable flexibility from all sides. needless to say we took very good note of what has been said regarding the mid term review of this mff as well as the remarks on the payments versus commitments issue.
start as quickly as possible if we are to deliver an initial assessment by the end of.
it is absolutely committed to organising an inaugural meeting which will take place on eighteen or nineteen december this year. it is important to the council that standard work in the high level group
i want to be very clear on this point.
so when we vote tomorrow the eyes of regions local authorities universities and citizens will be on us and we need to make sure that we vote yes to the mff in the vote.
we were right to negotiate a better deal but now as a parliament we cannot be blamed for delays in the implementation of the mff or future programmes and i am sure colleagues would not want those delays.
in all regions including wales where i come from we now have projects which are ready to go projects which have been looking for funding.
mr president the report on the interinstitutional agreement is highly critical of the length of the negotiations within the council and between the institutions.
the report is critical of the council for binding itself to the conclusions of the european council.
however most of the money spent by the eu comes from or through member states and member states' governments are in the eyes of their electorates held responsible to their electorates for their taxpayers' money.
the european council unlike the council does not have an official legislative role but as the body representing heads of government its members are much more aware of the views of their citizens on expenditure than are meps.
for as long as the eu continues they must have an important say in the negotiating process.
i am an old trade unionist and i know that there is no way you can win a fight over wages in an economic crisis.
it is the same thing here to throw europe into a budget crisis in this situation would not improve matters.
let us come back through the mid term review;
today we would only make things worse by creating a budget crisis that is for sure.
i think it also proves that despite all the wrangling at the end of the day we can get a successful outcome and that is important.
i would especially like to thank also the negotiators on behalf of parliament who did a tremendous job in very difficult circumstances to ensure that we got the best possible outcome.
that in times of deep economic and financial crisis the eu budget cannot grow in size. if national budgets have to shrink and fiscal consolidation is an integral part of national economic policy the eu too must adjust its fiscal stance.
rather than the future of the european union.
it will not make the eu substantially more competitive and productive and that is a pity.
given its small size compared to national budgets it cannot and should not aspire to reflect the same priorities as national budgets.
that is and should be the function of member states' parliaments. the committee would be able to call specific civil servants from member states to give evidence and even obtain judicial assistance. civil servants must at least have the right conferred by the rapporteur's own amendment eighteen to withhold information that they would be able to withhold from their own member state's inquiries. furthermore civil servants must be protected from the dilemma of being given contradictory instructions about whether they should conceal or reveal information.
as that great philosopher bob dylan said truth is an arrow and the gate is narrow that it passes through.
instead in many cases the institutions in question would send a spokesman.
the first is the ability to speak directly to the individuals involved in the issue.
since then the powers of the committee have not changed. committees of inquiry are a tool for parliament to investigate allegations of maladministration in the implementation of eu law.
the equitable life inquiry concluded that parliament lacked the ability to get to the truth because we could not speak to the people involved we could not ensure access to documents and there were no consequences for false testimony.
in their investigations committees can speak to individuals involved and request documents to see if there have been any breaches of law or elements of corruption in the administration of the law.
a major problem identified in the equitable life inquiry was the inability to request specific individuals.
in the same way that most national parliaments have the tools at their disposal to uncover fraudulent implementation of national law it is the european parliament's responsibility to investigate maladministration of eu law on behalf of european citizens. fundamentally a committee of inquiry tries to uncover the truth about the past.
i think it is also important to note that of course parliament is not a court.
' it is not an easy task to inquire into the past and uncover the truth and without the ability to access documents and individuals parliament cannot perform this democratic duty effectively.
we have gained significant new powers in the european parliament over the last two decades but our role in democratic scrutiny now needs to be brought into the twenty one st century.
thirdly the ability of a committee of inquiry to visit the member state and to see for itself the context of the investigation is vital.
with only three committees in the lifetime of the parliament there should be no concerns that this tool will be overused.
that would be for others based on our recommendations.
i think it is vital that when we are looking into decisions which were taken we are able to speak directly to those who were involved or to the experts on a particular issue.
firstly because a much needed update to the rules has been pending since the conclusion of the equitable life inquiry and the recommendations that it made.
for example it grants parliament the power to summons individuals and the power to sanction those who refuse to attend.
civil servants have a duty to provide their best advice to ministers and having done so to carry out those ministerial decisions.
our job is not only to pass legislation something which we do rather too much of but also to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent wisely both by the commission and by the member states.
i do not support the provisions relating to officials of national governments.
he was instrumental in setting up the parliamentary inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak in the uk in.
if these proposals are to achieve anything it should be to introduce greater accountability to the european institutions.
my predecessor in the south west of england was neil parish now the member of parliament for tiverton and honiton.
this proposal risks undermining that trust and subverting ministerial accountability which is rightly judged by national parliaments.
against this background the commission welcomes your intention to vote today only on the report including some additional amendments but not on the legislative resolution.
last but not least let me also mention article seventeen of the draft regulation which concerns the hearing of officials and other servants of the eu and of member states.
we should also not forget that changes in article two hundred and twenty six concern only the procedure and the type of act not the mandate of a committee of inquiry and that committees of inquiry are a fundamentally political rather than legal tool at parliament's disposal for the exercise of political control.
it is now our joint responsibility to implement this new provision as soon as possible in constructive cooperation between the three institutions with common sense and in full respect of the letter and the spirit of article two hundred and twenty six of the treaty on the functioning of the european union. the commission has always defended the need for strong parliamentary oversight.
we welcome parliament's readiness to seek a constructive solution which is clearly reflected by the set of compromise amendments mr martin tabled with a view to today's vote which try to accommodate some of the main concerns previously expressed by the council and the commission.
this clearly puts democracy in the driving seat and we should all applaud that.
let me mention some of the important elements for the commission.
this is why i believe further discussions will be necessary also on the investigative tools proposed in the parliament draft which still appear rather excessive.
the commission explicitly welcomes your compromise amendments in this regard.
your compromise amendments address some of our key concerns as regards the issue of freedom to testify' and we can accept the inclusion of a comply or explain' procedure but a certain perplexity still remains on our side as regards the different treatment of national and eu officials that you propose which in our view cannot be objectively justified.
we believe that the scope of the future regulation should remain the same as in the current decision.
but we need for all that a serious capacity to be inquisitive about complex political controversies.
for this reason we need to work together to make sure that all the provisions are legally justified and completely valid.
i believe that this is one topic on which we need to work further to find a good solution for all three institutions.
having said that we did achieve results and i think it is important to understand that the reason for that inquiry was that over a million citizens lobbied us to carry out our work which we did.
i would also ask that the parliament look at follow up to committees of inquiry.
we still have not got the full outcome of the work we did on equitable life and i would like the uk authorities to clarify whether all citizens affected will be paid and when they will be paid.
i think we should in this report look not just at our procedures which are important and where i support change but also at the follow up to the work of the various committees of inquiry because citizens will judge us not on the report but on the action.
mr president honourable members mr vice president of the commission the right of inquiry is an important feature of the european parliament's supervisory powers allowing it to set up committees of inquiry to investigate alleged maladministration in the implementation of union law.
whilst the lisbon treaty has not materially changed the specific subject matter covered by parliament's right of inquiry it has introduced changes in the procedure for establishing the detailed provisions governing the exercise of that right.
such provisions shall now be determined by parliament acting on its own initiative after obtaining the consent of the council and the commission.
during the exchange of views i had on this topic with the constitutional affairs committee afco in january i indicated that coming from a country with a tradition of transparency and strong parliamentary scrutiny i will approach this matter with an open mind and a willingness to find a reasonable compromise.
the contacts that have taken place between the rapporteur and the presidency following the vote in afco on the martin report have provided an excellent opportunity to discuss the matter further and to improve our respective understanding of each other's viewpoint.
there is no reason to hide the fact that this matter is sensitive for all the institutions concerned. however i am confident that the contacts which the presidency had with mr martin will provide a good basis for further inter institutional contacts.
without entering into much detail on the draft report i would like to highlight two points which are of particular importance to the council.
firstly the council believes that the fundamentally political nature of parliament's right of inquiry should be reflected in the proposed new rules. this is crucial in order to avoid any interference with court proceedings.
it also means that committees of inquiry cannot be vested with prerogatives of a quasi judicial nature. secondly the principle of attribution of competences which is also enshrined in the treaties has to be fully respected.
events have been developing rapidly over the last few days.
however the council has not discussed the issue which is the subject of this afternoon's debate nor has it agreed any position on it. since i speak on behalf of the council it follows that i am not in a position
indeed i would go further and say that it would not be appropriate for the representative of the council to take a view on an issue which is entirely an internal matter for the greek government and the citizens whom it represents.
i will however follow this debate very closely and attentively.
to make a substantive contribution to your discussions.
furthermore this is a complex issue touching at the heart of national politics in greece.
i wonder whether you think it would be a good idea to take the report on hungary see what kind of standards the european union imposed on hungary and compare it with the greek situation.
if there is such a thing as the rule of law in this institution the european union then maybe we should use the same standards for everybody.
one very strong recommendation in that report speaks about the governments' obligation to support public media namely television radio or news agencies because citizens have the right to be correctly informed and although we want a genuine pluralist media it is beyond any doubt that public media play a very important role.
i urge the commission to act now and protect public broadcasters before it is too late.
we therefore welcome the commitment of the authorities to relaunch a public broadcaster that fulfils its role in terms of media pluralism media freedom and the expression of cultural diversity.
greece needs a more efficient and effective public administration that serves the general interest and contributes to the recovery of the economy.
this is about helping those to help others to create employment and to stay in employment.
he did this and a week later he got a letter withdrawing the overdraft facility on the grounds that they were now in a high risk situation. the result was that the company closed down and ten more people were made redundant.
for those two reasons i think we should be very careful of not so much where the money comes from but where it goes to.
i am likewise surprised that the money proposed is not new money and that we will in effect be robbing peter to pay paul as has already been said at a time when all the money we can find should be used in the progress programme on existing schemes.
this would enable them to set up their own business and promote entrepreneurship.
indeed i do not know about elsewhere but in ireland the only financial institution left standing that did not require taxpayers' money to sustain it was the credit union movement which is a not for profit institution run by its members.
earlier we spoke about the european globalisation adjustment fund and how it can assist redundant workers in certain sectors.
in this context i want to express my extreme disappointment that after three trialogues we were unable to reach agreement on the source of funding for this facility.
obviously many finance ministers did not support real negotiation.
i could not help but think that many of those same ministers allocated billions to support banks but were unable to support other financial institutions that would provide micro credit to those who have lost their jobs and who would have difficulty in accessing credit from the same banks that have been saved.
in my opinion the swedish presidency did not seem to have the facility to have any meaningful negotiations on the matter. i do not know about you but as i said i was very disappointed that a figure of at most eur forty million over three years for twenty seven member states was all that divided us.
when we speak of social inclusion as part of eu social policy we need to ensure that by our actions social inclusion is integral to the decisions we take and this programme has social inclusion written all over it.
the microfinance facility is another piece in the jigsaw where the eu in this case is trying to ensure access to micro credit for those who would not be able to access that credit from what we might define as the normal or usual financial institutions.
in this context i am pleased to see that credit unions cooperative banks and other mutual financial institutions can operate the fund because they are often closer to those who may wish to access this particular facility.
mr de rossa has it occurred to you that unemployment in ireland has a tremendous amount to do with ireland's continuing membership of the euro which means that ireland cannot devalue cannot reduce interest rates and cannot do any quantitative easing?
as i was saying this is no time for the council to haggle over what is a tiny amount of money given the scale of the jobs crisis the size of the overall budget and certainly in the context of the support that member states and indeed the european central bank have given to the banking sector a banking sector incidentally which will not lend to the people that we are seeking to facilitate.
this parliament must always ensure that those working in the haulage industry people driving forty tonne lorries are doing so with the highest levels of safety. so for me on voting on this report and all its amendments and as we move forward again into the next chapter on this issue
it'll be safety first for drivers and safety first for all other road users as well.