kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
thirdly we need to move on to decisions concerning reinforcing economic governance in europe;
and to do it as soon as possible.
through completing the regulatory reform.
the eu bureaucracy immediately looks around to find someone to blame but the fact is that it is this bureaucracy that is responsible for the crisis because it brought countries into the eurozone in the knowledge that their economies were not up to speed or do we employ one zero people in eurostat just to be a data collector?
the eu now demands cost reductions but is it realistic to expect the cost of the public sector in greece to be reduced if twenty of the working population is employed by the state and fifty of smes have the state as its only client?
the hedge funds may be taking advantage of the situation but they did not cause the crisis.
by contrast within the european union we have had solidarity and the institutional capacity via the european central bank and the commission to learn from past mistakes.
furthermore our institutions have cooperated with the us federal reserve the bank of england the japanese central bank and others.
but are our markets free?
mr president i take it as a given that sovereign states must be held to account for commitments made and be required to meet agreed objectives so i start from there.
now i am all for free markets;
but we are putting all the emphasis on member states and very little on what is behind some market activity.
what is being done to police this?
a political agenda could include concerns that the euro could in future replace the dollar as the pricing currency for oil for example;
is there not by now a reasonable suspicion that powerful interests have a capacity to take on sovereign states and win and that some for whatever objectives are using this power to advance their own agenda using the markets for their own ends?
when we did not police these people in the past look where they led us.
a business and economic interest agenda could include simply amassing greater power and wealth by destroying sovereign rights including shared sovereign rights within the european union. it is time for political leaders to reflect on just what is happening. i repeat member states must be disciplined including the member state i come from. of course that must happen.
i would like to hear from the presidency of the council and from the commissioner.
protectionism does not work.
the markets were well massaged and influenced towards getting us into the crisis in the first place.
the work of the institutions has been impressive given that there are twenty seven eu member states including sixteen euro members.
despite this the markets the so called markets have in effect moved to take a negative view of almost every step taken.
the eu will be faced with a track of fiscal conservatism for many years to come and that is going to be very important.
he said the stability pact was stupid.
they know that they will have to pay but german taxpayers cannot always pay.
this was said by a former government leader who messed up his own country. so what is he trying to prove?
we had the stability pact.
we did change it and we put it on the slippery slope and we see the results today.
so we had to change it.
would the new measures be taken any more seriously?
i therefore earnestly hope that the europe two thousand and twenty initiative which is certainly necessary to deal with the underlying economic crisis faced by europe does not fail on the same basis.
sanctions were previously available;
it is little wonder that whereas the english version of the text of the march summit referred to governance' which is what the commission has also referred to the french version referred to government'.
to be honest with each other and to fulfil their agreed commitments.
would the quality of information and the competence of those analysing the data improve just because a more demanding procedure was introduced?
it seems that for some a centralised european economic government' is indeed the ambition but this would not address the problems we face it would be bad for our citizens for our member states and i say for the european union itself.
mr president it has sadly become a characteristic of some of those who speak in support of the european union to believe that the solution to every problem is more integration.
by its own admission the commission believes its proposals will lead to a substantial deepening of economic and monetary union.
concerning the eurozone crisis however we are told that to avoid similar crises in the future the union needs powers to call for the prior presentation of draft budgets by sovereign governments and to impose tougher sanctions on member states but budget information was already supposed to be available;
furthermore issuing debt which risks increasing the eu budget and directly guaranteeing eu lending is a major departure that undermines the principles of sound public finance which we are supposed here to be reinforcing. in the ecr we want the euro to be a success for the sake both of those who choose to join and of those in the wider european economy but this requires member states to take their responsibilities seriously
what europe too often lacks is not extra mechanisms to implement agreed policies but rather the political will to fulfil commitments which have already been made but not executed.
this is exactly what our governments have also been doing.
we demand responsible corporate governance and yet the level of off balance sheet finance vehicles special purpose vehicles and undeclared contingent liabilities that our governments are engaged in does not show how to conduct responsible governance.
in the uk we have been shocked at the difference between the declared deficit of the outgoing government and what we have actually found once the books have been opened up.
new leadership in the uk gives us a clear mandate to reassess the true state of finances.
i really do hope that the rest of europe can also do the same;
mr president i would like to make a point on the situation in those member states that are not members of the eurozone but which still share the same preoccupation.
because this imbalance leads to daunting divergences between member states and to ensure financial discipline at european level we need good governance sanctions and compliance mechanisms.
we need to find ways to encourage investment attract capital and boldly cut bureaucratic expenses.
we have in romania more employees of secret services than the fbi has but instead of cutting here we are cutting doctors and teachers.
i strongly encourage the commission to stand by the proposed measures and not to give up under member states' pressure because only a few can be seen as examples these days.
that applies to governments as well as to individuals.
so i appreciate what has been done here today and i think that from today on we should also move on to dealing with the financial terrorists of the rating agencies and the speculators who are playing havoc with people's lives and trying to bring down sovereign governments.
as we have chosen the path of more regulation it should go hand in hand with increased simplicity and reduce the complexity of financial markets.
structural reforms have to address the underlying weaknesses of the european union economy sharply growing debts and deficits ageing the highly probable new surge of inflation risks generated by climate change policies low productivity and lack of competitiveness.
a business friendly regulatory environment efficient government non distortionary taxes high labour participation rates especially among women a good education system research and innovation all that constitutes a minimum core package of measures to bring growth jobs and competitiveness.
the european commission and the european parliament should regain their strategic role and go for brave european solutions. both citizens and markets need more europe.
i welcome the spanish presidency's comments about productive systems and a focus on competitiveness. i think we need a little bit more of that conversation in this parliament in council and in the commission.
in relation to your comments about the slow response we need to look at that because there is the problem of a lethargy in the european system in terms of response. member states could have reacted more swiftly when the banking crisis hit.
we are capable of doing it but we seem not to have done it in this particular instance.
finally the commission is looking for four pillars of a new strategy.
i think the commission needs to examine its own role in this crisis.
i believe that the monitoring of the rules of the growth and stability pact were on the basis of a soft' power approach which did not work.
had we all as others have said abided by the rules we would not have this problem.
giving you more power will only work if you actually use the power you already have.
this is one of the five priorities of our strategic engagement for gender equality.
more than one in ten women in the eu have suffered some form of sexual violence by a partner or by someone else.
by implementing the victims' rights directive properly member states ensure that all victims including victims of sexual violence are heard effectively supported and protected.
madam president honourable members allow me to personally wish to the victim of the la manada case a recovery of both body and soul that were abused two years ago by the most violent act.
i understand that the la manada case is subject to appeal so i cannot comment further on that ongoing process.
two thousand and seventeen the convention criminalises sexual violence including rape.
the convention's definition is in article thirty six and clearly states that consent must be given voluntarily as a result of the person's free will and that such consent should be assessed in the context of the surrounding circumstances.
allow me to recall that the eu is also in the process of acceding to the council of europe convention on combating violence against women the istanbul convention which it signed in june.
sexual violence is a pervasive form of gender based violence with serious consequences on an individual and societal level including emotional psychological and physical harm to survivors that can potentially last a lifetime.
honourable members allow me to conclude that while spain is among the nineteen member states that have ratified the istanbul convention we still have member states which have not done so yet.
the victims' rights directive is the main eu instrument on the rights of victims of gender based violence.
one woman in twenty in the eu has been raped. the commission is fully committed to tackling all forms of gender based violence including sexual violence.
i want to say one more thing.
at eu level we have the victims' rights directive which must be properly applied.
they will see that this is authorised by the state this is allowed this is cheap this is easy.
i am not here to criticise the decisions of the spanish court or any other courts;
the council on whose behalf i'm speaking today has always strongly condemned all kinds of violence against women.
the council shares the view that the european union's accession to the istanbul convention will be an important step towards establishing a more coherent new legal framework to better prevent and combat violence against women. honourable members you will understand that it wouldn't be appropriate for the council to comment on a criminal law case
adjudicated by a national court.
this was underlined in this room at the opening of our session today and i share this view.
the justice systems of member states have their own control mechanisms and the victim and the perpetrators have the right to appeal the judgment.
it is not the role of the council to interfere in the process.
to conclude there is no doubt that in our societies there must be zero tolerance of all forms of violence against women.
our joint efforts and the message of unity are also needed to ensure the protection of all women and girls in europe.
i would like to conclude however by stressing again that we share the view that violence against women and girls and the protection of its victims is an issue of common concerns that touches upon the core values of the european union.
these crimes have no place in the union and should be punished.
i think that's a very important issue. then there's another part missing the educational aspect.
mr president i did not support the report on the single market regulations.
references to consumer social and environmental objectives as criteria to guide fitness checks impact assessments and evaluation processes of current and future eu legislation were absent from the initial draft report and had to be introduced by my group via fifteen plenary amendments which were sadly lost.
additionally the wording on gold plating could be potentially interpreted as a means to limit policies aimed at ensuring social workers' and consumer rights.
it contained several controversial elements which i do not feel will positively contribute to the further single market integration that we all want to see.
mr president the erasmus programme has been a great success story in providing opportunities for student mobility across the european union.
however we must ensure that students involved in vocational training and education also enjoy the benefits of an erasmus experience.
it is unsurprising that eurosceptics do not want young people in the uk and scotland to benefit from these opportunities opportunities we would lose if we came out of the european union.
the opportunity to study and train abroad can be life changing.
erasmus provides opportunities for vocational education and training for students to carry out work experience abroad allowing them to learn new skills and languages which will improve their employability in the future.
therefore we need the recognition and accreditation of study and working practices between certain countries.
mr president the situation in the mediterranean is indeed dire. for those millions of people who are suffering because they are leaving the areas of syria and afghanistan where war and deprivation is affecting them that is clear.
but what they have decided to say in taking this one bull by the horns is that there is a real need for a permanent mandatory union wide resettlement programme with mandatory control and distribution across the european union.
the eu's policy here today has rejected the idea that open borders including schengen have been a major problem.
they have rejected the idea that angela merkel's open welcome has caused millions of people to feel that they should come to the eu and they have rejected the idea that australia's solutions have meant fewer people dying.
but once again we have a failed eu policy that will have an impact on the united kingdom.
one it had to inspire the coming generation of workers with devotion to the regime.
it is clear having lost the argument that the eu has benefit to our young when we have youth unemployment of over thirty five in most countries that the eu's response is to ensure greater propaganda. they are learning from the abc of communism in short in this programme to inspire the coming generation of students to have devotion to the eu through euro teacher of the year awards to create a young ruling class of cultured controllers like those in the socialists and to my right or people like margrethe vestager who started here to become a commissioner.
second they had to create a young ruling class who could be cultured controllers and they must assist those in power to control the economy.
in years of watching hypocrisy and double standards in this house i have not come across anything that matches the complaints about what we found out in the panama tax returns coming from bureaucrats and meps who are exempt from national taxation.
erasmus proved to be the most successful mobility programme but we should do better in organising facilitating and promoting mobility in vet and ensuring full recognition of the knowledge and skills acquired in the context of vet.
one is the whole area of sport in relation to coastal activities.
and this is why specific guidelines were developed back in.
a lot has already been done in fields where the european union has competence.
the commission is currently assessing the need for horizontal or further sectoral action at eu level with full respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
i count on your support to encourage a wide range of citizens and stakeholders to support and participate in this consultation.
we are carrying out an impact assessment study and a public consultation will be launched at the end of february. both will inform our assessment of the next possible steps.
we all agree that the protection of whistle blowers is vital. the question is how best to achieve this objective and how we can contribute at the european level and in the european part of our democracy.
strengthening the fight against tax evasion avoidance and illicit financial activity promoting good tax governance is one of the commission's top priorities as you all know.
according to a study from two thousand and sixteen analysing more than two thousand four hundred cases of fraud in one hundred and fourteen countries about forty of all detected fraud cases are uncovered by whistle blowers. the commission therefore strongly supports the objective of protecting whistle blowers
we now need carefully to assess the needs and the possible scope for horizontal or further sectoral action here in the european democracy to see what we can do at a european level while fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity.
at the moment if you are going to become a whistle blower in a financial sense it is a toss up between whether you are crazy or whether you actually really want to change things and it should be the latter. you should not have to be crazy to do it but at the moment if you look at the evidence that is the case.
you look at people like jonathan sugarman who tried to blow the whistle on unicredit in ireland for breaches in liquidity.
what happened to him? he never worked again.
he has not worked to this day.
so unless things change the message is very very clear.
if you blow the whistle and if you blow the whistle strong it will most likely be rammed down your throat and the total and utter goal is to stop you ever talking again.
so we need this to change because unless we do we will have anarchy and we will have even more scepticism and i do not think you want that.
however the dates agreed still provide a reasonable time frame and the necessary reliability for planning purposes.
many thanks again for your support on this important file.
vehicles and vessels will be able to circulate throughout the eu; manufacturers and infrastructure providers will know which plug to choose and costs will be reduced through economies of scale.
the commission is going to make a declaration to state its opinion on this important aspect.
but we can still be satisfied with the outcome for the following reasons.
the commission will make sure that these targets are sufficiently ambitious and effectively met.
i am certain that the directive will stimulate technological development and boost the market uptake of cleaner vehicles and vessels.
it is only when it comes to lng for maritime vessels that the commission has a real regret because an earlier date would have helped the shipping industry to meet the new limits for sulphur emissions.
at the same time early movers will be protected by transitional rules;
it is important that you vote tomorrow in favour of this proposal. the directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure will have a decisive impact on how we see transport. new technologies will open up new horizons and opportunities for the european automotive and transport industry within europe and on the global market.
it is vitally important for the good health of our economy.
of course our work does not stop here.
it has only just started.
if appropriate we will progress to an action plan on its implementation and review.
there was good technical harmonisation about connections which was very welcome.
the bad result is the lost opportunity to tie greenhouse gas emissions and pollution emissions to the alternative fuels.
we need to remember that we started off by trying to reduce emissions but that does not really seem to feature in the ambition of this report.
mr president the recent peak of air pollution in the west midlands in the united kingdom has shown that much more needs to be done to tackle air pollution.
however electric vehicles need the infrastructure whereas of course investment in charging points requires some guarantee that the market of electric cars will expand.
that is why the european strategy which sets objectives for member states in terms of charging points is crucial.
it would give the right signal to car manufacturers that we are encouraging the use of low carbon vehicles and that their investments are worth making.
our joint implementation report from two thousand and fourteen on the race and employment equality directives concluded that they were correctly transposed by member states.
your report rightly highlights among others all these aspects.
let us not forget our european court of justice that also plays an important role in clarifying the scope of european anti discrimination law.
i trust the proposal will be adopted soon by the council.
we are fully aware that producing these reports is in itself not a solution but understanding patterns of discrimination is crucial for informed policy making and enforcement.
however we see positive developments.
secondly the high level group on non discrimination equality and diversity facilitates the exchange of best practices.
it would thus align the protection to that provided on the grounds of race.
according to the two thousand and fifteen eurobarometer survey on discrimination there is at least a widespread perception of discrimination in the european union.
we have run training seminars and conferences such as the two thousand and fifteen colloquium on fundamental rights which focused on tolerance and respect preventing and combating anti semitic and anti muslim hatred in europe and the seminar focusing on multiple discrimination.
specifies that labour market participation of under represented groups shall be enhanced ensuring equal treatment in all areas including by raising awareness and addressing discrimination'.
thirdly in the legislative field the two thousand and eight proposal for an equal treatment directive aims at extending the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief disability age or sexual orientation into areas not yet covered
through the report on sexual orientation based discrimination;
trade unions ngos and academia can contribute valuable insights and help in spreading best practices on diversity and non discrimination.
let me mention just a few examples.
i would like in this context also to mention the intense work in relation to the united nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the forthcoming review of the european disability strategy.
firstly we promote analysis and research on the situation across member states through the yearly comparative report on anti discrimination in europe referred to in your report;
public authorities can help people gain skills to get jobs and contribute to growth. companies can commit to diversity and as a result of diversity benefit from enhanced productivity innovation and performance.
the commission is committed to make full use of the directive on many fronts.
accessibility is a catalyst for the full and equal participation of people with disabilities in society.
moreover we collaborate and support various organisations active in the field of anti discrimination the academy of european law the european union fundamental rights agency and equinet the well known network of national equality bodies for the promotion of equal treatment.