kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
various safeguards have been secured so that the processing of pnr data can only happen if they are used for the prevention detection investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and transnational crime.
two thousand and five there are several other examples of their successful use not only in terrorist cases but also in the capture of other serious criminals caught whilst trying to leave the united kingdom.
the proposals in the report would require the measures to be implemented too quickly and would be burdensome upon my businesses and farmers in wales.
mr president i have voted against this report on the taxation of energy products and electricity as i do not support a number of the proposals that it makes.
the latter include agricultural fluids known in the uk as red diesel and the principle that all calculations on this should be based on energy consumption and co two emissions.
at a time when businesses and farmers across the eu are struggling to make ends meet i think that it is wholly unjustifiable to impose additional new requirements on them to meet emission targets.
whilst i support the eu's endeavours to reduce emissions i do not believe that taxation of energy products and electricity is the right way to achieve this.
while the report does not specifically call for the harmonisation of tax rates although amendment ten comes close the introduction of common rules across all member states for the calculation of the tax of companies is nonetheless a matter for member states.
while ireland has constructively engaged in the ccctb process the treaty requires unanimity in matters of taxation policy and the principle of subsidiarity allows member states to keep taxation under national legislation.
these provisions have been developed very carefully and are the result of extensive cooperation between the us and the eu authorities something which is very welcome.
or indeed measures designed simply to agglomerate more powers at eu level.
a number of the concerns we had about privacy and data retention have been dealt with.
mr president since the attacks on nine eleven we have seen a barrage of dangerous disproportionate and declamatory legislation measures designed not to be proportionate with the need to address the threat but rather to be proportionate with the imagined level of public concern;
ask yourself if this were a proposal to share data with switzerland would there have been any row about it at all?
this particular measure is a very rare example of where specific criticisms have been addressed and where a lot of the problems that provoked my group to vote against the first draft of this bill have now been looked at and improved. it is now a much more proportionate measure.
it is therefore very sad to see a number of people in this house who are normally the first to demand measures of this kind opposing it i have to say simply because it involves the united states.
we have one hundred and twenty years of gas supplies under the soil and seas of the united kingdom alone.
here is the good news here is the upbeat ending.
mr president immediately before the vote today a friend in the epp challenged me to say something positive about the economy in europe. he said he was sick and tired of my explanations of vote always focusing on what we were doing wrong.
there are a number of positive ways that you can jolt economies into growth.
one thing that always boosts economic growth in every country and in every age is cheaper energy.
you can cut tax you can deregulate you can paradoxically make it easier to fire people so that you encourage employers to hire people in the knowledge that they will not be lumbered with employees in the hard times.
it worked in the industrial revolution it worked in the oil boom.
so let me have a go.
that is why it would be crazy for us at a time like this when we are struggling to grow our economies to burden ourselves with fuel taxes which will depreciate the one thing which is always literally and figuratively the fuel of growth.
just as the us has now started to nose out of its decline because of this massive increase in shale gas deposits so we have the same opportunities in europe.
naturally we would wish to support measures which would have a meaningful and long term impact in terms of increasing the competitiveness of their economies through targeted structural reforms to sclerotic labour markets.
this proposal whilst well meaning does not address the underlining economic and financial difficulties in these countries and could possibly make the situation worse.
whilst the proposal now contains a budgetary ceiling it is still of great concern that public money will be used as the first loss in case of the failure of any other projects planned.
mr president in my view member states should have the right to set their own fuel vat and co taxation levels as long as these are compliant with the unanimously agreed eu legislation already in place such as the rules on minimum vat levels.
i would simply like to say that like everybody else i welcome the title of this but when i looked at some of the detail i found myself unexpectedly unable to support it.
there are many reasons;
firstly why invent an eu definition of a tax haven when we have a perfectly adequate well used oecd definition already adopted by this parliament?
it is almost really contemptuous of this house to try and reinvent that particular wheel and serves no purpose whatsoever.
there should be a proportionate approach which minimises all of the burdens on business.
mr president i voted against this measure to give a clear and visible signal that i do not support the mandatory introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base.
yet again those elected by the citizens of europe and given the privilege of the responsibility to lead us out of the mess we are in into recovery and growth are leading us down a blind alley of political dogma and harmonisation.
mr president i abstained on this report on risk sharing instruments for those member states suffering financial difficulty.
while i believe that the text of the report has been improved following negotiations between parliament and the council i still do not believe that the proposal is in any way viable.
the only member state so far to express any desire in making use of a potential risk sharing facility is greece.
while i would back the use of targeted investments under the eu cohesion policy in order to help those states that are in financial difficulty greece's record sadly in implementing cohesion policy projects is particularly poor.
anyway my view is that the structural funds need a complete review and in many ways repatriating. i would not therefore be convinced that investments under such a policy would have any immediate short term effect on economic growth or employment particularly in distressed states like greece.
it is supposed to be concerned with the calculation of taxation not necessarily the rates but this is clearly an infringement of member states' rights in taxation policy and also the start of a slippery slope to stopping tax competition.
first of all you harmonise the calculation base and then you start to harmonise the tax itself under the guise of a single market and getting rid of this unnecessary tax competition that we have heard about so many times.
they want people to get back to work. one of the most social things that europe and politicians could do across member states is create jobs for people.
what do we do instead?
we know that when you increase taxation on energy products those costs are not only passed on to companies which means they have less money to employ more people but those companies then pass it on to consumers who then find it more difficult to struggle with their weekly and monthly household bills.
now is the time to take stock of where we are.
mr president we are all aware that the current financial crisis has had an adverse impact on the macroeconomic stability of many member states and has thus made it difficult to access finance.
whilst i understand that this lack of readily available finance is making it difficult for many projects under the cohesion policy to continue it can be argued that having this additional instrument alone as proposed in the report may not be entirely effective in addressing this difficulty. although this instrument does address the immediate problem of making funds available for investment it does not tackle the underlying issue of why some projects are not as successful as they should be.
the issue of how the project is being implemented has been entirely overlooked and solely addressing the financial issues that member states face will not guarantee the success of the projects.
a clear vision a clear programme for implementation and specific measurable outcomes which generate economic returns for the member state in question need to be ensured as well as full accountability and transparency on risk sharing.
without these assurances i cannot support this report.
tax harmonisation removes the external competition which is the usual curb on a government wanting to raise more money.
it is bizarre that this becomes our solution to every problem.
we are in the mess we are in because the government was spending too much and we will not get out of this mess by raising even more money transferring even more resources from the private sector into the public.
of course the reality is that the reason we want tax harmonisation is because the eu wants to give itself a dedicated revenue stream so that it does not need to come cap in hand and beg from the member states. behind all this talk about spending money at brussels level so you do not have to spend it at national level is the need to keep fuelling the bureaucracy that has grown up at the top of the eu.
mr president i recognise that climate change is a serious issue but i often worry that those who want to save the world are actually living on a different planet.
in the middle of an economic crisis families are feeling the pinch.
does the eu really want to tax citizens further just for driving their children to school or for turning on the heating?
i am glad this house recognised what is going on in the real world and that it understands how ordinary families are struggling to make ends meet.
the eu needs to be reminded that it should focus on economic growth and on making citizens' lives easier not more difficult during a downturn.
i voted against this report.
' rather than how do we rescue the people who have to use the euro?
' it is now obvious that the single currency is a recessionary mechanism.
by sustaining it in the way that they are the leaders of the eu and in the palaces and chancelleries of the member states are inflicting preventable poverty on the peoples of the eurozone.
but that debate is not even being contemplated because people begin from the proposition that the euro is an end in itself an absolute imperative.
a result of this is that i am afraid to say the leaders of the eu are now consciously working against the recovery because they know that although spain might begin to take off the day it left the single currency their own credibility would not recover.
however beyond the title this report has addressed many issues which i believe are not helpful including preventing member states from engaging in bilateral negotiations with non eu countries on taxation matters which presumably was aimed at addressing the recent uk swiss agreement on bank accounts.
it also suggests that tax competition is to be avoided as it stifles economic recovery in some countries something i fundamentally disagree with.
tax competition is healthy and should be encouraged.
the report also suggests clamping down on tax havens but redefines them rather than using the globally accepted oecd definition.
i therefore could not support this report despite being committed to tackling tax evasion and tax fraud globally.
yet this proposal from the commission in its original form took an approach that would have been optional for companies and perhaps might have made it easy for companies to operate across the single market.
however this parliament has gone from this original optional mechanism to the extreme of arguing for a mandatory tax that would end up covering all member states and all companies except for their smes.
this report is a prime example of why i am glad that this parliament does not have codecision powers over taxation and that rightly any new proposals require a unanimous decision by the council in order to be enacted.
it is an instrument which is to be handled very carefully. however i could not support the position of my own rapporteur.
if we go to the bottom line of this dossier it was all a question of whether the eu should stay in the picture or not.
by not giving consent to the pnr agreement we would have left air carriers and passengers in a no man's land and knowing that we would not get a new negotiation i think that would have been irresponsible.
if you read the wording of the rule it is not at all clear that it means that.
it makes no sense in my view if it is just restricted to those who apply before the entire sitting begins.
this is the first attempt by the eu to enter into the realms of corporate taxation.
this report is being sold as a positive step towards the single market and as enhancing competitiveness.
the uk government has opposed this report from the very beginning.
faced with the terrorist threat across europe and the us which remains dangerously high i believe that we must give careful consideration to any measure deemed helpful in assisting in that daily battle to protect the lives of our constituents from those who seek to inflict murder and mayhem. the exchange of passenger name records is but a tool in this fight. therefore while we weigh up concerns around data protection and privacy we must balance that against the benefit
to global security and the fight against international crime. it is my view that the benefits of this agreement outweigh the concerns and while improvements can and should be made it represents progress. i am content to support it on this basis.
you earn your money but the government itself decides how much to give to you while it takes the money.
but what do we see?
in proposal after proposal we see an increase and an attack on people who are trying to maximise the amount of their income that they can spend on their families and themselves.
the other thing we see in this place is the attack on so called tax havens. when countries set themselves up to be tax neutral not to double and triple tax in order to generate revenue and to attract foreign investment immediately that is a tax haven and is condemned.
and when developing countries do it what do we do?
mr president we would of course be delighted to have mr kelly in our group maybe not as a british conservative but he is a great european and a great patriot and we would be very happy to have him alongside us in the ecr group.
the way to maximise revenue from taxation is through lower flatter and simpler tax rates.
it works every time.
if you lower the rates of tax you maximise the revenue and you also get the top decile in society to pay a much higher proportion.
so yes i agree make the rich pay more.
there are many problems with this report starting with the simple fact that taxation is primarily a member state prerogative.
but i was particularly concerned by the identical treatment given to tax evasion and tax avoidance.
the report calls for measures to be taken against both at eu level.
not differentiating between the two seems nonsensical and smacks of the politics of envy given that one is a wilful criminal breaking of the law and the other is perfectly legal. while i would agree that tax fraud and tax evasion should be curtailed my group does not agree with the premise that tax avoidance within the law is detrimental to tax collection.
another worrying aspect of the report is its consideration that the implementation of country by country reporting requirements for cross border companies in all sectors is essential.
mr president this passenger name records agreement represents an attack on civil liberties and the right to privacy.
it does so using the trojan horse we have seen before of the threat of terrorism the same trojan horse that has been used to justify so called extraordinary rendition' and what happens in guantanamo bay.
the agreement will not only hand over the personal details of european citizens travelling to the us to the department of homeland security but it will in effect give this agency free rein to access information on passengers as they see fit.
it will allow for data to be stored indefinitely and to be used in court cases even if they are not related in any way to terrorism. the complete lack of democratic checks and balances in this agreement will leave citizens with no right to access correct or control the data which this agency holds.
the commission has in no way demonstrated that these measures are proportionate or even useful in combating terrorism nor have any guarantees been given that the us will not forward the data to third countries.
i am happy to say that the eu institutions and bodies have shown that in general they are keen to resolve issues that i bring to their attention.
in. two thousand and eight the changes effected strengthen the ombudsman's powers of investigation thereby ensuring that citizens can have full confidence in the ombudsman's ability to conduct a thorough investigation of their complaints without restrictions.
one of its purposes is to facilitate the rapid transfer of complaints to the competent body.
an accountable and transparent eu administration is and must remain key to building citizens' trust in the
this new publication records the most important results obtained for complainants and highlights the main policy issues dealt with over the past year.
union. its entry into force will provide a good opportunity for the commission to submit a new proposal that would reflect this new reality and would strengthen the fundamental right of access to documents of the eu's institutions and bodies.
indeed the generation and maintenance of a culture of service to citizens lies at the very heart of the principle of good administration.
let me briefly mention just two of these cases.
of course it is much better if complainants can identify the most appropriate avenue of redress the first time around.
often such advice is to contact a member of the european network of ombudsmen.
this allegation arose in thirty six of all inquiries and included refusal of information or documents.
however it is not enough for eu institutions and bodies merely to follow the law.
as a result the company concerned received more than eur one hundred zero in outstanding payments.
it also means that complaints are resolved more promptly and effectively thus ensuring that citizens can fully enjoy their rights under eu
eight cases closed in two thousand and eight exemplify best practice among the institutions and bodies in responding to issues i raised.
maximising transparency and accountability and promoting and helping entrench a culture of service to citizens are key factors in the fulfilment of this
as explained in its opening pages strenuous efforts have been made to improve its user friendliness so that readers can easily obtain a clear and comprehensive account of the ombudsman's work.
one example from two thousand and eight was the refusal of the commission to change its stance in an age discrimination case.
the increased number of friendly solutions and settlement of cases is both positive and praiseworthy.
allow me to conclude by recalling that my task is to promote good administration in eu institutions and bodies.
promoting good administration and providing information about the ombudsman's role.
the commission has proposed changes to this regulation some of which would be very beneficial.
unlawful behaviour when it falls within my mandate is always a form of maladministration.
the institutions and bodies concerned are the commission the council the court of justice epso olaf and the european aviation safety agency.
task. i am confident that our two institutions will continue to work closely in pursuit of the shared goal of helping citizens and residents to enjoy their rights fully in a transparent and accountable european union.
they must also act consistently and in good faith. they must act in accordance with the rules and principles which they have adopted and they must demonstrate that they are service minded for example by acting fairly reasonably and courteously.
epso agreed to disclose to candidates at their request the evaluation criteria used in selection procedures as well as a breakdown of individual marks.
law. a very important initiative in this area came to fruition earlier this year.
the ombudsman's mandate is more limited; i can only deal with complaints against eu institutions and bodies whilst the petitions committee can also examine what member states are doing.
for instance when an institution does not comply with a recommendation in a case which raises fundamental questions of principle i can issue a special report to parliament.
so far this year over twenty three zero people have used the guide to obtain advice. in two thousand and eight by far the most common allegation i examined was lack of transparency in the eu administration.
i enjoy an excellent working relationship with the committee.
the ombudsman's privileged relationship with parliament is key to ensuring results for citizens.
the commission was constructive throughout the procedure concerning a payment dispute.
this helps avoid the frustration involved for citizens who are told that the body that they have turned to is not able to help them.
parliament and the ombudsman both work to ensure that citizens and residents of the eu can enjoy their rights to the full.
i can only use the power of persuasion to convince eu institutions and bodies to follow my recommendations.
this network now consists of roughly ninety five offices in thirty two countries and includes the committee on petitions.
it is with a certain degree of concern that i have noted this high percentage.
the ombudsman closed a record number of enquiries in two thousand and eight three hundred and fifty five to be exact with most taking less than a year.
the support of parliament was crucial in securing the revision of the ombudsman's statute
in two thousand and eight for example one hundred and ninety one complainants were either advised to petition parliament or their complaints were directly transferred to the committee on petitions.
eu. of particular importance regarding transparency in two thousand and eight was the commission's proposal to reform regulation no one thousand and forty nine two thousand and one on public access to documents.
it has also now proven possible to publish the report much earlier in the year than before. in addition a new six page overview has been produced.
the lisbon treaty changes the legal and political context of the regulation by giving citizens more opportunities to participate in the activities of the
in order to represent my constituents are entirely legitimate and i do not need to apologise for them and i do not need to conceal them.
i know individual members can and do publish their expenses on their websites but we as a parliament have a collective responsibility to make the information available.
the service is improving year on year.
we have published the amounts paid to farmers under the cap yet we are not publishing our own travel expenses and other allowances. as far as i am concerned they are legitimate costs.
again my allowances for staff for office for travel etc.
however when you read through a report and you agree with its contents and then in the explanatory statement you see a substantial paragraph which relates to yourself you cannot ignore it.
of course the real issue was that if that information was released then information regarding all our allowances would have to be revealed.
they are incurred in doing our job on behalf of citizens.
as far as i am concerned this is public money and the public have a right to know how it is spent.