kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
if one of the parties is not a signatory to the treaty then the other party would have to raise both amounts.
we cannot think that giving the eu tax raising powers without normal democratic scrutiny is acceptable.
there is a lot of detail in there that demonstrates some of the detrimental effects that this tax could have and i would urge him to speak to some of those corporates those european headquartered individual companies who come to me and tell me that the average number of transactions for each hedge they put on means thirteen transactions that a bank will have to put on.
that is a phenomenal burden to put on a hedge for a business transaction.
morgan can carelessly afford to lose eur two billion even maybe eur seven billion by recent estimates they can afford to pay an ftt.
it would raise money to meet global development and poverty challenges and climate change commitments.
it would be a bonus if an ftt could tackle the kind of hedge fund activity which last week saw a us tax exile hedge fund manager in the cayman islands paid eur four hundred million from the bailout cash we paid to the greek government to pay its bondholders. frankly if j. p.
it should pay a fairer rate of tax particularly since its return to profitability and it continues to pay out large bonuses.
it is clear that it has to be workable it has to be effective it has to be simple to collect and it has to minimise tax avoidance.
of course we prefer a global financial transaction tax but we have been prepared unlike the uk government to engage constructively in the debate for an eu ftt.
it could raise revenue to meet our national priorities for investing in our economic future and youth employment.
a well designed ftt could help tackle speculation and it could help stabilise the economy away from short term profit towards serving the real economy.
we will continue to campaign for the global ftt and to engage in this but we will not vote for an ftt that is prioritised for own resources.
i want to be clear though.
thirdly the financial transaction tax is not providing us with new money.
the subject was highlighted in a resolution adopted in march two thousand and ten on financial transaction taxes making them work' as well as in a subsequent resolution in february two thousand and eleven which looked at innovative financing at global and european level. there have been many other resolutions on the wider issues of the financial crisis that have addressed
members of this house will also be aware that the council has been taking the issue of a financial transaction tax very seriously.
the polish presidency announced a political discussion and a technical analysis of the proposal.
one of the main priorities of the danish presidency is to strengthen financial regulation so that future crises can be avoided.
among these are the risks of reallocation of financial activity outside the eu and tax avoidance issues if the eu were to move forward with its own ftt.
these discussions have enabled us to make progress and i expect we will have the issue on the agenda at the june ecofin meeting.
the council fully agrees with parliament on the need to ensure a fair contribution from the financial sector in the light of the huge costs and risks inflicted on member states' public finances by the financial crisis.
today we will discuss a possible common solution for taxation of financial transactions at eu level.
this subject and today we are debating a report by ms podimata on the commission proposal for a common system for taxing financial transactions within the eu.
it is high time that we were honest about the true detrimental effects of this tax on european savers the european economy and in fact financial stability.
making our voters believe however that this tax will get us any closer to fairness and growth is untruthful and a distraction from our massive workload in the area of financial services.
ever since this tax's inception the discussion around the ftt has not been an objective evidence based one.
i am simply illustrating what proponents of a european ftt are willing to inflict on their own constituents in pursuit of a misguided attempt to make someone anyone pay for the financial crisis of.
i call upon my colleagues to follow the council's lead in rejecting a european ftt and to leave it up to individual member states to pursue such a tax if they feel it necessary.
instead the commission and some in this parliament have pretended that the effects of the tax would be negligible when they are not that the tax would be just when it is not and that it would be internationally viable when thankfully it is not.
two thousand and eight it is no secret that the uk stands to lose the most from the imposition of such a tax but i am not here to argue against the ftt as a brit but as a european concerned about the welfare of our economy and the future wealth of european citizens.
in the course of the review of the markets in financial instruments directive we are discussing ways of dealing with any risks posed by high frequency trading which are more sophisticated and effective than any ftt could ever be.
let me give you just one example of how we are pre empting and improving upon the objectives of the ftt in other dossiers.
these are dire economic times and we have an awful lot of work still to do before we can rightfully claim to have made financial markets safer and more beneficial to the real economy.
i am not describing the consequences of predatory bank practices or an external economic shock.
mr bloom you say you are very concerned about the ftt.
you the british conservative party transferred the regulation of the city of london to this place and you fiddle about in your silly little committees having betrayed my country.
there are a lot more bank failures coming down the road believe me.
i guess all of us know that growth comes through investment and positive capital flows.
i am one of those who are convinced that this proposal will hamper growth and that is the last thing we need in this situation.
i understand all of those who call for taxes on the financial sector.
that is true and that is why we need to look at intelligent ways of taxing the financial sector but this proposal that is on the table is not an intelligent way of taxing the financial sector.
i am a little curious as to how this tax is supposed to actually differentiate between those who are speculating in the market and those who are actually investing for their future. the pensioners that we have talked about really will suffer as much as if not more than those that you claim are speculating.
it is very easy to see how stamp duty in the uk is being avoided by a very large number of people.
the americans are actually benefiting through american depository receipts where the listings are actually going out there instead.
yes i am worried about high frequency traders.
yes i want to stop bailing out banks but these traders will not pay this tax they will leave.
the people who pay will be those who cannot leave people saving for their pensions insurance premiums that we all face will go up companies that need money to invest and grow will find it more difficult to get that money and savers who want to make that investment will lose out. by all means mirror the uk's stamp duty it is easy to collect and at least it is on the higher yielding shares
but this tax will not work and it will be vetoed by at least five eu countries. so let us just stop wasting time and say no.
mr president in the context of a deepening european debt crisis it is almost beyond comprehension that some eu leaders and many in this house believe the imposition of a financial transaction tax to be the stimulus for much needed growth in stricken economies in europe.
i believe that the financial sector must bear its part in bringing about debt reduction and supporting growth in the economy.
however what has not been recognised here is that the root of the problem is a common currency with no flexibility for weaker economies and an explosion of debt condemning young people to the hopelessness of unemployment and leading to a democratic deficit in europe with a move away from the centre towards political extremes.
firstly you would have to prove to me that in fact there has not been any relocation away from these countries.
on the other hand maybe these countries do not have a similar tax to finance their own budgets.
the uk has a stamp duty which it will need to use to finance its own budget.
this is an extremely important file for me because i truly believe in all that an eu ftt has to offer.
it will create a fairer tax system in which the financial sector makes a just contribution to public finances.
used as an own resource as proposed by the commission this would result in a net decrease in member states' gmi contributions to the eu budget.
secondly the commission is not opposed to making the legal enforceability of a transaction conditional on the payment of the tax.
the impact of the tax on pension funds should not be overstated.
to conclude i really appreciate the strong support for this proposal that we have seen from the european parliament up to now.
our assistance as they try to set their country once more on the path of recovery and prosperity and prevent any resurgence of terrorism.
i hope the commission understands that it is trade not aid that offers the best route to economic recovery.
the immediate priority of course is to resettle those thousands of tamil civilians caught up in the conflict and now being held in poor conditions in camps.
there are those including ltte apologists who want to deliver a further blow to the sri lankan people by undermining the gsp preferential trade arrangements with the eu.
for its part the sri lankan authorities need to address the concerns expressed by friends in the international community so there is no excuse for gsp status to be compromised.
mr president the people of sri lanka sinhalese and particularly the tamils have suffered enormously over these past thirty years from a ruthless terrorist campaign conducted by the ltte. now that the ltte have been defeated in the field the government and people of sri lanka need our sympathetic understanding and above all
their processing needs to take place with all urgency and the international community should be invited to help.
president rajapaksa came to power democratically determined to defeat the ltte and his success should be congratulated by all of us who despise terrorism.
returning the idps home and trying the war criminals must now be the government's priority.
the eu must maintain the gsp trade agreements which if removed will directly destroy one million jobs and indirectly economically impact on.
the government now has the responsibility of building a post conflict society with liberty justice and equality for all sri lankans.
while i concede that president rajapaksa may have lost some international goodwill through some of his emergency actions in the immediate aftermath of the conflict i am convinced that the best way forward is to guarantee the development of a secure and prosperous sri lanka and support its democratically elected leader and government.
mr president as a representative of london a city that has repeatedly been a target for terrorists in the past forty years i have a great deal of sympathy with sri lankans of all ethnicities. the relentless terrorist campaign waged by the tamil tigers severely blighted the development of that beautiful country.
sri lanka depends for its economic recovery on foreign direct investment and on eu economic support.
the world stood horrified and helpless yet still today there are more than a quarter of a million sri lankan citizens who are interned without adequate medical facilities without clean water sanitation or living space. today's resolution is a relatively mild call on the sri lankan authorities to respect the rights of their
equally one should be fully aware of the direction of future military special operations which cannot be conceived without the intelligence and air fire support provided by these drones.
consequently one should be realistic.
given the negative publicity related to their use for the elimination of specific human targets we are now confronted with resistance to their use in general which is understandable up to a point. i am saying up to a point because one cannot deprive our maritime authorities for instance of a very efficient way of monitoring the water approaches of the continent in order to intervene in the event of potential catastrophe thus saving lives.
our position is very clear we have to ensure that any use will be consistent with both european and international law.
we are debating the topic here today and while the us is the leader in the production and the use of rpas many other countries including israel china russia iran and ecuador are developing their own national capabilities.
i look forward to the debate and to hearing your views.
we have to decide if we want to rely on others and to purchase and use their technology and products or if we make a clear political choice for our own technology.
the use of drones has raised some concerns on respect for human rights and international law.
rpa technology is going to develop further.
we are beginning to explore how we will satisfy the priorities of the eu play our role in the world satisfy our own markets and our own requirements and reinforce our industrial base.
with their broad spectrum of capabilities they can contribute to various aspects of military and civilian operations.
it is not the technology but rather its use that is key.
let me be clear drones can be used for legitimate defence; they can save lives. we support research into manned drones that can improve their accuracy.
i will not engage in anti americanism but will question whether the us practices of so called double tapping and signature strikes conform with the rules of law.
but with eighteen eu countries holding drones it is right for this parliament to underline that they must be used with full respect for international human rights law to express scepticism about the development of fully automated weapons without the need for human intervention and to call on nations inside and outside europe to hold a proper international debate about rules of engagement for their use.
a victim of the taliban noone can suggest that she is sympathetic to terrorism.
one thing is clear.
there will be a large market for rpas.
as that debate develops let us remember the context.
as the technology evolves we will of course examine their compatibility with these instruments.
that is generally illegal under international human rights law and even in a state of conflict civilians must not be targeted according to the laws of war.
now i welcome president obama's guidelines of a year ago curtailing occasions when drones can be used outside war zones but there is still insufficient clarity and that is part of the whole problem of a lack of transparency and accountability in democratic oversight in general.
so we need to draw the red lines now.
if we do not sort this out it could become another scandal of illegality and immorality to equal that of extraordinary rendition torture and disappearance.
we cannot afford any kind of arms race on drones. we also stress the need to include armed drones in relevant european and international arms control regimes and to stop research into and the development of fully automatic weapons which kill without human intervention.
the commission made the proposal in september and it is a reasonable and balanced proposal granting better access to the eu market for certain agricultural products and certain industrial goods from ukraine.
here we already provide unlimited duty free access for some of the agricultural products covered by the proposal so why should we not do that for ukraine our friend and economically integrated neighbour?
in the case of other products for example honey the additional preference to ukrainian exports will most likely simply displace imports from other countries such as china without affecting prices or import flows to the eu. moreover honey and processed tomatoes are examples of export products that will benefit
you suggest applying stricter rules of origin to the products from the territories which are not under effective control of the government of ukraine.
that is why i am very concerned about the report that the committee has adopted because it significantly reduces the scope of our proposal.
moreover the last sustainable impact assessment that we did for the dcfta in two thousand and seven forecast a deep market opening by the eu and that is still valid.
it is about sending a positive signal of eu support to ukraine helping the economy of a country which is suffering from the illegal annexation of crimea and sevastopol and military conflict provoked by russia in the eastern part of the country.
on the impact assessment that you have requested let me just recall that the trade preferences cover a very small fraction of the preferences already in force in the dcfta so it is impossible to separate the two impacts.
we also have in the proposal a specific safeguard that would suspend preferences to any of the products in the event of market distortion and we are ready to consider reinforcing that clause should you so wish when we go into trilogue.
the economic parameters have not changed much especially not on the ukrainian side and the impact assessed at that time was negligible for the eu market.
some cases these additional amounts are small and will have no impact whatsoever on the eu market.
furthermore we have recent free trade agreements negotiated by the european union with peru colombia central america vietnam and canada.
these are all signs that our partnership is going strong.
the european institutions have always been supportive of the process of stabilisation and peace in the ukraine.
i also received feedback from stakeholders regarding potentially sensitive products among industrial goods which was reflected in their report.
from introducing discriminatory internal administrative measures as well as the implementation of continued and sustained efforts with regard to the fight against corruption and illegal activities.
two thousand and sixteen as the first report on implementation is underway we are not yet able to assess whether the preferences already granted are sufficient.
in september last year the commission issued a proposal for granting temporary additional trade measures to ukraine in order to increase its trade flows and support the country economically.
this will be a great mistake.
we should not forget that trade policy is a powerful instrument and should be used to strongly support the eu's foreign policy objectives especially in the neighbourhood.
the importance of our values is shown by the special emphasis that we have put on the fight against corruption in ukraine.
please check your figures.
so this is a limited but for ukraine a very important proposal.
we have looked very carefully into what we think is possible.
we have specific safeguards that would suspend the preferences if there were any disruption in the market and we will supervise and monitor this very closely.
it is true that ukraine has a lot of problems.
yes corruption is still high and yes there still a need to continue the reforms but work is ongoing and we are supporting them and working with them.
one way of doing that would be to agree to this proposal.
it would show that we are on their side that we do care and that we are here to support them.
i believe that this proposal strikes the right balance between protecting sensitive agricultural areas and sectors here in the eu and providing some extra market opportunities to ukraine.
i understand that the council will present additional deletions of additional tariff lines so we may have a problem with that madam commissioner and i hope that we can find a middle ground.
i hope that we will be able to start the trilogue negotiations very soon and i hold that we can conclude them as soon as we can.
yes we have plenty of room for improvement and we have to discuss this thoroughly.
made a major contribution as the managing director of the international monetary fund.
thirdly i do agree that we need to reform our external representation.
to move progressively towards a single seat for the european union or at least the euro area in the imf.
the commission fully supports the candidacy of minister christine lagarde.
she is a competent and experienced candidate who has gained the respect of our partners in the international community.
gradually and progressively. mr president honourable members as you know i am fully committed to the reform and reinforcement of eu economic governance both internally and externally.
therefore let us first conclude the reform of our internal governance which is urgently needed and which will be a huge step forward once implemented.
and a great knowledge of international economic financial and monetary affairs. the commission supports this agreement.
madam president in today's uncertain economic climate it is more important than ever that the global institutions set up to ensure financial and economic stability which many countries around the world are dependent upon are not used to make symbolic political statements.
the imf is not a symbol but a working institution that needs someone at the head of it who has a strong understanding of the financial markets the necessary skills gained from managing a large economy and the ability to communicate tough decisions to the general public. the strength of christine lagarde's candidacy is not that she is a european but that she is a hugely competent individual who has shown remarkable leadership qualities throughout the financial crisis.
as the primary role of the imf is to work on conditional structural reform packages to accompany the distribution of funds to members when they are in dire straits i believe that ms lagarde has shown that she is well able to broker complex agreements on controversial issues successfully bringing together disparate parties to reach a beneficial solution.
we must not get caught up in the prism of today's eurozone crisis but look to what problems the imf may face in the future. i believe that ms lagarde has the necessary skills and track record to lead the imf during this period of economic turbulence and to steer a path of reform at the imf to ensure its continued relevance for generations to come.
turning to the matter of eurozone representation on international bodies as financial markets do not respect national boundaries it is hugely important that global institutions work effectively to coordinate national policy.
while i am in favour of more coordination efficiency and the linking up of policies to avoid regulatory gaps i believe that the eu must not lose its diverse set of voices in international institutions.
the crisis has shown the huge differences between the economies of the eu even within the eurozone let alone the differences between non eurozone countries as well.
all of our countries have been affected in different ways in the current crisis and we have different experiences.
a single voice is not as strong as a multitude of voices singing in harmony.
the classic method uses is to shore up the finances and organise a competitive devaluation. nowhere in here does it say that the imf is there to support political experiments and in so many ways that is what dominique strauss kahn did.
he used the imf to help bail out the failing euro project and as such he was a very poor choice of candidate.
now you want to compound that by approving christine lagarde another member of the european political elite another euro fanatic somebody else who believes in propping up this euro project and i would have thought that as she has got a vested interest she is in fact a highly unsuitable candidate.
well i suppose in some ways you may well need mrs lagarde because not only is greece going bust not only are we heading for the fourth bail out but as i have warned before in this assembly the validity of the european central bank itself will very shortly be called into question.
i would have thought this is a very poor choice.