kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we are also taking steps to complete the banking union. we need to implement what was agreed with strong support from this parliament and we need to finish what we have
programmes. this is essential to strengthen the ownership and thereby implementation
last week the commission also presented concrete measures to improve our toolbox of economic governance.
but the commission has listened to your calls to improve transparency and to reduce the complexity of available instruments and tools so we will take action.
report. we will need to shape consensus on those more fundamental changes so we will launch a broad consultation gathering ideas from across
moreover we intend to further improve involvement of eu and national social partners.
the imf. we propose that the president of the eurogroup should ultimately represent the euro area internationally.
third you asked the commission to support member states' exchange of best practices.
therefore we intend to better integrate the euro area and national dimensions.
building on these developments some further adjustments can bring additional benefits.
i have one last point concerning your proposal one which really needs its own debate but the european fiscal board is an advisory body which you could have had proposed under the ordinary legislative process.
that is a lack of european democracy and a lack of commitment to european democracy from your side.
i would like to ask you commissioner whether you are still attached to the two thousand and twenty objectives and to the role of the european semester in order to achieve these objectives and i also would like to know why you took out all the environment related measures which have always been there in the past.
unfortunately this round of the european semester's recommendations basically do not show any serious measures to reduce poverty and all the environment related measures were totally taken out of the european semester.
we all know that the level of accomplishment of the country specific recommendations is appallingly low.
where is your decisive action to make your fellow member states including germany and many others truly reforming in the sense of the european semester?
secondly i think the key problem here is that even if you do not agree with all of these measures as they are proposed it is clear that the euro in particular but also europe as a whole needs the european semester process.
while in previous periods there were always strong structural reforms suggested by the commission in order to increase resource efficiency to generate competitive new business in the green sector this time everything is gone.
nobody takes it seriously any more if the council does not manage to implement.
now you create what is almost a new institution without a proper legal base and without giving parliament and the co legislator the right to co decide on that.
but i would emphasise that we are streamlining the european semester we are trying to focus on key social economic challenges in the member states and we are applying the tell only once principle so we are not doubling some of the advice that we are giving to the member states in
what are the reasons for the current slowdown? and so on and so forth.
as i said we have not agreed on everything but at least they have shown consistently their willingness to cooperate willingness to discuss and i would like to express my appreciation.
i would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs who have participated in this difficult negotiation process.
this debate has also shown that the issue is politically very sensitive and indeed this has been reflected in the process of our work on this report because we have been confronted with different expectations different opinions on such elementary things like
so we have been unable to agree on everything but as i said i tried very much to come up with a compromise of course at the cost of some clarity and perhaps insufficient focus on all important matters but still i thought that having a broad majority in favour of this report would
economic growth is not doing great obviously we know that and for that we need structural reforms and serious reforms for that to be achieved.
we have heard all the previous speakers waffle on about instruments here and economics there and so on but do you agree with me that they are blind and ignorant to the solution staring them in the face in that the euro has to go?
it does not matter what you all are talking about you are blind to the fact that the euro is causing the misery that is angering your constituents.
so would you agree with me that before anyone else speaks the first thing they say to solve the economic problems in this union is that the euro must go?
it is interesting to hear today some meps crying crocodile tears over the fact that parliament has been denied legislative powers in the european semester when this house has conspired to deny the democratic rights of citizens to determine the economic direction of their countries.
the european semester is simply reinforcing a set of policies that have entrenched the democratic deficit and disillusioned citizens even further.
the european semester and the document that we are discussing today are a failed economic policy.
we need to accept what our citizens already accept that it is time for a new direction for european economics and european politics.
i am not going to do any of them.
i am going to talk about someone else's amendments.
the greens lovely people a little confused hearts in the right place all that but most of their policies are not on the same planet as the one they want to save.
for the most part the evidence of the abominations that have been visited on the peoples of europe is expertly sifted by mr rosati.
he notes for instance the destructive influence of an overvalued currency on exports production employment wages and much else.
at last i think the euro is being prosecuted as the villain of the piece.
the report calls on the commission to explore innovative ways of lessening the need for a painful internal devaluation.
the next paragraph notes that a currency union in a currency area that is far from optimal necessarily leaves some of its members trapped with a currency that is overvalued.
in fact he makes the villain chief of police.
he says all eu member states should be engaged in each stage of completing economic and monetary union.
the report notes a persistently high unemployment rate across most member states.
those living in the uk should well understand that it is a matter of political choice.
i wanted to say that parliament has long stressed the need for the economic and social dimension of the semester to carry equal weight and of course i agree totally with my colleague sven giegold on the environmental dimension there.
we need to care about our natural capital as well.
it is important of course and we should recognise that labour market flexibility for example does not mean that all power passes to the employer.
employers are expected to flexible as well as workers.
we need to recognise that shifting work patterns must not mean that people lose their social rights and that trickle down as mentioned by one or two other speakers is a very poor form of social irrigation.
we know that if you really want things to grow you water from the roots up and you look after the people first.
the country specific recommendations csrs are of course an important tool.
however we complain that they are not respected by member states and that member states are not ambitious enough.
i believe we need to ask ourselves why this is happening. it is not only the content of the csrs but also the design of the process.
the question is how shall we design a better economic policy coordination process?
i believe we should have two stages of the european semester.
a first round of recommendations which sets out the reasons why the country level recommendations need to be fulfilled in the second stage and in addition we need more parliamentary control and involvement in this process. secondly in order to have more concrete solutions we need a comprehensive evaluation of the european semester and the csrs in order to understand their relevance to member states and to adjust the process.
two quick questions the first is you talk about new economic instruments.
how about the best economic instrument this parliament and this union can promote?
let currencies devalue decouple and actually start growth again.
the commission announced the purpose which i very much support of promoting upward convergence but i am afraid that the solutions which are being proposed will not be enough to deliver these goals.
if you really want to deliver upward convergence you need first of all to change the targets starting with competitiveness.
then you need to change the priorities in the countryspecific recommendations.
above all we need much more investment and finally we need to raise demand particularly asking surplus countries to spend more.
i can already see that some others are reflecting on joining this group in the future.
finally it will disincentivise transactions that do not enhance financial markets' efficiency or welfare. in the absence of unanimity in the council on its original proposal and following a request made by eleven member states the commission proposed to authorise
i would like to emphasise that today this debate is about granting authorisation for enhanced cooperation.
as requested by participating member states it will be based on the scope and objectives of the initial commission proposal of.
this constitutes an important and tangible sign that our ultimate goal of a global ftt remains valid.
as you know the commission's proposal for a common system of financial transaction tax is all about fairness and efficiency.
mr president it is no surprise that only ten member states at most are willing to adopt a financial transaction tax.
in addition there are two aspects of the proposal that have not been laid out in clear terms and which are a matter of concern.
insisting on forcing this tax through by means of enhanced cooperation will only make it more evident that it is the wrong way to go.
the first and most important one is how it will affect non participating member states because it will notably in the case of cross border transactions.
given the state of us eu negotiations with regard to derivatives regulation in dodd frank emir and mifid we are already in danger of entering an effective trade war whereby neither region will cooperate on financial reforms agreed at a global level.
mr president agreement at the g twenty on financial transactions and at the basel committee on bank capital is done to avoid regulatory arbitrage and the dangers of protectionism but currently both the us and the eu seem to have difficulties in implementing these agreements in several areas.
already in the us a member of congress has put forward the price bill explicitly to counteract the residence principle being proposed in the limited eu ftt to ensure that us businesses cannot be used to collect non us taxes.
so communication on the extent and reach of even a limited eu ftt needs to be a priority.
mr president i want to start by saying that i would have no objection to a globally imposed financial transaction tax.
but before doing so perhaps they should ask themselves why sweden is not participating.
however i can see little benefit in an ftt which applies to only a few countries.
it will raise some revenue from businesses too small to avoid it but for the most part it will simply displace transactions to those countries where the tax does not exist.
imposed upon all financial transactions it would raise a lot of money which i would wish to see used to lower other taxes which harm incentives to work and to innovate.
the answer i suspect is that sweden has tried such a tax before and it resulted in a lot more business for the city of london.
i will of course keep the european parliament informed of any progress on this matter.
your own country the united kingdom put in place many hundreds of years ago a stamp duty the oldest tax in the uk which is a sort of financial transaction tax.
so my question is how can you say that eleven countries moving forward is not a step forward compared to this very fragmented situation today?
my answer to that would be that where you have a tax you will cause business to migrate elsewhere and business that perhaps might be done in frankfurt or paris will move somewhere else. you refer also to the stamp duty in the united kingdom.
that is what the financial transaction tax is really all about.
firstly this unilateral approach on financial transaction tax on global warming policy on all of these things is rendering europe the low growth economic disaster zone of the world. this is a self inflicted wound.
these countries that are doing it are damaging their ability to do this business.
secondly even though the british government sensibly are not going along with this the very fact that this was proposed and that over two thirds of the tax would have been raised from the city of london tells me we should not be in this club at all.
it was put in place to damage financial markets and in particular to damage britain.
it is a bad idea for us and it is a bad idea for you too.
mr president i have consistently opposed the imposition of an eu wide financial transaction tax.
whilst i am quite prepared to ensure that bankers and speculators carry their share of the financial burdens that many ordinary people face i am firmly of the belief that this measure neither recognises nor provides a solution to the primary cause of europe's vast economic problems the folly of the single currency and the sovereign debt crisis.
this proposal seeks to establish a more limited ftt under enhanced cooperation. it is an experiment for launching a revised eu wide proposal.
the committee assures us that non participating countries will remain unaffected by the tax.
however given the intricacies of the transactions involved this pledge is professionally regarded as unrealisable.
the contribution of the united kingdom to the european union budget is already vast.
i have no wish to see hard working and hard pressed families in the united kingdom suffer any further from these proposals from the european institutions.
ms girling mentioned a number of things that the commission could do such as deal with the trade aspect compile data and a lot of other things.
given that russia was the leading destination for eu beef and pork in two thousand and eleven we need immediate action to protect the reputation of european produce and address public health concerns.
i welcome the european commission's determination to resist attempts by third countries to impose trade restrictions on the back of concerns over this virus but we must step up our efforts to ensure that agricultural trade does not fall victim to a knee jerk decision.
as regards prevention of further spread of the virus while this virus has already circulated in the animal population of eight member states now it is unlikely that there is any virus circulation during the winter season.
any veterinary measure we might take would need to be proportionate and sustainable. it would need to take into account that the available information suggests that the impact of this virus on animal health and production is limited and that there is no evidence that it can cause illness in humans.
the current event is thus an opportunity to fine tune those existing mechanisms.
these mechanisms allowed us to detect the virus and prepare coordinated actions.
the coordination of any public health response would be ensured through the eu early warning and response system.
however it cannot be excluded at this stage.
as with any other viral disease there is no specific treatment to cure animals infected with the schmallenberg virus.
with respect to any possible public health risk related to this virus the european centre for disease prevention and control stated in december of last year that it is unlikely that this new virus could cause disease in humans.
to conclude a measured response at eu level is necessary to avoid provoking unjustified market disturbances within the internal market and in trade with our international partners.
we consider restrictive measures against eu exports of ruminants and their products to be disproportionate and unjustified on the basis of the currently available scientific evidence.
it is imperative that we continue to keep matters in proper perspective.
thus the commission is working in close contact with third countries to prevent and reduce their trade restrictions.
to address this gap the commission is co ordinating and plans to financially support scientific studies to gather further information aimed at developing a sound veterinary policy for this infection which is essential for possible future control measures to be adopted either at member state level or eu level.
at this stage we cannot predict when an effective vaccine might become available.
and transmission of data.
current data supports this assessment.
if new evidence arises on the public health impact of sbv the commission would of course ask the ecdc to provide an update of its risk assessment to take such developments into consideration.
under the new animal health strategy the commission is however taking further actions to ensure that the eu level of preparedness further improves. in this case also a guidance document addressing the main priority actions to be undertaken in the eu has already been prepared by the commission and endorsed by member states' experts and stakeholders.
recent experience like the response to the h five n one and the pandemic h one n one influenza virus demonstrates that the eu level of preparedness is satisfactory and the application of the one health concept leads to successful reaction.
in view of this the most appropriate control measure to be applied for now is surveillance which is already in place. i should make clear that the movement and export of diseased animals is not permitted in the eu.
in my own constituency it has now been detected in an almost linear way across two hundred miles from north to south and very quickly spreading.
if there is more and maybe god forbid a whole clutch of new viruses coming onto the system in one go can we cope?
what would i like to see the commission do?
although i do not wish to downplay the severity of the situation i think we do need to urge a proportionate response.
thankfully it is believed that the virus does not pose any risk to human health.
this is why recent moves in countries such as russia and egypt to ban imports of eu animal products such as meat and dairy products is i believe an overreaction and simply an excuse to pursue protectionist trade policies.
despite this difficulty a coordinated response between member states is necessary especially when it comes to sharing the data so that we can get a clear picture of the extent of the spread of the virus.
measures should be taken to reassure the general public and our trade partners in third countries of the high standards and safety of the food produced in the european union.
most importantly efforts to research the virus and ultimately develop a vaccine for it should be supported so that in the future farmers across the european union do not have to experience an outbreak like this again.
by the european union in a statement issued in september two thousand and eight and the eu's one china policy the european commission supports where appropriate the meaningful participation of taiwan in international organisations.
we strongly support the bilateral discussions between the two parties that may allow further progress.
in february two thousand and nine the commission published a communication on a community approach to the prevention of natural and man made disasters.
from this initial experience if appropriate the commission will present further proposals for the development of the eu rapid response capability funded from national resources earmarked for eu operations.
second we aim to have a comprehensive approach to disaster prevention at eu level.
we will continue to do so.
the question by mr mann taiwan has been informed of the commission's post disaster needs assessment mechanism but we have not received any requests so far.
on this tragic occasion because this shows an improvement in the relations between the two territories and it is clear that an improvement in such relations can lead to greater stability in this region. i also think and with this i conclude that given the dimension of the disaster the european union should make use of one of its core values solidarity and offer taiwan
on this occasion china showed great sensitivity by sending immediate aid to help taiwanese victims.
two thousand and nine in response the european commission activated the community civil protection mechanism.
the european commission deployed a coordination and assessment team to taiwan to assess the needs and to assist the government in its relief efforts.
the team undertook several assessment missions to the affected regions sharing its findings and recommendations with the local authorities and international partners.
in the future climate change makes it likely that we will face more disasters.
transport infrastructure including roads and bridges was damaged and communication networks were interrupted.
in this regard solidarity with other countries hit by disaster remains one of the pillars of the european disaster management policy.
the presence of the european team on the ground was also received positively.
they often carry a heavy human economic and environmental cost.
the mechanism facilitates and coordinates member states' in kind assistance during major emergencies.
i do hope now that the commission will commit to longer term assistance to taiwan to enable full recovery of its people and economy and the rebuilding of the infrastructure.
the taiwanese government under president ma responded promptly by deploying soldiers to the worst affected communities and areas and requesting assistance from the international community.
furthermore as chairman of the ep taiwan friendship group i look forward to finding out the latest situation when i lead a delegation of meps to taiwan next month.
mr president the scenes of devastation and destruction caused by typhoon morakot will remain in our minds for a long time but many people in taiwan will be living with the consequences of this tragedy for years to come.
it is therefore essential that taiwan as an island vulnerable to such meteorological phenomena and as a major global industrial power is enabled to participate meaningfully and with dignity in appropriate international organisations not least those related to weather and climate change.
in particular taiwan should be allowed to participate in the united nations framework convention for climate change and the world meteorological organisation.
the calamity that has affected taiwan may well become more commonplace both in taiwan and around the world as a result of climate change.
over seven hundred people lost their lives and thousands of others have faced major disruption.
i have no doubt of the gratitude of the people and government of taiwan for the solidarity and support shown by the eu.
the swedish eu presidency and the commission should be congratulated on their work in activating the community civil protection mechanism.
as many observers have noted the number of victims could have been lower if the government had reacted in a more coordinated manner to the typhoon.
the government failed to predict the seriousness of the tropical storm approaching the island.
well the hungarian prime minister mr ferenc gyurcsany rather blows that idea of european solidarity apart.
you do not have the legitimacy to take more power for the european union.
the economic crisis will i believe be what voters will vote on in the european elections this year and i hope this time they send you people a message that is so big and so loud that for once you simply will not be able to ignore it.
well look you were sent a message by the voters in france by the voters in the netherlands and by the voters in ireland.