kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
thank you madam president. i was on the verge of telling you something about the second day of the summit when the heads of state and government of a number of african countries and representatives of international organisations will attend what is known as a g seven outreach' meeting.
we are in the middle of a debate and i would ask you to respect the debate and leave the chamber.
do i have the support of the house for that?
will not resume the debate until you leave the chamber mr buonanno. i would ask the services to please ask the member to leave the chamber because he has three times disrupted the debate.
applause if you are listening to me now with your earphones please leave the chamber because we need to continue our debate in a respectful manner and until you leave the chamber that cannot happen.
please leave the chamber.
i would ask you sir to leave the chamber.
can we please organise this?
we need you to leave the chamber now so that i can continue to chair this debate.
we can have a discussion afterwards but there cannot be a discussion after a disruption.
of course we discussed politics life and personal matters as many people do when they are sitting with a friend.
my office took care of setting up the time and place of the meeting.
i hoped he would spread the word.
in eu policy and policy implementation who are registered in the transparency register.
unfortunately the same level of transparency does not occur in all the eu institutions.
we worked together through one of the most difficult periods in europe's recent history during the economic and financial crisis.
this is why i published the meeting with goldman sachs. some of you are interested in details of the meeting so i am happy to clarify this.
the commission has never said that mr barroso could not have meetings with members of the commission and that members of the commission would not be allowed to have meetings with him.
this is why a meeting with mr barroso always needs to be registered and this is exactly what i did. i told my cabinet to publish the meeting on my website in the section dedicated to meetings with organisations and self employed individuals engaged in eu policy making and policy implementation.
i told him about our ambitious trade and defence agenda.
this is why i have always paid great attention to the transparency of my meetings and you can consult this on my website.
the commission decision of november two thousand and fourteen provides for the publication of the name of the organisation not of the names of individual persons representing the organisation.
we all have a right to have a private life and we all have a right to select our friends.
it is very important for this commission and very important for me.
for about four months i was vice president in this commission in two thousand and fourteen during his second mandate.
i worked a lot with him when he was the president of the european commission and i was the finance minister and prime minister of my country at the time.
when he proposed we have a cup of coffee i suggested going for a beer instead.
secondly and at the same time the commission took a specific decision in november two thousand and fourteen obliging its members to publish these meetings.
the commission is the most transparent institution in the eu.
the ngos which had questions have received answers from the european commission and those who still have questions will also get answers.
the golden circle of powerful interests and powerful people meeting with no account of proceedings does not have the confidence of eu citizens.
that we all see things like
it is a good principle because we need to do whatever it takes to strengthen the confidence of our citizens towards the political decision
europe stands with countries willing to engage on this path and this is what our relationship with ukraine is all about.
neighbourhood policy is an extremely important indicator that we will maintain our undertakings to the ukrainian people and we will not deviate from that.
i want to specifically say why that is.
ukraine needs a political and negotiated resolution of the conflict.
i hope that the european parliament will give its consent with a large majority.
the armed conflict in the eastern ukraine has resulted in over three thousand military and civilian casualties but it has also resulted in major economic costs including the cost of rebuilding the eastern regions.
that has been the result of poland becoming a member of the european union.
we are ready to make a sacrifice yes an economic sacrifice and delay the provisional application of the agreement for a very limited period of time.
this is a decision to be taken by you and by the council of ministers in a very democratic process.
so they will continue to be able to export onto our european markets as if the agreement were already in force.
it has become a legal relationship it has become a treaty.
first it gives new economic opportunities to ukraine to export into the european union and to have economic growth.
this gesture is even more necessary today than it seemed to be some time ago in the face of the increasing pressure invasion and warfare directed against ukraine by russia.
we start and embark on the new european future for ukraine.
ukrainian society has paid the highest price for their european aspirations grieving the deaths of numerous people suffering territorial occupation by russia and experiencing a deteriorating economic situation.
the strongest sign of support.
mr president i am hereby submitting to the european parliament the legislative proposal to ratify to give consent to the association agreement between the european union and the ukraine ten years after the orange
of the technical assistance plan in a number of areas from constitutional to judicial and administrative reform.
revolution which deceived so many hopes one year after the failure in vilnius to sign the association agreement and ten months after the beginning of the heroic and victorious euromaidan which was a sign of the wish and will of the ukrainian nation to make its european choice.
during the past ten months ukrainian citizens proved to be committed to european values and willing to fight for the country's democratic development.
ukraine and the european union have a common future in front of them and this future must be protected from external russian pressure to become a reality.
mr president through this agreement we are offering ukraine the greatest tool the eu has at its disposal access to our single market in all senses.
such an agreement will not only improve our ties with our eastern neighbours it will also provide ukraine with the impetus to make reforms reforms to improve transparency tackle corruption and improve the economy.
reforms will not happen overnight and they will not happen without pain but in the long run ukraine will be able to take her rightful place as a western country with open and stable markets capable of standing on her own two feet.
in europe this association agreement means not only that we gain the partnership of a long standing and one might say long suffering friend but also that we will gain a stable marketplace in which our producers and our businesses can fully engage. of course in order to open our markets to each other
we must also ensure that some fundamental norms and standards are put in place.
that is what this agreement seeks to do and especially to ensure that basic rights are maintained for all workers coming to and from ukraine.
anchoring ukraine in a democratic process establishing the rule of law in that country helping the ukrainians to ban corruption and bringing them economic prosperity
and also contributing to their sovereignty their sovereignty which is presently under pressure from russia.
their decision on provisional application.
we will look very clearly into the political process making sure that we do not end up with a ukraine which is constantly destabilised by the establishment of a new frozen conflict in the east of the country.
the oda figures published a few days ago show that our collective aggregate oda has gone down.
but i concur with the report that this should be done only if certain preconditions are met the volume of funds in particular for africa should not decrease and important elements of flexibility such as significant reserves and multiannuality should be preserved.
indeed we need to get rid of artificial boundaries within our current instruments to ensure the right synergies between different policies for different countries and regions.
having differentiated policies such as neighbourhood or development policy does not require having separate instruments.
keeping a comprehensive approach towards our partners is the best way to serve our mutual interests.
our guiding policy framework with the two thousand and thirty agenda the global strategy the european neighbourhood policy and the european consensus on development as well as the global challenges to which they are responding are highly complex and intertwined.
it is also important that eu humanitarian aid continues to have adequate access to an emergency reserve to deal with unforeseen needs.
however we need to have the courage to re examine the next generation of external instruments.
as the recent comprehensive evaluation shows our instrument is fit for purpose.
as a valuable contribution to the commission's preparatory work on the future external financing instruments. i fully share your conviction that we have to remain ambitious in the financing of eu external action after.
we must avoid working in silos while preserving the focus on poverty eradication and on promoting european values.
the current multitude of programmes does not facilitate the necessary multi dimensional approach to poverty eradication and sustainable development.
by streamlining existing instruments development cooperation can take a truly integrated and innovative approach both from a geographical and thematic point of view.
i am therefore happy that the report calls for greater coherence and simplification.
a streamlined architecture can facilitate our interinstitutional dialogue as well by truly looking at the bigger picture rather than specific envelopes.
humanitarian assistance should remain self standing taking account of the specific nature and principles of humanitarian assistance. we have been able to provide humanitarian aid rapidly and flexibly in most acute crises.
the issues at stake are important and numerous and i am convinced that the upcoming interinstitutional negotiations will be key to ensuring that the eu keeps being a major global actor standing strong for its values promoting its interests and effectively assisting its partners
let me conclude by underlining that i am very much looking forward to fruitful discussions with parliament.
so as to jointly ensure a safer and more sustainable future for all.
it is hurting our communities now as you know we spoke about this and it will only get worse in the future if we do not have access to such cohesion funding and structural funding for the north because we will see projects collapse.
this is funding for thousands of projects in the north of ireland that people depend on for their businesses for community projects and for infrastructure.
now all of this good work is under threat because of a brexit that most people in the north do not want and did not vote for.
commissioner the eu needs to ensure that the benefits of decades of cohesion funding for a community that has been emerging from conflict are not lost by ensuring that the north is guaranteed ongoing access to cohesion funding in the future after brexit as part of us being afforded designated special status
mr president eu cohesion funding has been vital for the north of ireland and for border communities recovering from years of conflict and neglect.
some projects are already being delayed because of the fears and uncertainties surrounding brexit.
by supporting brexit the dup has let the people of the north down again as we stand to lose eur nine hundred and eighty two million of much needed and essential structural funding.
many of the nations in the south and east of europe are already groaning under the weight of supporting the euro and your backing of the banking establishments.
this money comes from the pockets of citizens of your constituent nations and for you to even consider throwing more of it away on selfpromotion is simply a sign that you understand nothing of the issues confronting your voters.
the concern this report states regarding the backlog of unpaid invoices is extremely valid.
the profusion of eu spending plaques across europe following this deluge of taxpayers' money on projects which could have been done if indeed they should be done by the nation states much more cheaply and more effectively may indeed prove to be no more than gravestones
this budget is no more than a very expensive carnival parade replete with all the clowns and sideshows parading throughout europe to the music of the danse macabre and the smell of burning money.
who is going to bail out your vanity schemes when the uk leaves?
but also liverpool which was regenerated with european money after margaret thatcher's government decided to let it rot.
it is crucial that future cohesion policy is in line with sustainable development goals encompassing a broad range of objectives not only oriented towards economic growth but promoting sustainable development of societies and individual and collective wellbeing of communities.
therefore structural investment funds must be used for creative innovative and smart initiatives that benefit a large part of the population including the most vulnerable people.
this is absolutely appropriate but it has been brought to my attention at the last minute that this could be construed as saying that if such health professionals were involved in any traffic offences for example then member states would have a responsibility to share information about that.
mr president apologies to colleagues for introducing it at this late stage but the reason is one of simple clarification. amendment one hundred refers to the responsibility of member states to exchange information about disciplinary and criminal findings against health professionals.
that clearly is not the intention of the amendment and so for clarification the wording proposed would now read member states shall immediately and proactively exchange information about disciplinary and criminal findings against health professionals where they impact upon their registration or their right to provide services'.
i have just been down to the press room and i note that eight journalists are actually listening to the vote others may be watching on the screens where every single vote is being broadcast.
these are important votes and it is a very full agenda and i have every sympathy with you.
amendment eighty one which is the corresponding amendment to the article is not marked as falling when the corresponding article amendment fifty five is passed.
the first half of the amendment is exactly the same but the new bit the second part is consistent.
i would just correct her to say the single legal base that we currently have is not just economic it is about freedom of choice for patients' rights.
i am sure that you would wish to do that especially in his absence.
in this context i would like to make the following comments.
in parallel and it is necessary to fix the provisions establishing that the general budget of the european communities will bear the costs relating to the use of the customs information system by the member states. this legal correction should not imply any increase in the budget and it is necessary to ensure
combined supervision by jsa and edps would present some risks of possible duplication and overlapping of work.
it is in the interests of all consumers in the interests of children and their mothers to ensure strict and safe composition rules but also to guarantee the highest level of accuracy.
notably for milks intended for children aged between twelve and thirty six months.
i especially welcome the fact that substitute meals replacing all or part of a person's daily food intake continue to be the subject of specific legislation thus ensuring stricter control over the composition of such food and safeguarding the consumer interest when it comes to health and nutrition claims.
i certainly do not believe that the proposal that we have come up with in committee makes it easier for consumers.
we should be making our rules based on the evidence in front of us. again on these new amendments on pesticides we already have in my view strict and well regulated rules in place for the use of pesticides.
it is protecting certain manufacturers in certain countries and certain national regimes and we should cut across that.
so i will talk about the issues that i did not sign up to in the compromise.
again following on with the no evidence' we were offered no evidence at all on the advertising of the milk products the follow on milk.
i absolutely agree that infants young children and people with particular medical conditions should be protected from misleading information but i do ask myself sometimes whether we have really simplified this proposal or whether we are just making it more complicated but in slightly different areas. yes it is true as the rapporteur said that we had an agreement but that agreement was breached by putting amendments to this
the first was the proposal on gluten free.
they were offered no evidence at all that medicalising people who have a condition known to threaten their health would be helped by making it more difficult for them to get hold of the products that they find useful.
plenary session so i feel quite free on my own account to breach it too.
i also have particular problems with the low calorie diet and very low calorie diet proposals from committee.
i do not believe it adds anything at all to their safety or to the protection of their vulnerability.
no evidence was produced beyond opinion that it was necessary to provide stricter controls for these vulnerable groups.
better regulation should simplify the rules unravel the tangle and make interpretation and implementation simpler and this is a thread which clearly runs through the commission's proposal.
however i want to focus on one particular issue which is the advertising of so called follow on formula milk for infants over six months old.
i therefore urge all members to vote in favour of amendment.
currently there is a ban on advertising formula milk for newborns but follow on formula can be and is widely advertised.
i fear that allowing advertising of follow on formulas creates a loophole in the ban on advertising infant formula and it is a loophole that we should definitely close.
last year i tried to stop a misleading health claim on follow on milk with the support of the majority of meps but sadly we did not get the absolute majority we needed to block the claim. research shows that due to marketing techniques many parents do not know the difference between infant formula and follow on formula and that they start using follow on formula far too early.
mr president this report has been a huge task and i welcome many of the changes made by the commission and the rapporteur.
obviously parents are naturally anxious to provide the best nutrition possible for their children but they should make these decisions on the basis of objective information from experts and not be pressurised by industry into buying products that may not be necessary.
how stupid does ms willmott think european citizens are? is this not an example of the european nanny state trying to regulate everything and focusing on the wrong things?
on follow on formula there is gigantic number two' which means the second age group six to twelve months.
i can thus support the preparation of a report on this issue.
i am also willing to look into the issues of advertising as raised by mrs willmott and others.
i agree totally that the use of pesticides in products intended for infants and young children should be restricted as far as possible.
indeed the existing specific legislation on products intended for infants and young children already sets extremely low levels for pesticides so low that they are de facto prohibitive.
i have to make one point we have to make a difference between the application and the presence of pesticides.
therefore our concentration should be on the presence of pesticides in food rather than the application of pesticides because this will also cover any food grown on fields which has been contaminated in the past.
the protection of vulnerable groups of the population is one of the key objectives of the proposal we are discussing here today.
the commission is pleased with the general line taken as regards the proposed amendments.
the proposal would abolish the concept of dietetic food a concept that is today considered outdated given the evolution of the food market over the past decade.
i am pleased to see that honourable members openly agree with this approach and recognise the need to fundamentally revise the existing legislation.
the scope of the proposed draft regulation would be limited to a number of well known categories of foods intended for vulnerable groups of the population namely infants and young children and people that need products for the dietary management of conditions under medical supervision.
and i am open to considering their inclusion within the scope of the proposal.
however my support cannot extend to the inclusion of gluten free foods within the scope of the regulation.
we all agree on the importance of maintaining the existing rules on such foods.
but this can be ensured in a simpler and better way by transferring these rules to the recently adopted regulation on food information to consumers.
in addition such a transfer would guarantee that the existing rules would also apply to non prepacked foods and would consequently offer higher and broader protection to coeliacs.
several amendments have been made as regards labelling provisions and restricted use of pesticides in baby foods.
i can tell you that i share the same views as parliament as regards protecting infants and young children and i can agree in principle with the suggestions made.
however i believe that the details to give effect to these principles should be dealt with in the specific delegated acts.
i also support the same positive approach concerning the preparation of reports on sports foods and growing up milks. on the other hand i cannot support the amendments regarding the establishment and update of the union list of substances by delegated acts instead of implementing acts.
the commission's proposal is in accordance with the treaty of lisbon and the commission guidelines on delegated acts.
regarding advertising enabling member states to apply further restrictions to all foods for infants and young children without distinction would be disproportionate to the objectives of the draft regulation and can have an impact on the good functioning of the internal market.
secondly it is absolutely imperative to provide a high level of consumer protection for vulnerable groups.
for instance we have to ensure that milks intended for infants and young children are strictly regulated with regard to their content.
thorough research is needed to find out to what extent these milks really contribute to the growth and health of children.
moreover the proposed simplification of the existing legal framework will contribute to the better functioning of the internal market.
it will reduce the administrative burden on companies increase transparency and further stimulate free movement of goods.
i hope that we will all support the balanced proposal which will provide optimal protection for consumers' health.
this is not actually about whether a woman chooses to breast feed or bottle feed.
surely what we should not be doing is misleading parents into buying things that they should not necessarily be giving to their children.
this report calls upon the commission to deliver a legislative response for recovery resolution as soon as possible.