kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this provision is in direct contradiction with the right to read' objectives of the marrakesh treaty and should be addressed during the transposition phase in eu member state legislation.
eu action on facilitating access to published works for people who are blind visually impaired or otherwise print disabled has been long overdue.
not only could this provision violate article twenty one of the un convention on the rights of persons with disabilities but there has been no proof of economic loss to be compensated for and governments have never demonstrated that any damage is done to publishers by accessibly formatted works.
we could at the outset have said membership is not on the agenda let's find a different way of working together' or we could have embraced them but what we did instead was to hold out a promise of membership which we had absolutely no intention of fulfilling.
understandably a sense of rejection contributed to some political breakdown in that country.
of course i am not saying it was all the fault of the european union.
it is mainly about internal dynamics within turkey.
but i wonder whether we might not be wiser now to try to find a more sustainable and permanent deal whereby we recognise turkey as a strategic partner and ally and recognise the value of a free market with turkey but drop the idea of political integration.
and if we could set up such a status successfully for a state as important and as large as turkey perhaps it could become the model for relations with other nearby neighbouring countries.
the main advantage of the plan is the newly designed instrument the european fund for sustainable development fund and its guarantee which with the contributions of the european investment bank will be employed to attract public and private investment and manage risks.
we also remain convinced in this context of the need to work further to modernise the current regime in light of technological changes and the development of online services as well as to meet the requirements of the single market.
the report also calls on the commission and the member states to envisage further harmonisation focusing in particular on the process of the setting of tariffs the system of ex ante exemptions for professional users and the reimbursement schemes applicable in the event of double payments in cross border transactions. at the same time given the strongly diverging positions of the stakeholders it is not a surprise that mrvitorino's recommendations and the proposed own initiative report diverge on certain points as well.
the report by mscastex concurs with many of those ideas in particular in so far as her report suggests reforming the current levy schemes in order to eliminate the existing barriers to the internal market as well as to adapt those systems to the digital environment.
the commission takes note of those differences.
the commission is as you know completing a review of the eu legislative framework applicable to copyright through a public consultation legal and economic studies and in depth impact assessment work and intends to propose a white paper setting out further options before the summer.
i can assure you that the commission will continue to pursue the removal of unjustified non tariff barriers through regulatory cooperation with in particular but not solely our strategic partners.
as you know very well the removal of trade barriers is and remains a top priority for our trade policy.
your report contributed to increasing the political dimension of this matter and we thank you for this. we have taken good note of your suggestions and when i say we' i speak on behalf of my colleague karel de gucht of course who is the commissioner responsible
the agreement with korea is a very good example of this approach because it contains extensive rules on sectoral regulatory issues cars electronics and medical devices. in the recent meeting of the trade committee established under the agreement
we are also using our free trade agreements to address regulatory barriers.
you are very well aware that the commission has highlighted this in its first annual trade and investment barrier report in march this year and this report goes right to the heart of the enforcement agenda of our trade policy.
on the question of the american jobs act the commission is following this very closely and you will certainly be aware that some of the most worrying elements fortunately did not pass the us legislative process.
the korean minister and our commissioner could achieve important progress on some of the outstanding regulatory issues related to cars.
as the report rightly points out we will of course fully respect the right of our partners to establish their own levels of public policy protection in the areas of health safety and the environment. i will mention just one example of regulatory cooperation
we have taken good note of your suggestions on government procurement investment and export restrictions all of which are very important building sites for a twenty first century trade policy for the european union.
for this file.
i would like to see the commission act proactively to remove or at the very least reduce the restrictive impact of ntbs on the capacity of european businesses accessing foreign markets.
our europe two thousand and twenty trade policy strategy can only fully be realised if we systematically and constructively deal with these trade barriers.
mr president in february of this year the european commission published its trade and investment barriers report which highlighted its priorities for action on breaking down barriers to trade.
there is evidence to suggest that countries are resorting more and more to these kinds of protectionist tools.
real efforts to free up trade our policy strategy has focused primarily on the dismantling of tariffs.
we have been giving special consideration to ldcs and sids recognising the sensitivity that exists in these markets including a distinction between developing economies and emerging industrial economies such as the bric countries.
i would also like to see the commission examine the possibility of developing and establishing an early warning mechanism to detect ntbs.
the eu should also carefully review its own trade measures in order to lift all illegitimate hindrances to open and free markets and become a true forerunner in the anti ntb fight.
the commission should address the ntb problem as part of its wto agenda within reassessment of existing wto agreements on technical barriers to trade and the tbt agreement. with regard to free trade agreements it is vital that these agreements provide sufficient reciprocity and market access and mutual benefits to both parties in order to increase both the general awareness about ntbs and motivate business and public authorities into fighting against them. the commission should also gather information on the wto and oecd
and any other international organisation that is relevant to work done or ongoing about a possible correlation between the existence of ntbs and the resulting loss of potential market share.
the report suggests the increased use of regulatory dialogue with key strategic partners and working more closely with the international institutions to address the use of unjustified ntbs.
only last month the trade commissioner himself warned our committee of the new wave of protectionism by our strategic partners.
this report symbolises a shared commitment to move forward with a proactive and progressive trade agenda.
the report itself provided a comprehensive overview of the challenges the eu faces as a result of the vast array of non tariff barriers despite.
there is some discussion as to whether visa liberalisation is the correct tool to advance human rights issues.
therefore i think all these reports should have a human rights and fundamental rights component.
it signifies the opposite of all of our work in the fight against discrimination and homophobia and to uphold citizens' fundamental rights.
it is for this reason that we are having this debate tonight to send a clear message that such restrictions on lgbt fundamental rights should not be accepted and that the european union when advancing towards visa liberalisation should take note of this type of action.
sexual orientation. the ukrainian government has even sought advice from the european commission on this legislation and received amendments on lgbt rights.
we are a community of values after all and for this reason i wanted this debate to focus on this issue.
none of those amended visa facilitation agreements between the eu and all of those other countries are to be subject to discussion or debate only this one with ukraine.
such legislation is in contradiction with the fundamental rights and values that the european union is built on.
offers real and tangible value to ukrainian citizens by ensuring that procedures are introduced for travelling to the eu.
if adopted the bill would introduce criminal sanctions for the production or distribution of any information that would promote' homosexuality.
there is no disagreement about what the report says.
i was happy to support this in terms of neighbourhood policy and to promote a report which i genuinely believe in relation to all the other visa facilitation agreements with countries like russia serbia albania and moldova makes a very positive contribution to neighbourhood policy.
i am very proud that this is something we should always build into our reports and whatever we do in this house.
unfortunately i have subsequently learned that there is a real risk that the ukrainian government may no longer include sexual orientation in the legislation.
in my view the reason we are calling for this debate on issues which would normally simply see a cursory vote in this parliament is because we care about these fundamental values.
many of us have fought for years to be more visible to live out of the closet to live without fear and to make it clear to everybody else that they do not have to be afraid of us.
what is happening in ukraine with a law like that if it becomes law is really something that is totally unacceptable and un european.
this includes people who face discrimination on various grounds including their sexual orientation or gender identity.
mr president the obligation to introduce anti discrimination legislation is an integral part of the visa dialogue.
if we take ourselves seriously we need to send a very strong message to the authorities in ukraine that if they take the despicable anti gay propaganda legislation any further they are in direct violation of our dialogue.
they are in fact the most important matter that i can think of.
these facilitations are granted by the european union;
cooperation resulting finally in an agreement but it has to be done on the basis of european values.
draft legislation like the legislation which is on the table in ukraine contributes to a climate where those things can happen.
this whole cooperation process is a two way street.
we want to extend our hand to the ukrainians but we also expect the ukrainians to do their bit for fundamental rights.
it is the appropriate moment to take this position.
it is true that we may be applying double standards because we have been less strict with other countries but the fact that we made mistakes in the past does not mean that we need to continue making the same mistakes all the time.
i hope it does not come to that.
what is it to be lesbian gay bisexual or transgender?
actually it is to be the ordinary son or daughter of ordinary men and women and our lives are made extraordinary by the discrimination and the persecution with which some have to live.
so in an ideal world i would send this report back to committee but i do not believe we would get the necessary majority.
am i therefore prepared to play around with the rights of lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people in ukraine russia and elsewhere?
i am prepared to say to ukraine that the liberalisation measures that we offer you now represent the end of the road. there will be no further liberalisation of the facilitation agreement or the issue of visas if you continue
but what will you do if it turns out that ngos of lgbt people are effectively banned?
that means that they cannot benefit from visa facilitation. how can we then still vote in favour?
just for clarification are you now calling the human rights of lgbt persons a small matter compared to the big matter of visa liberalisation or did i misunderstand?
in this way we want to bring ukraine politically and economically closer to the eu.
mr cashman and others i think made speeches which i want to encapsulate in this statement so that there is no confusion.
the s d group my group wants to send a clear message to the ukrainian government to the parliament in ukraine and to you commissioner that there should be no deepening of the ukrainian eu relationship for as long as the anti propaganda laws are still on the table in the ukrainian government and in the parliament.
we want to see advancements towards progressive serious improvements in lgbt rights and on the rule of law and democracy in the ukraine before any more movements towards full liberalisation are made.
this is because we believe in our group and obviously across this house that this is part of the visa dialogue.
we have to see these improvements. if we are a community of values then this must be part of that dialogue.
for those colleagues who do not believe that as a community of values we cannot bring human rights into this dialogue this is fundamentally wrong.
i called for this debate to focus on this issue because unlike all other visa liberalisations this visa liberalisation should be a test case for focusing on human rights.
i say to the commission and to anyone else who is looking at this debate human rights must be part of that visa dialogue for the future.
we put the ukrainian government on notice that we will be watching to ensure that we remain a community of values in our neighbourhood policy.
two two million people in need of humanitarian assistance and nearly half a million idps the need for aid is urgent and cannot be stressed enough.
two thousand and fourteen the launch last year of the eu csdp training mission is also a welcome step. the creation of competent and professional security forces is vital for the long term stability of that landlocked country and a key part of ultimately transferring peacekeeping operations back to the government.
the brussels conference for the central african republic last november co chaired by the high representative led to more than two billion pledges seven hundred and fifty million of them from the european union and our member states are as usual the largest donors. i attended
them unfortunately women children and minorities. two thousand and seventeen will be a decisive year for the central african republic.
the conference myself and i saw the strong commitment of all those present to make a difference.
this is the crucial challenge for the national authorities and of course for the international community and us the european union.
it is quite appropriate that technical prescription of organic labelling should be handled by the commission.
i welcomed amendment four in particular which specifically stated that the process of alignment of the lisbon treaty should unburden organic farmers of excessive red tape through the simplification of the eu law in this area.
the european union must act responsibly when we set our budget for next year.
they are doing this to reduce debt.
taxpayers will not understand the demand from the commission that the eu increase its expenditure by seven at a time when expenditure is being cut at home.
mr president the economic picture across europe is very bleak. most member states including the united kingdom are increasing taxes and cutting expenditure.
our spending should be subject to the same discipline that we expect from the member states.
in britain the coalition government inherited an annual deficit of gbp one hundred and sixty billion when we came to office in.
my constituents do not enjoy the harsh medicine but they understand it is necessary after thirteen years of labour taxing spending and borrowing too much.
that means repudiating the debt.
at the same time the profits are going up and the richest corporations are hoarding eur three trillion in liquid assets.
mr president last week the irish taoiseach arrived home from the summit proclaiming a tremendous victory for the irish people.
the summit has not provided any solution for the crisis.
there is one sentence dealing with ireland in the statement which simply says that the euro group will examine the situation of the irish financial sector.
it does not deal with the unsustainable debt facing the irish people the greek people the portuguese spanish italian people and it does not tackle the collapse of private sector investment that has taken place across europe of eur three hundred billion in the course of the crisis.
it is as clear as mud.
radical socialist measures are needed to deal with the crisis.
the tnaiste eamon gilmore said that the deal lifts the bank debt burden from irish taxpayers. they were both very long on rhetoric and very short on detail and when you read the detail it is not very enlightening.
it means a capital tax on those uninvested profits public investment to create jobs and crucially taking the key sections of the economy into democratic public ownership in order to be able to plan a way out of this crisis and redevelop the economies in a sustainable way.
the smooth transition to the new cap post two thousand and thirteen is key and it is important that farmers' incomes are sustained. rural development spending must also be maintained in the transition period especially for spending which has been earmarked for countryside management and less favoured area payments.
mr president for the majority of farmers in northern ireland direct payments account for a large percentage of business income and are key to maintaining adequate cash flows.
a lack of investment and support for the farming community over a short period of time will have a negative impact on rural communities and businesses.
six eight increase is based on the forecast from member states of the amount of eu expenditure they think they will need for.
i hope that the commission the council and the parliament's committee on budgets can work together to bottom out the member states' estimates so that we can have a robust set of options on the table which will allow us to make an informed decision on the spending levels needed for.
we also need to examine whether there is scope for savings in the budget and agree various options to be put on the table.
it is also important that this parliament makes a contribution towards finding savings and i am sure that the working group looking into this will come forward with some concrete suggestions.
the commission's proposal for a.
i fear that we will soon be discussing another spike in this continuing crisis.
at the same time the people of europe continue to suffer.
significantly and very worryingly in this whole process the importance of national democracy has been diminished.
surely this house being directly elected by citizens should recognise that national governments having pursued the proper ratification of esm have the right to raise questions when those rules are changed.
in this house this week we have heard demands for people to be quiet after a summit.
mr president amid the continuing crisis yet another summit yet another set of short term fudges that buoy the market for a moment and then begin to unravel soon after.
mr president you might imagine the horror which british meps felt when we first saw the commission's proposals for what looks like a very routine adjustment for one year only to discover that the voluntary modulation mechanism much used in the uk
for the last year of the financial framework.
the commission like oliver twist would like to ask for more.
many member states are tightening their belts and reining in public spending.
we need to freeze the eu budget and to look to make cuts where possible.
that is thirteen followed by ten zeros.
we need regular evaluation of the eu budget to ensure that all spending is achieving its desired outcome.
so why should the commission be immune to austerity when it so quickly imposes it on others?
it is a number so large that it is almost incomprehensible. yet for the commission this colossal figure is simply not enough.
above all we have to think of the long term consequences. we are in a position where the world population is now seven billion and likely to go to nine billion over the next twenty or thirty years. there is not going to be any more land created in that time so we have to ensure that our policies firstly preserve
any transition has to be done on a gradual basis.
therefore i could not vote for this resolution giving a mandate to take to the budgetary trialogue which would have endorsed the commission's unrealistically inflated and actually unfounded budgetary proposals.
mr president british conservatives have consistently called for the eu to do less but do it better.
my constituents in london should not have to endure the prospects of more eu spending and largesse whilst every other tier of national government in my country makes cuts to its budgets resulting in many jobs being cut in public services.
in a time of widespread fiscal consolidation by member states it makes no sense to propose anything other than a spending freeze if not a reduction.
it is therefore vital that northern ireland plc can offer incentives to foreign companies to attract them to set up in the province and to bring with them investment and job creation in the private sector.
in recent times in northern ireland we have seen companies like the new york stock exchange and citigroup come to belfast.
it is therefore deeply concerning that the commission is proposing quite radical changes to the rules surrounding these incentives as part of the post two thousand and thirteen regional aid guidelines.
this situation is compounded in northern ireland by the fact that my constituency is the only part of the united kingdom to share a land border with a euro zone country and one which has a corporation tax rate of fifty less than the uk one.
mr president as we strive for economic recovery in northern ireland we face the challenge of attempting to rebalance our local economy by moving away from a reliance on the public sector for employment.
at a time when national governments all over europe are having to take drastic and sometimes socially divisive decisions to reduce public spending it is impossible to support an increase in spending across the eu via this budget.
we need to be more flexible in looking at member states' needs and looking for ways to save money.
all kinds of innovative programmes are coming through member states but they never seem to permeate through to this level.
we here in the european parliament could achieve a real increase in public support and we could really make inroads into public perception of our activities if we were simply to grasp this nettle and get on with delivering a budget that the people of europe could support.
i am sure that for many of my uk colleagues and particularly those other uk meps representing northern ireland in this house the timing of this report is rather ironic in light of the banking failures of the rbs group and the particular plight of ulster bank customers in my own constituency.
the technical problems that have consequently affected so many ulster bank clients with no access to bank accounts for several weeks and problems with direct debit facilities serve to highlight how important simple banking transactions have become to our everyday lives.
the situation in my constituency has caused great anger particularly since in great britain customers of rbs have had these problems resolved whilst ulster bank customers will have to endure further weeks of misery.