kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it is in any case clear that the october debate will not be the end of our discussions on emu.
two thousand and fourteen concerning services the european council will send a strong message that member states urgently have to improve the implementation of the services directive and remove unjustified or disproportionate barriers.
on the digital economy the european council will look at how europe's industry can regain momentum through increased investment in the digital economy promoting a consumer and business friendly digital single market and improving it skills.
we have to increase the trust of consumers and businesses in the digital economy; this requires a strong data protection framework and the modernisation of public administration. citizens and companies must all have the necessary it skills to benefit fully from the digital single market. the european council will put forward some specific proposals to address the situation.
finally the european council will take note of the state of play on the preparations for an eastern partnership summit to take place in vilnius on twenty eight and twenty nine november.
this week's european council will look at and take stock of progress in particular on the preparations for the launch of the youth employment initiative and implementation by the member states of the youth guarantee.
this remains one of our top priorities and it is the most important social challenge facing us.
this week's european council will focus on strengthening economic policy coordinaton and the social dimension of the emu following the recent communication from the commission on this issue.
heads of state or government will also come back to the issue of the banking union our most immediate priority.
it will also hold a discussion on the recent tragic accident off the coast of lampedusa.
the european council will come back with all these issues in december as well.
madam president president barroso honourable members i am pleased to be able to present to you this morning the preparations for this weekly european council.
the issue of innovation was discussed by the european council in detail in february.
although the situation of financial markets is less volatile we must continue to make progress towards the completion of emu.
in two thousand and five it was the pivotal moment of this project the french and the dutch had said no' to the eu constitution.
there is nothing right wing about that position;
i genuinely think that there is an opportunity for an electoral earthquake to happen in the european elections next year with a large number of people from all sides of this house who will come with a nation state agenda who will come saying let us have a europe as de gaulle might have said of the patries; let us not have a europe of political union'.
it is a normal sensible assertion of identity. what we are saying on our side of the argument you see you can scream and shout all you like which really rather proves to me why you are going to do so badly in the european elections next year because you are not listening we want to live and work and breathe in a europe of nation state democracy. we want to trade together we want to cooperate together.
what we are saying large numbers of us from every single eu member state is we do not want that flag.
we do not want the anthem that you all stood so ramrod straight for yesterday. we do not want eu passports.
if you think about it there is nothing extreme about that position.
we are happy to agree sensible common minimum standards and yes we want to control our own borders which is the rational logical and sensible thing for any nation state to do. we are not against immigration or immigrants. we believe there needs to be a degree of control and that is the message
you see ever since two thousand and five the real european debate has been about identity.
there is nothing left wing indeed about that position.
mr barroso stood up and said they did not really vote no'.
well let me help you.
we are going to bring down western civilisation.
at the same time these political forces are urging us to approve the mff the multiannual financial framework.
we have to start with a policy of legal economic migration in the european
it is the only way to avoid and eliminate illegal migration and human trafficking such as we have
we have one paragraph to say okay we will start a migration policy and we will have some ideas in june.
two thousand and fourteen that is what is happening in reality.
let us again look at this issue of common european bonds.
mr president i think this is probably a dangerous environment in which to mention ecclesiastes chapter three verse one but it does say to everything there is a season'.
the second thing we need to do is to revisit the issue of common european bonds. i think george soros has a point when he says for example that this would lift italy out of its current mire and put it on the road to recovery.
what they should have spoken about is solidarity and i think that is what we need to talk about here.
there are two things i would like to see coming out of the european council one is to put the social market economy at the heart of our talk about recovery.
adenauer said that people should not serve business business should serve people.
i would like to follow that up by taking to task the comments of the well intentioned bishops of ireland recently about what they call austerity when they should actually be talking about consolidation the only thing that is actually working getting people back to work and working well and restoring confidence.
let us talk more about the social market economy a christian democrat principle which is shared by the social democrats and others and let us put people at the heart of our recovery.
we had a very lively exchange this morning with the presidents of the groups and that was very important in clearing the air particularly on the budget issue.
there are signs of economic recovery so there is hope here.
our biggest problem is youth unemployment and a lack of cash and credit for smes so that they can employ young people.
we know the problem but the council has to find and come forward with those solutions.
for this reason the eastern partnership is the right instrument.
we need political associations and economic integration with those countries that wish to have this partnership with us.
we do not want a new division in europe.
goal. citizens expect us to deliver
this is real money and it needs to be used as soon as possible.
the fund should bear some of the risk so as to make the projects more attractive to private investors. with regard to your comment mr bullmann you have raised a number of very valid points to which we will have to find answers during our internal and interinstitutional discussions. we agree that the money should come to where it
but in order for the private money to flow some key principles are important such as depoliticising the decision making process at fund level and ensuring full independence in the selection of
we have only just started our examination of the proposal and like the parliament we in the council need some time to come to a position. however it is already clear that the additionality of this instrument will be essential. the goal will be to support projects which are not currently being
proposal. however as the presidency we believe we can deliver on the ambitious deadline set by the european council without compromising on the quality of the legislation.
but let me stress that this is just one of the ways in which member states can support investment with the efsi.
during this debate i took note of five blocks of questions on themes we discussed today.
we believe that by proposing the three pillar approach the commission has made the right choice because raising the level of investments is a rewarding exercise in the long term but a very complex one in the short term. the presidency is ready to act not only on the proposal to establish the fund but also in the area of removing barriers
criteria and there are many questions that need to be clarified in order to get this
funded for example because they are perceived as too risky.
goal. it is clear that an ambitious investment plan will help support demand in the short term and improve europe's growth potential in the longer
a significant increase in investment activity will bring a higher level of employment to the eu as
as long as we work constructively together we can achieve this ambitious
they will also be able to contribute directly at project level or throughout investment platforms.
they say that our everyday job is to invest in europe but unfortunately there are not enough viable and reliable well structured projects.
we are enhancing technical assistance in order to make sure that the whole of europe all parts of europe can benefit from new opportunities.
it is a very good example to all of us.
the second angle is a transparent project pipeline for which we would like to collect economically viable reliable well structured projects so that private money can easily find projects from various parts of europe. this has been wished for by institutional investors and
we have to work very closely with each other;
this is the best way to use structural funds if you want to provide more loans to small and medium sized enterprises.
the third part which in my mind is the most important part of the plan is the single market part because it is a european structural reform which can create new markets new opportunities for small but also for bigger companies in europe and there
i would encourage every country to do the same.
for those of us who are interested in helping smes and are interested in increased public resources for sme lending i would encourage you to look at what the spanish government has done.
that is why the investment plan is not a one off stimulus measure.
the proposal states that the efsi should target projects with a higher risk return profile than existing eib and union instruments in order to ensure additionality with existing operations.
this is a key point because to add value the efsi must be able to support projects with a higher risk profile in order to get investment flowing in the countries and sectors of our economy where it is needed most.
on accountability parliament will have the right to organise at any time hearings with the managing director of the efsi on the performance of the
for. the crisis of confidence is holding back the investment flows that are the lifeblood of the european economy. taken as a whole these new measures should restore investor confidence and get investment flowing into the regions and sectors of our economy where job creation is needed
contributions in the form of capital and guarantees to the efsi will not be counted when assessing the fiscal adjustment.
market. to me this is the most important part of the investment
the timetable is very ambitious. council negotiations kicked off on nineteen january two thousand and fifteen in an ad hoc working group established for the investment plan for europe.
we have also proposed creating a transparent pipeline for projects and setting up a european investment advisory hub to make sure public and private promoters get the technical assistance they need to develop viable projects that can benefit from this funding. in line with the objectives of our plan each of these measures will remove uncertainty in order to mobilise much needed private investment. for member states we are providing certainty by clarifying how the new entity will be governed how member states' contributions will be treated under the stability and growth pact and how projects can best be developed to have a tangible impact on growth and jobs. for private entities we are providing certainty with a legal text
plan. it is the way to change europe structurally and permanently in the right direction and to open up new investment opportunities.
an investment committee made up of six independent experts will take the decisions on project selection.
regarding sgp treatment the commission will treat favourably member states' contributions to efsi investment under the sgp. the efsi will be open to contributions from member states directly or through national promotional banks. member states can also contribute at the level of different projects.
the proposal presented today must be complemented by a series of measures to remove barriers to investment and to create a true single
two thousand and fifteen since we are moving very fast it is important to take the time to explain very clearly what we are doing.
matter. finally i want to signal that while there are a lot of technical details in the plans presented today and we rightly need to discuss those and get them right it is important never to lose sight of the big picture and of what it is all
most. the urgency is very real at political level because the needs are very great on the ground. i look forward to working hand in hand with this house so that we adopt these proposals as soon as possible and have a meaningful impact on europe's investment.
these guidelines will set out the risk profile of the fund and the criteria for the selection of projects.
mr katainen well meaning people are coming to try and find solutions but the solution you are seeking with the strategic investment fund is not the correct solution.
they worked hard on it.
i welcome that. after the crash of two thousand and eight the eurozone is the only region in the world that is not growing.
they held seminars on the euro.
they pontificated on it.
the impacts on its people are severe unemployment suicides austerity impacting everybody and we see that only more significantly in greece.
in a desperate desire to match the growth and success of the united states academics across europe came up with a false solution that of the euro.
until we do that no amount of investment will close the gap.
how many microbusinesses have to close down before we solve the vat moss problem?
' but let me ask how many investors have to leave the eu before we remove the barriers?
what we need to do is cut red tape and bring down those barriers to investment.
so i think we need to recognise that this fund will not be a silver bullet.
this platform tells me that they want to come to europe but they are worried that eu legislation would not allow their business to succeed.
and once they start their businesses we need to make sure that eu legislation does not shut them down.
so the true test of success here is not how many roads are built or how many pipelines are laid but it is how many entrepreneurs will get financing and create sustainable jobs.
but i often speak to investors who have money to invest but are scared off by red tape and see other parts of the world as far more attractive.
let me give you one example. i currently lend to entrepreneurs around the world via a successful american peer to peer lending platform.
in fact probably the most important part of the proposal is not the fund itself but a so called third pillar.
so what do they do?
there is no vat threshold and if they refuse to sell to customers in other eu countries they are now being told that they may be breaking eu anti discrimination laws.
the answer is blowing in the wind'.
how many people have to be unemployed before we open the markets?
so by all means let us speak in this house about helping smes by all means let us talk about a digital single market by all means let us talk about these investment programmes but if we are at all serious let us rip away the red tape that is harming businesses today here and now.
now we know that this law was aimed at the big businesses such as amazon which sell via low tax countries but this one size fits all legislation is also shutting down microenterprises selling digital products such as ebooks online designs or online knitting patterns for example.
we are in fact very worried that member states are not so far making capital pledges for the fund and we know very well that this stronger capital base for the fund is fundamental to enable the fund to increase its lending capacity;
so this is a critical point and this is not going well.
to make a national contribution so this is a bad signal. i would say that we need to overcome this obstacle.
europe needs a massive investment project adapted to the needs of the real economy and that is why we need to make sure that all member states including those which are in excessive deficit procedure can contribute.
this issue has been a priority for all three eu institutions which in itself is a very good starting point for further discussions. i am grateful for this opportunity to share my views on it.
the eu fund for strategic investments is a top priority for the latvian presidency and for the council.
the investment package is designed to deliver on this dual goal and it is of the utmost importance that the co legislators work closely together and as quickly as possible.
the current investment situation requires resolute and swift action.
we want to see the first projects in place this year.
two meetings took place last week and the next one is scheduled for tomorrow.
in fact the first intensive exchange of views on the proposal at ministerial level took place yesterday.
this is going to test our mutual commitment to boost europe's economic recovery.
by helping to identify well structured reliable and viable projects we ensure that the private sector participates and that the money is channelled to the real economy.
so we must pay due attention to these measures accompanying the setting up of the fund as they will be key to the successful delivery of strategic projects across europe.
however it is perhaps the third pillar improving the investment environment that will ultimately be the most important in terms of fostering private investments. this is a much broader issue that needs to be tackled at many different levels.
from an eu perspective it is a question of completing the single market.
a number of measures have already been announced by the commission for instance under the banner of the capital market union.
we therefore look forward to the commission's proposals and initiatives in these areas.
as you know the plan is not designed to solve every single problem in the euro area or the european union from macroeconomic shocks to deflation energy security and local authorities' debt problems but it is a step in the right direction and most importantly
it has been designed in the most flexible way so that it can grow.
structural reforms fiscal responsibility and investment are the three keys to restoring growth and creating jobs.
madam president we need investment. we need private sector investment and investors entrepreneurs and small businesses need to know that we are on their side.
my email box is full of horror stories of small business which have shut and stopped trading in the fasting growing sector of our economy digital entrepreneurs.
our new vat rules are meant to be for big companies trying to avoid taxes but for small companies they are too complicated too expensive and do not work in the digital age.
they need an exemption.
please do not just talk about changing this.
do not just think about changing it.
that will not be taken seriously.
council please give microbusinesses an exemption.
we are not halfway but we are on the way and i think it makes it even more important to deliver.
i was looking for a conditionality in terms of structural reforms.
i understand this has not been taken on board.
if the eu is coming with an investment plan i would expect the commission to try at least to impose on the individual member states their own national investment plans.
different projects are being proposed.
i have seen some of the lists.
but i would be much more confident if in the framework of these submissions we were to see concrete issues addressed by the national administrations in terms of completing their own bit of the internal market.
enforcing the legislation the commission knows very well where and on what issues individual member states are failing.
as mr kamall is a true liberal i can agree with him that cutting red tape is an important issue.
what is the commitment of the member states?
what is the message?
otherwise we know it is important and we know that meetings are taking place.
therefore i welcome this legislative proposal for a strategic fund that is in front of us but the onus is on all of us to make it work and ensure that we have implementation forthwith.
the main points that i think some of the other colleagues have raised are that the selection of the right projects is essential and that they do add eu added value and are not just projects that would have been funded in any case.
and member states have to inject some more money into the fund in a flexible way in their national budgets.
secondly others have mentioned the design of lorry cabs;
mr president we have to remember that reducing road fatalities is something that the member states in the european union have already agreed to do.
what we should now do is turn our attention to the number of seriously injured on our roads;
this is something that i would have liked to have seen in the resolution.
and what measures can specifically be put in place to help more vulnerable road users such as cyclists pedestrians and young children?
i think one and a half million people are reported to be injured every year on eu roads with three hundred thousand of those reported to be seriously injured.
can the commission also indicate to us the importance of road surfaces and the lack of maintenance that is now rife in member states and what significant effect that has on road accidents?
if aviation or our railways had the accident figures that road transport has there would be a public outcry.
parliament requested not only that the commission came up with a common definition quickly but that once established an ambitious target would be set for cutting down on serious injuries in road accidents.
as you know commissioner the european parliament adopted a road safety report back in two thousand and eleven pushing for ambitious eu targets to be set in reducing the number of needless accidents on our roads by.
now is the time for us to stop taking a back seat and to stop pretending that a problem is not there.
specific targets on road safety have proved successful in raising the level of ambition and achieving effective implementation of road safety policies at national and local level.
that is why we so welcome the recent progress report from the commission which announces a common definition of serious injuries and a system of collecting data.
across europe there seems to be a general acceptance or refusal to acknowledge the danger we face as road users so the more we can do to address this issue the better.
in the absence of a common definition across the eu for serious injuries we were not able to set a target for local regional and national authorities to work towards.
i fail to understand how we can continue to be so complacent about these figures there seems to be simply an unacceptable complacency when it comes to road safety.
while there is no doubt that specific measures and initiatives can best be tailored and adapted at national and local level eu leadership in this area has proved successful in the past in getting member states to recognise the seriousness of the problem.
can i ask the commission when it will set a target to reduce serious injuries by two thousand and twenty and equally important how will it make sure that member states are working towards that target? what accompanying measures and initiatives will the commission put forward to support tackling serious injuries
you will see from the motion for a resolution tabled by the committee as a follow up to the oral question that we already have a few ideas on this.
i very much appreciate parliament's support for the idea of setting a strategic injury reduction target.
that approach proved very useful for reducing fatalities so i hope that we can repeat this success with reducing injuries.
two thousand and fourteen based on this information the commission will propose an ambitious target for reducing injuries.