kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
between risk reduction and risk sharing we need to work on our economic risk absorption capacity.
in that sense i believe broadly speaking that the commission's draft recommendation raises the right issues.
and this brings me to the so called five presidents' report on completing europe's economic and monetary union which the president of the european parliament and i co authored together with presidents juncker tusk and draghi.
these discussions are a follow up to the euro area recommendation working on best practices and benchmarking for example on the tax wedge on labour or pension reforms.
over the last years member states have made significant steps but the smooth functioning of a monetary union requires further efforts to reduce divergence in economic and fiscal performance financial market fragmentation as well as differences in national institutional architecture.
this is a fundamental shift in our approach where risks will be pushed back to where they belong.
the measures outlined in the five presidents' report and the recent commission initiatives to operationalise them are given careful consideration in different fora.
we aimed to strike the right balance between realism and vision which is reflected in a stage based approach.
these are intended to pave the way for more far reaching measures for completing the emu in the second stage.
it is the surest way to address the still unacceptably high unemployment rates and legacy debt in many countries.
similarly we need a comprehensive approach to completing the banking union in order to decisively break the vicious sovereign banking nexus.
as far as the european parliament is concerned i believe it should be able to fully exploit its prerogatives under the current treaties and secondary legislation when it comes to the european semester.
he is best placed for this so i will not go into the details.
structural reforms and obviously sustainable and growth friendly fiscal policies.
the process of deepening the emu is indeed also about risk sharing but in order to make progress on this front member states need to make progress in further reducing risks.
for example dealing with over one hundred and fifty national options and discretions left to date reducing sovereign risks and applying the bail in rules in full to ensure a level playing field.
this is needed to improve competitiveness in particular by unlocking the euro area's productive capacity and thereby fostering higher sustainable and inclusive growth.
developing the capital markets union therefore should be a priority.
this affects national and european policy makers as well as national parliaments and the european parliament.
however since we will not be able to count on several supportive factors such as low oil prices and a very accommodative monetary policy forever we need to ensure that the recovery becomes self sustained in particular given the weaker external environment. therefore it is essential that policy agendas remain focused on investment
in other words we need to be clear on what we want to achieve and then determine how to go about it.
but more needs to be done to strengthen the resilience of our banking system.
the key element in building the banking union was the paradigm shift from bail out to bail in.
the preparatory work for moving to the second stage of completing the emu should include a debate on the role and competences of the different institutional actors in a deep and genuine monetary union.
until mid two thousand and seventeen it proposes short term measures to make the euro area more resilient while making the best possible use of the current legal framework.
pursuing convergence is a key theme in the report.
one lesson learned from the crisis is that member states that are sharing a single currency need to be particularly mindful of the possible spillovers both positive and negative of their domestic policies.
the report pointed out that despite significant improvements in recent years more work is needed to make the emu more resilient and its institutional architecture more complete in order to maximise the benefits of participating in the single currency to its members.
this is why the issues i have just mentioned have figured and will continue to figure prominently in the eurogroup's work programme notably in the context of our thematic discussions on growth and jobs.
as the eurogroup president i support a timely discussion of the euro area recommendation which gives a more prominent role to the euro area dimension in the context of a revamped european semester.
it is crucial if we want a thriving euro area in a globalised world and it is also the only way to preserve our european social model. although the euro area recommendation and the country specific recommendations by and large address the right issues effective economic policy coordination requires attention for implementation at member state level.
it will not surprise you that i am convinced that private risk sharing is as important as public risk sharing.
it is essential that we join efforts to build dynamic flexible and upward converging economies that are supported by a well integrated financial market with private risk sharing and by sound public finances with fiscal buffers for difficult times.
the key question is however how much sovereignty should be shared under which conditions.
the gradual economic recovery is ongoing and is relatively broadly based across member states.
this entails repairing economic and fiscal imbalances through a consistent and faithful application of instruments like the stability and growth pact and the macroeconomic imbalance procedure.
this is as important as decisive progress towards a european deposit insurance scheme or a credible backstop to the single resolution fund.
the collateral social costs have been high but the structures set up under the stability and growth pact might reflect too much the contingencies surrounding the euro crisis of that past.
two thousand and eight will they be adequate to face up to the challenges of the future and to a new kind of crisis?
all of it was set up in fire fighting mode with the eu leaders doing their best to contain crisis after crisis.
success in dealing with them has been very limited.
do we need to think outside the box?
perhaps beyond the consolidation of existing management structures we need a root and branch appraisal of how emu has developed up to now.
is the setting up of new bureaucratic councils to preach about competitiveness really the right answer?
as we bemoan the lack of competitiveness could it be that the design of the stability and growth pact itself inhibits competitiveness.
not to undermine the achievements but to update them?
as we follow the liturgy of the european semester has the time also come to reflect radically on the design of the economic and monetary union?
today's challenges arise from economic fragility and stagnation from lack of job creation and competitiveness and from low public and private investment.
now that only means additional pressure on wages so that seemingly things will start growing.
we see that within the euro area there are countries that fare perfectly well these are mostly northern countries yet there are other countries that as a result of irresponsible policies in the past have got into big trouble so this is not a question of the common currency.
is compliance with the rules that we have already agreed on. the european union loses more and more credibility every time that the member states decide not to comply with a european directive.
the eu needs more binding regulations because the goodwill of national governments cannot be taken for granted.
that was not a question but a statement. as long as this debate continues to centre around one liners such as we need convergence' yes we all agree. we disagree about how we get there.
what i miss in this debate is that one political group wants to focus on only one element and the other on only the other elements.
we should be honest and say we need this mix and that this also requires painful decisions in the member states.
why can you not admit for example that it is a good thing to lower debt while at the same time stimulating investment?
mr etheridge i agree with your identification of choices but i believe my choices are different from yours because i really think that the solution for us europeans is to move forward quickly in completing and rebalancing the economic and monetary union.
who sets the limits and where and when are we going to discuss the content and also evaluate the effects of these policies? shouldn't the european parliament have the answers?
it seems that for the euro area to institutionalise its functioning within the european economic governance framework the council's recommendation indeed makes an important step forward but much more should be done in order to form the environment of legitimacy for the euro area's economic decision making and this should be crystal clear.
the government had to take a lot of criticism;
therefore as a friend of the oecd guidelines in my view now the foremost international csr standard and also one signed up to by governments i strongly support paragraph twenty five that future eu trade agreements should specifically cite the guidelines.
as a member of the advisory board of the global reporting initiative can i endorse the objective of transparency in paragraph fifteen but also ask that the imminent public consultation by the commission on non financial disclosure moves decisively towards the principle of integrated reporting on financial social environmental and human rights impacts by companies.
the commissioner should particularly read ruggie's strong criticism of governmental failures to respect human rights considerations as the commission develops its new competence on investment.
in recent years my own work has increasingly involved representing european interests in advancing global csr mechanisms.
the commission officially operates national contact points under those guidelines and i hope this commitment will also be reviewed.
while the philosophy behind the three reports is similar the details ideas and responses we have shared today cannot be addressed adequately in the short time at my disposal.
i would be rather sceptical about having a special period between the end of the negotiations and the initialling of the agreement.
with respect to the jadot report i have heard calls for a climate chapter in each bilateral agreement.
let me add that this is not only a matter of trade or of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
some ideas are workable others less so because we operate in a legal an institutional and a political framework both as a union of twenty seven member states and as a member of the wto.
i think this would be a considerable contribution to development in sustainable conditions. in short congratulations for the three reports.
i am all for environmental sustainability because the future does not belong to us.
my starting point is that there is definitely much scope for improved international governance and better coordination between international organisations. my next consideration is that in order to leverage trade policy to achieve a better social and environmental outcome we need to set feasible objectives.
we have to take account of what is acceptable to our trade partners and at what price.
the reports under consideration today include very specific orientations on possible avenues for increasing the scope effectiveness consistency and transparency of our actions as regards social and environmental provisions in ftas including provisions on csr or climate change issues.
we all know for instance that options such as border measures raise a number of issues how to measure how to monitor and so on.
we must also be aware that balancing different interests is at the core of political action.
it is useful to note that many of these issues are being considered in the update of the oecd guidelines for multinational enterprises due for adoption in.
you will understand that in the short time i have at my disposal today it is impossible to go into the details of each one. but allow me to make a few general considerations.
the eu has a general interest in improving international governance including through increased coherence between actions in different fora the wto the ilo the international climate negotiations and so on.
they must be implementable'.
they all address policy coherence and more particularly the need for trade policy to be conducted in the framework of the eu's overall objectives in particular its economic social and environmental objectives.
first i would like to thank the rapporteurs and the inta committee for these reports which raise important issues concerning the contribution of the european union's trade policy towards the achievement of some of the fundamental objectives of public policy respect for human rights the pursuit of economic welfare and social justice the achievement of sustainable growth
the guiding principle should be careful analytical policymaking on the basis of forward looking objectives but also of realistic expectations.
we need to give ourselves the scope to think ahead and think big.
at the same time it should be stressed that effective action must rely on those instruments that are most suitable to address each issue.
in general international cooperation has the potential to trigger more effective action.
challenges will also be different depending on whether we are considering autonomous instruments such as gsp bilateral agreements or multilateral agreements.
there is however a fine line to be drawn between supporting regulating and enforcing a line that the rapporteur has skilfully explored but that embodies a great number of political and practical considerations.
ms safi's report on human rights social and environmental standards in trade agreements recognises that each of those dimensions offers different possibilities.
as regards mr dsir's report on corporate social responsibility i note the statement that commission initiatives should focus on supporting rather than regulating csr activities'.
mr president let me assure you that if ever i were to run the one hundred metres it would take me at least fifteen seconds so there is no major problem with me at least not in that respect.
the european commission is willing to examine together with the european parliament suitable effective and workable means to ensure that trade policy duly reflects societal concerns.
on the other hand the commission wants trade policy and our actions in trade bodies to have an impact and lead to results.
i could not agree more with the goal of fully using all the instruments at our disposal to achieve these aims.
the provisions in our free trade agreements are not there to become mere declarations of good intentions.
we need to be pragmatic and be able to discern between those practical steps likely to prove successful in the short term and those steps more likely to produce an effect in the longer term objectives.
especially when it comes to multilateral settings achieving consensus can become very hard.
turning to mr jadot's report on climate change i would like to highlight the need to ensure that any options are indeed capable of effectively reducing the risk of carbon leakage and of being applied at reasonable cost.
the three reports have many points in common.
two thousand and eleven this is one example of the useful work being carried out and in which we are actively engaged.
the truth is that we need to exercise caution and assess all relevant issues before precipitating conclusions. that said the eu should definitely continue to look into all feasible options.
other policies may offer key elements or even better options for effective solutions.
who can object to such basic values as companies treating their employees well and respecting human rights and the environment?
yet up till now the link between trade and corporate social responsibility has been tenuous at best and arguments abound. international trade is governed by agreements between states but should csr be a binding commitment to which those undertakings must sign up?
or may they comply on a voluntary basis?
european citizens are becoming more aware.
so many recent disasters not least the bp oil spill have shown that the standards and ethics under which our european companies operate abroad must be monitored.
ordinary europeans are no longer willing to welcome and support an expansion in international trade purely on economic grounds.
when trade destroys the natural environment and lowers the living standards of local populations we say enough is enough.
the european union must encourage businesses to adopt and to report on csr obligations in all their business activities both at home and abroad.
i welcome this own initiative report which calls on the commission to bring csr into the heart of the eu's international trade agreements.
we must guarantee that respect for sustainable development and labour rights remains equally important in the pursuit of the european union's commercial interests abroad.
i do not know how often you speak yourself but you should understand that such an interruption has the consequence of completely wrecking the speech.
it follows therefore that trade policy should almost never be burdened with a political agenda.
now on a personal level i have great respect for the rapporteurs of these three reports but the philosophy which underpins the reports has been put forward at many elections and mostly voted down.
mr president should europe's trade policy simply be about obtaining maximum economic advantage or should it be used to underpin and promote our wider goals sustainable environment policy fight against climate change our social model the promotion of human rights and democratic values? the three speakers before me the three rapporteurs have all confirmed that the answer to that should be in the affirmative and i am pleased to say so has the commissioner.
indeed already in our actions we do put human rights environmental protection and labour standards in our bilateral trade agreements.
but the question is do we do it in a way that allows us to ensure proper application and compliance with these standards?
we believe that in relation to gsp beneficiaries must be subjected to consistent and fairer benchmarking to make sure that their application of environmental social and human standards remains at a high level and consistent.
we welcome these as important steps forward to secure better human rights and social and environmental standards in the countries that are our trading partners.
if those countries want to sell on the lucrative eu markets we should encourage them to adopt decent and sustainable standards at home.
securing improvement through mandatory clauses and requirements in trade agreements is one way to achieve this.
mrs safi who did an excellent job as rapporteur discusses constructively the different levels and aspects of human rights and environmental and social standards at differing levels.
we agree with ms safi's suggestion that a world environment organisation be formed and that the ilo status should be strengthened.
we have successfully amended both reports and will be supporting both of them when it comes to the vote.
in closing i would very quickly stress that more needs to be done in specifying the human rights and social responsibilities we want to prioritise.
two thousand and nineteen this would therefore add complexity to the system and increase the burden on member states and regions without bringing tangible benefits.
any anticipated performance review would require separate reporting on the achievement of the milestones to take place before that date.
moreover the socalled selection rate is not among the indicators included in the performance frameworks and the performance reserve may be released only when and if all indicators included in the performance framework meet the milestones in line with the applicable legal provisions.
the commission does not intend to propose such a change in the current provisions applicable to the date of the performance assessment and the allocation of the reserve for the following reasons first the rate of project selection is an important indicator of progress of programmes
and of their potential final achievements but it's not an automatic or a sufficient guarantee that the physical and financial intermediate objectives socalled milestones of the programmes measured by the performance framework will be achieved.
secondly in order to avoid excessive burden on member states and regions reporting on the achievement of milestones takes place in the framework of the annual implementation reports.
moreover the performance framework and performance reserve are included in the programmes at the level of priority axes and anticipated performance reviews may therefore result in a situation where some priority axes in one programme receive their reserve while others have still to undergo another performance review in.
therefore the commission doesn't intend to use its right of initiative to propose amendments to these rules as the potential benefits are significantly outweighed by the associated disadvantages such as administrative burden complexity inconsistency across member states and programmes and unplanned changes to the indicative budgetary profile.
it is important for these programmes to be reviewed so that their strengths and weaknesses can be established and work done rather than endlessly spending eu funding without knowing if it is actually effective.
however in order to keep on track and continue progressing it is important that performance reviews be delivered.
these programmes have been funded by esi so i think these reviews should be made earlier than two thousand and nineteen for the programmes ahead of schedule. the european regional development fund has had a significant impact in decentralising development from main cities and spreading this development into rural parts of the country by developing the southern and eastern regional operational programme and the border midland and western regional operational programme.
this programmes aims to help one million people integrate into the working world and encourages a continuation of third level education including those with disabilities and those with financial disadvantages. the programmes implemented aim for sustainable and quality employment. some examples of these programmes include training for the unemployed and springboard plus which offer free parttime and fulltime conversion courses at certificate degree and postgraduate level.
for applying the performance framework and to ensure that the achievement of milestones is assessed at the same time.
let me reiterate that the commission is always ready to listen to ideas and proposals from the european parliament.
i would also like to use this occasion to draw your attention to the fact that several declarations on behalf of the commission were also made with regard to the agreements reached between the co legislators on the following legislative files the baldassarre report on the disclosure of non financial and diversity information by certain large companies and groups;
the ferber report on markets in financial instruments;
what does that mean for europe?
supported.
that is the trend which is currently very much present in the economy and in business.
nature is not yet so much in the picture but it will come. that is the change which we are facing.
again the new cohesion policies take this into account.
the committee also called for greater coordination between local authorities and regions because at the end of the day it is often local authorities and regions that have to deliver these projects.
resource efficiency is also a promising source of growth and jobs which offers multiple benefits and opportunities for business and policy making in the short medium and also long term. the commission has laid out its vision for the path to sustainable growth and competitiveness in the long term strategies under the europe two thousand and twenty resource efficiency flagship initiative