kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
may i thank my shadows for their equally constructive approach. there are two questions which run throughout the theme of the report i have produced why do we need to pursue the smart regulation agenda?
europe was once the leader in developing ideas and exporting its success across the world.
we must remain open for business.
this is why the closing approach to immigration in some of our member states concerns me.
setting up business in europe is actually getting too costly and time consuming.
i am no advocate of the pull up the drawbridge europe much to the contrary.
i have tried along with my colleagues to maintain a constructive approach throughout when compiling my report.
with such immediate problems focus undeniably turns to the short and medium term; yet even greater challenges await europe in the future.
in times of highly mobile capital fast pace innovation and ever quickening production cycles the economic cost of holding up business with such bureaucracy is unsustainable.
these difficult challenges must be met with the best policy responses built up through evidence and consultation so as to ensure that the public can understand and support the solutions which governments and the european union find.
as soon as you leave the bubble of brussels most ordinary europeans find it very difficult to understand what the eu is and when they see the effects of some of what originates here they ask whose side are you on?
why should it cost four times as much to set up a business in europe as compared to the us brazil or indeed india?
domestically we face generation defining problems in the energy sector and managing the environment together with finding a successful growth model for the twenty first century. many of the issues affect the very fabric that makes up our society and we must not divide into extremism or disillusionment but come together to find the solutions.
having spent much time steering the eu india free trade agreement through this house i despair at the obstacles being put in place in some of our member states.
we as policy makers must do our very best to support these engines of the european economy yet lamentably our current regulatory framework continues to stifle business and entrepreneurs seeking to create jobs and growth in europe.
europe must remain open for business.
at the same time i make no apologies for self examination on behalf of this house with a verdict of room for improvement'.
with india and china literally breathing down our necks it is essential that the eu and the member states take action to create a framework fostering economic competitiveness and promoting growth if we are going to be able to meet this long term challenge.
we must create a new vision of europe one which is seen as a most attractive place to come and work and a place of opportunities not one of difficulties and complications.
our maze of regulation directly affects our citizens a considerable number of whom have lost their jobs during the financial crisis and are now seeking new opportunities for work and it is hugely important that new businesses are supported and are able to create new employment.
our attention must not only be focused on ourselves here in europe though the rising competitiveness of our neighbours throughout the world makes it essential.
the fundamental weakness of eu regulation is the assumption that one size fits all.
these reports are doing a disservice to small and medium sized businesses up and down britain by pretending that any reform of the eu legislative procedure will take away the burden imposed by the implementation of eu regulation.
i would like to call on the commission and council to work towards more transparent rules on freedom of information and review their rules concerning access to these documents.
post lisbon that is a duty that is incumbent upon all three of our institutions plus national parliaments.
eu law eu legislation is our product and we all together have to get it right.
the making of eu law must be done transparently and openly so that our citizens and businesses can easily participate in the process.
let me say something about how i imagine the best legislative process.
it would start with open consultation and participation possible for all.
we would then see a simple understandable citizens' summary so that everybody can see what is proposed by the legislation.
we would then have an amendment process that can be easily followed electronically through all our institutions in the same way so that our citizens can participate.
we would have transparency of the lobbying process which we are beginning to obtain by our work on the joint register.
when we reach final agreement on legislation we have to show exactly what that is.
i hope one day to see the reality.
mr president one of the colleagues said that legislation is our product here as politicians and it is so some of the complaints we make about it to the commission and others we could make about ourselves.
we overcomplicate we sometimes table amendments that are not clear and the tragedy is that the words that are finally voted on and agreed between the commission the council and parliament are words that are then implemented in member states in national legislation.
sometimes that is done haphazardly and slowly but usually these things come to pass.
i think there is an onus on us to legislate better in this house.
i know that journalists who come here find it very difficult to follow or indeed read the various reports that come before us.
i know that i have been here seven years now but in the first year in this parliament there was no induction into drafting or amending legislation so we need to look at how we do business ourselves and make the process better.
it will therefore be important to reach an agreement on this mechanism between the council and parliament.
despite the repeated calls for europe to speak with a common voice including from the european parliament we have not yet managed to reap the benefits of acting as one block.
only a coherent position will allow europe to influence the global agenda on energy in a way commensurate with its weight and role.
a common regulatory framework in the eu has important consequences for our external partners.
diversification of supply and strengthened cooperation on sustainable energy policies.
the eu's external relations in the energy field should go beyond efforts to ensure the steady flow of energy but also address sustainable energy research and innovation stable and transparent energy markets international standards for key technologies and products and energy efficiency.
as i said this is a first set of steps on which the union must build in the future.
yet past experiences clearly show that together member states can achieve much greater results than on their own.
the mandatory submission of existing igas having an impact on the internal market for energy the confirmation that the commission has the possibility to participate upon request in negotiations as an observer and to provide advice as well as the possibility of performing upon request ex ante compatibility checks of negotiated agreements with eu legislation are all likely to further compliance and consistency
i can assure you that the secure and steady flow of energy at competitive prices is for all of us a fundamental necessity for the eu but also a major challenge.
we also share the view expressed in the report that coherence and coordination on external energy activities needs to be improved at eu level including on the energy agreements with third countries.
in external relations national objectives too often prevail without consideration for the common eu objectives.
with internal market rules legal certainty for investors and not least solidarity among member states.
without coordinated action we will not be able to reap the benefits of a single european energy market of five hundred million consumers and safeguard the security of supply for our citizens.
the proposals made by the commission last september represent an important step in our efforts to develop a common voice and also respond to the request of the european council of four february. two thousand and eleven the commission welcomes the fact that the report recognises the importance of the external energy policy for the achievement of the eu energy objectives and stresses the need to promote regulatory convergence
we should avoid supply only or one issue relationships with our partners.
another element i would like to emphasise is that the eu partnerships with suppliers transit countries and consumers should reflect a strategic and comprehensive approach.
we look forward to parliament's continued support in our effort to develop a true external eu energy policy and to the continued discussion on the specific external energy activities.
this is important because of the role that energy plays in the overall political and economic relations with many of our partner countries and because of the transformations we have seen in the energy field.
the report discussed today contains many important points which the commission will take into due consideration when further developing the external energy policy and implementing its concrete activities.
while the presidency compromise proposal on the mechanism is definitely below the ambition of the commission's initial text we would of course have liked to see a stronger approach it is a first step in improving transparency on such agreements.
we need to ensure that internal market principles are respected and that eu energy security is promoted in a coherent way.
we have made progress in strengthening our policies within the eu. at the same time a stronger and more assertive external energy policy reflecting the full strength of the eu on the global scene is equally necessary to achieve our energy objectives.
we have created what our colleague antonio tajani has described as an industrial massacre in europe.
we are bankrupting europe for a theory that was speculative to start with and is looking increasingly implausible.
we have forced up the price of energy and undermined our industrial competitiveness.
here are the official satellite data from remote sensing systems.
future generations will look back on our catastrophic collective climate paranoia and compare it with witch burning in the sixteenth century or with the dutch tulip mania in the seventeenth.
madam president we have wasted vast amounts of money on expensive and intermittent renewables.
but colleagues there has been no global warming for nearly twenty years.
no child in school today has actually experienced global warming.
we have driven jobs and investment offshore.
obviously the problem is going to get worse.
but this is conditional on others doing the same. otherwise as my colleague mr kari pointed out we are not going to make any difference.
because another issue where india is having a problem is the global phase out of hydrofluorocarbons is. the eu going to propose as part of the montreal protocol a global phase out there or are we only going for words? that is something else i would like to know from the commission.
for example at this moment in bonn india is asking whether the eu wants to step up its ambition level before two thousand and twenty which is one of the negotiation tracks.
the eu can do that very easily for example by elimination of the huge surplus of allowances.
on the question of the transformation of the energy sector i do not see why the commission is at the same time going to north africa and doing a lot of deals on gas giving us a huge lock in to gas whereas we are talking about decarbonisation for the longer term.
so these discussions on the road to paris are important.
so they are important but i would like everyone to remember that you do catch more wasps with honey than vinegar.
i am happy to vote in favour of their position on both files. i would like to say that in my group we believe that it is possible to be ambitious and pragmatic in our approach to greenhouse gas emissions. i do not agree that words are cheap.
let us make sure that the eu rhetoric is ambitious encouraging but not filled with recrimination and the language of shame and blame.
it is important that we set the scene and the tone and i would like to give my thanks to mr arias caete for his role in this because all the feedback i have been getting has been that he has been playing a very strong role on that international stage.
we all saw recently the us senate voting against the general scientific advice grudgingly accepting that climate change existed but denying any anthropogenic connection and indeed those of us who went on the environment trip to washington saw that at first hand.
iceland participates in the joint fulfilment on the same basis as the member states.
that is unfortunate but we should in no way condemn them for it. rather we should ask them again how much more they can do to push forward.
we have got to be doing much more.
i can think of no better way of stating the obvious which is that we have many more steps to take but because a distance is far does not mean we should not be pushing as hard as we possibly can.
right now the scottish government have announced that they have failed to meet their ambitious climate change targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide.
that is only a small step;
madam president despite the fact that there has been no evidence of global warming for the past fifteen years the eu is now ratifying a new agreement to approve yet more ambitious targets for the union and its member states when burdensome eu regulations and utopian green goals are already ruining our industries and driving a large number of our companies abroad.
major polluting countries are abstaining when it comes to committing to the doha amendment.
major economies have abandoned this obsolete theory to which some never subscribed and giving priority to the prosperity of their countries and their people.
let us start having a more realistic attitude towards this topic.
he said we should not fool ourselves nobody is going to start to shut down their industries.
so words are important but even more important is how they are interpreted and the deeds that follow.
madam president after thanking the two rapporteurs i would like to broaden the scope of this debate towards the general debate on climate change and the headlines in today's newspapers.
if we want to avoid the closure of industries we need extremely ambitious policy.
the same was done.
' i guess that is the whole point.
we should call on all these countries to ratify as soon as possible because this is of tremendous importance to ensure the necessary global response to climate change.
i am completely in favour of the ratification of the doha amendment to the kyoto protocol as it will send a strong international signal about the efforts and the leadership of the eu and its member states in addressing climate change. i believe we need to increase political momentum towards a strong paris agreement and this is why i believe that all the other parties to the kyoto protocol should rapidly advance their ratification process.
it signifies an important step for the continued effort in the eu to tackle its emissions output. nevertheless as we gear up for the most significant global climate summit in a decade ambition remains uneven across the member states.
in my own country ireland the government is currently progressing a climate bill which has no binding targets for lowering carbon emissions not even the mandatory targets set at eu level. it talks of a lowcarbon ireland but it does not even define what that means in real terms.
it also worryingly has no mention of global climate justice.
to add insult to injury the independent advisory council is anything but that and lacks safeguards against short term political pressure.
so ireland as with the other eu member states must outline a long term credible vision for a transition to a low carbon economy.
i would have wanted to enable full and legal separation where necessary to make the socially vital part safer but ultimately this reform debate is more than the question of tackling the complexity of retail investment structures.
our proposals of course do not go into the detail of how structural reform should be implemented but instead provide several key principles to feed into the commission consultation process which finishes on eleven july and the forthcoming legislative proposal.
structural reform through separation therefore must be a part of the reform process.
structural reform must stimulate economic growth much needed growth in fact by supporting the provision of credit to the economy in particular to smes and start ups;
our reform principles focus therefore on reducing excessive risk ensuring competition reducing complexity and limiting interconnectedness in eu banks by separating banking activities that are essential for the real economy from risky trading and investment activities ensuring the essential retail activities continue uninterrupted by problems caused by the investment arm ensuring that risky trading activities do not benefit from implicit guarantees or subsidies or the use of insured deposits or tax payer bailouts by ensuring those activities bear the risk and costs of the activities.
of course banking will always have risks but ultimately those risks have to be borne and in a free and fair market economy they should not be borne by the taxpayer providing a very generous safety net.
i welcome the fact that we achieved a consensus on the need for european structural reform of the banking sector.
it must restore trust and confidence in banks which continue to be low.
structural reform should remove risk to public finances caused by banks being too big to fail and deliver a change in banking culture which too often is dominated by excessive risk taking in the pursuit of profits.
retail customers have no alternatives to their high street banks for access to essential payment deposit and credit services and i would argue as legislators we have an overriding economic social and political imperative to avoid disruption to the continuing provision of those services.
what we are arguing for is a structured and responsible universal banking model to ensure banks deliver funding to the real economy.
it must provide greater resilience against potential financial crises;
it is clear that we need a european framework which mitigates the potential fragmentation of european financial markets as a result of member states introducing their own banking reform laws including the uk france germany and possibly belgium and the netherlands.
of course i would have wanted a more ambitious reform of banking structures.
of course the key objective of banking reform must be to deliver a safe stable effective and efficient banking system that operates in a competitive market economy and serves the needs of the real economy and of customers and consumers.
to those critics of reform who claim we are breaking up the universal banking model i would respond that nowhere in this report or in the high level group report is there any proposal for a ban on banks carrying out any activities in investment services market making or underwriting.
it is also about the broader reforms of the culture of compensation around bonuses it is about injecting competition into the banking system it is about ensuring lending for growth giving consumers the right to switch accounts.
yes we have created all these new european supervisory agencies and we have created european supervisory architecture which we like to boast about but we have not tackled the fundamental problem that if a bank went bust tomorrow it would still want taxpayers' money to bail it out.
this should have been job number one.
the first was no taxpayer bailout and where there is taxpayer bailout because of politics or for whatever reason let us make sure we are not using deposit guarantee schemes or anything else from the retail side to subsidise investment banking.
let us make sure that when a bank collapses people can still continue to take their money out and pay their bills so you do not get civil unrest.
the second issue is the issue of director liability.
i have no objection to people earning lots of money if that is what banks want to pay them and shareholders pay them but when they fail they must be prepared to pay the price of failure. thirdly we have to tackle the issue of accounting standards.
mr president thanks to everyone that participated in the debate. i want in my defence to say that i produced an ambitious report. i did not produce a british proposal. in fact this week i shared a panel with john vickers who is the author of the vickers reform proposal and he categorically said that vickers was never designed to apply to the entire eu banking sector.
so let us not argue over whether we need a uk a german a french or a dutch proposal.
we have a consensus that we actually do need a european framework because we need a european framework to allow member states to implement their national reforms on equal principles which should not be a race to the bottom.
but it should not be an excuse for a weak or cosmetic reform at eu level.
i know that some have feared that the reform would be costly;
i presume costly for banks.
but the fact is that the costs up to now have been borne by depositors and they have paid too high a price for the mistakes and the risks taken by the banking sector.
to those who say as mr kamall said that the reform comes too late i would say better late than never.
we will have a big debate on the legislative proposal and that i believe is the time to get the details right.
we will have the knowledge from the impact assessment;
we will have the feedback from the consultation.
so i look forward to working with the commissioner to make sure that we get a good and effective structural reform proposal based on the principles that we have laid down in our report and which i hope will receive a majority from this parliament in tomorrow's vote.
social protection including the development of the social protection floor initiative is another area of interest for this year's ilo conference.
mr president on behalf of my colleague lszl andor i would like to welcome the fact that the motion for a resolution for discussion today addresses so many crucial aspects of social policy's external dimension. the commission firmly supports closer cooperation at global level with employment and social objectives going hand in hand with economic
worldwide including gender equality and non discrimination policy as a cross cutting issue. the commission will also continue to promote sustainable development decent work labour standards and corporate social responsibility in other policy areas such as trade and development policy. in two thousand and eleven
the commission also supports close cooperation with and among international organisations which and i am quoting the oecd and the international labour organisation is vital for achieving a level playing field internationally and in particular for setting international labour standards.
in particular we support the continuation of discussion and the coordination of efforts within the g.
the one hundredth session of the ilo began last week it will focus on a new ilo convention on domestic workers an issue which this house discussed recently.
twenty in this connection the preparations for a g twenty labour and employment ministers meeting provide a good example of the increased cohesion emerging at world level.
the commission intends to present a communication on corporate social responsibility outlining proposals for further action at international level including promoting cooperate social responsibility in relations with partner countries.
objectives.
mr president i congratulate richard falbr on the comprehensive approach to international labour standards in his report. i have been pleased to contribute to his work on the specific question of corporate social responsibility. tonight this gives us a chance to influence the commission in advance of its csr communication by asking it firstly to maintain the open definition of csr latterly adopted by it in the multi stakeholder forum;