kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
mr president i would really like to know why some members of this precious democratically elected chamber are consciously misleading people who are watching this debate live.
we need to grill him and find out exactly what has been going on.
you cannot record phone conversations without legal basis you cannot open four hundred and twenty three cases on the same day without so much as reasonable suspicion and you cannot mislead parliament about fraud figures.
the next exchange of views will take place in september.
it should furthermore be noted that it is not the role of the supervisory committee to pass judgment on the legality of individual investigative acts as recognised by the supervisory committee itself.
the decisions that the european union and national authorities may adopt in the follow up to olaf investigations are subject to judicial review.
the commission's aim is of course to facilitate and foster good cooperation and constructive dialogue. it should be noted however that olaf and the supervisory committee are two independent bodies which are already in dialogue and work together
the commission is aware that olaf and the supervisory committee are working very hard to improve their relations.
olaf has been criticised for the opening of a large number of cases by a single decision in february. two thousand and twelve the commission has been informed that this decision was taken transparently;
two thousand and fourteen it reports on the efficacy and results of its investigations providing a positive picture of its achievements.
serious deficiencies.
with the same aim. the commission can offer its advice and support but it is the responsibility of olaf and its supervisory committee to develop sound and constructive cooperation.
it is the very purpose of the supervisory committee to identify issues which in its view require further improvement in the work of the office and to make the corresponding recommendations.
the commission emphasises that the opening of investigations is an investigative act that olaf is fully independent in those acts and that the commission is required to respect the independence of olaf in its investigative functions.
close to sufficient financial autonomy for the supervisory committee and its secretariat.
it is for olaf as an independent investigative body to give proper follow up and to inform the supervisory committee and the institutions thereof.
the commission also notes that olaf does not agree with the supervisory committee that the opening of the cases failed to meet the legal requirement for the opening of an investigation.
in other discussions concerning the supervisory committee of olaf.
it is not possible to arrive at an acceptable solution if we do not observe elementary rules of democracy and the democratic process.
why was olaf not invited when the supervisory committee report was presented?
the explanation that they are too confrontational so they cannot sit in the same room is ridiculous.
we have to show them that we are responsible.
we are exchanging through the media through all sorts of different channels allegations which cannot be examined in conjunction and then we wonder why we look ridiculous in the eyes of our citizens.
it is open to severe criticism.
let me tell you that the commission is now looking forward to the annual interinstitutional exchange of views that will take place as you know in september and which will provide a forum for discussion of the progression of relations between olaf and its supervisory committee.
dealing with and talking about tonight.
there have been so many questions raised during the past years that i do not think they need to be repeated in detail.
consisting of five independent experts.
their role in supervising the work of olaf is not just anything;
it is absolutely crucial and essential to the credibility of the union in the eyes of eu citizens.
therefore we are asking you tonight not just what the commission has done but what is the commission's doing?
but the commission is not only aiming to make life easier for businesses and provide advantages to them.
i also very much welcome the support for our communication on removing cross border tax obstacles for eu citizens and for our efforts to strengthen cooperation and coordination between member states in order to prevent such obstacles.
for this reason i am very glad to see very strong support to our efforts to fight tax fraud and tax evasion but also to tackle double non taxation of large companies that artificially shift profits to minimise the effective tax rate. very soon the commission intends to launch a public consultation on double non taxation in order to establish the full scale of the problem and to get information about existing schemes and possible solutions.
furthermore it will be important to improve the tax environment for businesses.
this proposal will contribute to achieving many goals you seek such as reducing administrative costs and red tape for companies especially for small businesses operating across borders.
it will help to remove discrimination and double taxation.
mr president i would like to thank the european parliament for putting tax policy high on its political agenda as demonstrated by this first annual tax report and particularly to thank mr schmidt not only for the constructive tone of the report but for setting the standard high for others to follow. on behalf of the commission i would
in this respect i would like to highlight our commitment to an eu vat system with a single set of simple and clear rules providing businesses with more accessible and better information and creating a new vat forum these are some of the actions we have planned in our recent communication for a new vat regime. i also very much welcome the support for our proposal on the common consolidated corporate tax base.
in the short term shifting taxation away from labour towards consumption and polluting activities in addition to cutting unjustified tax expenditure could contribute to much needed growth.
by the end of this year the commission will present a comprehensive initiative to further address issues highlighted in the report such as tax havens aggressive tax planning and double non taxation.
in the current economic climate tackling the causes for member states' tax base erosion is of particular importance.
on the special focus on member states under special and disproportionate pressure it is very important to clarify what this means if we really want to employ european solidarity.
co financing is to be preferred to financing for joint operations as it remains the primary responsibility of member states to deal with external borders. finally i would like to say that frontex has an important supportive operational and technical role to play
i welcome in particular the improvements on fundamental rights especially for unaccompanied minors and better protection of data.
on joint european border guard teams it is very clear that we are not creating a european police force. subsidiarity stands and madam commissioner i can never underline enough how important it will be to have a very clear command and control structure.
i hope madam commissioner that you will in the implementing rules give a clear definition that will help us avoid confrontation and conflicts.
this proposal to change the law was presented by the commission and already in the commission proposal we had extremely good ideas which were certainly good steps forward.
within one year the commission has promised to look at the feasibility of actually going that one step further along the path towards the establishment of european border guards proper.
if had to synthesise the contribution of parliament i would divide it into four points;
the first point is that we tried to increase the visibility of the agency.
we will also give the agency the power to process personal data under strict conditions if this can help it in the fight against crime.
later via greece and so on and so forth.
therefore all in all our assessment of the first six years of experience of the agency is that it needs to be strengthened and made more effective because despite all good intentions it has not lived up to expectations so far.
the agency will also be able to purchase lease own or even co own its own equipment from now on.
the second area where we have made a contribution relates to strengthening the effectiveness of the agency;
i will say something about each.
the establishment of the agency in two thousand and four coincided with the start of a massive flow of migration towards europe via different routes. first via spain and in particular the canary islands;
we will also appoint a fundamental rights officer in the agency and a consultative forum on human rights and we will monitor return operations in terms of human rights.
on human rights which was a key point for this parliament we have agreed on important improvements to the commission proposal.
at the same time of course we must make sure that people who turn to europe seeking protection are dealt with in a way that is in compliance with our values and with international laws and standards. the effective management of member states' external borders must be continuously improved to respond to the new challenges.
the strengthening of the operation and capability of the agency including the possibility for the agency to acquire its own equipment will put it in a position to cope in a cost effective manner with the ever increasing demands of member states for it to coordinate border control activities and return operations.
but now we have reached a high quality compromise that i think stresses the correct balance between the different interests in play.
we have achieved a framework and laid the ground for a more effective more operational more visible and more legitimate frontex agency.
the requirement for member states to honour their promises regarding human rights is being strengthened.
this regulation will enhance cooperation with the relevant authorities in third countries and the agency will have the possibility of providing technical assistance to relevant third countries to increase the level of cooperation.
our citizens need to be reassured that external border controls are working properly.
weaknesses at some sections of the border must be tackled.
the monitoring of returns the clauses allowing the agency to suspend or terminate joint operations and the creation of a consultative forum and a fundamental rights officer are all major steps forward.
i would like to thank the rapporteur and parliament for their support in ensuring that frontex should only carry out joint operations if the necessary guarantees are provided regarding absolute respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and the right to international protection of those in need.
i would like to thank everybody involved.
member states are looking to increase financial resources while parliament wanted to improve the availability of technical resources and strengthen respect for fundamental rights so it took us some time to negotiate this.
cooperation with countries of origin or transit is another.
furthermore the changes mean frontex will also have a mandate to process personal data obtained during operations coordinated by the agency to use in the fight against crime and human trafficking.
madam president the arab spring has once again highlighted the ineffectiveness and the weaknesses of current immigration arrangements across the eu.
firstly we need to radically reform the schengen agreement not to prevent eu citizens from having free movement across the bloc something that has generally proven very successful but so that national governments are able to manage major specific migratory pressures on their borders if and when necessary.
that is why we must also tackle the issue at its source which means giving frontex the tools and resources that it needs to intercept migrants as they attempt to cross into the eu and to deal with them appropriately.
political pressure should also be put on some of the countries which are particularly responsible or should i say irresponsible with regard to migratory flows to the eu.
my country the uk has of course not fully signed up to the schengen agreement yet.
many migrants who enter the eu will ultimately want to enter the united kingdom placing considerable pressures on humanitarian and local public services there and posing a threat to hauliers who pass through.
this is an issue that affects all of us and we should all make an effort to tackle it but we should do it jointly in a spirit of mutual cooperation rather than effecting a spirit of confrontation which we have unfortunately seen develop between member states and between member states and the commission in recent months.
in the opinion of the speaker are any of these refugees economic refugees?
the effects of this problem are especially felt in england and in particular in my constituency of london. england attracts immigration illegal and legal because of the possibilities for work and our generous benefits and housing sytems.
the uk independence party would not be opposed to genuine cooperation between european nation states to counter the problems of illegal immigration but this proposal is not about genuine cooperation.
it seeks to change the legal basis on which frontex operates and gives it more so called competences.
it will for example give frontex the ability to cooperate with third party countries on behalf of the eu.
this proposal is yet another way of increasing the power and dominion of the european union over its member states.
the proposal is another step in introducing the european union's common immigration and asylum policy as enshrined in the lisbon treaty.
as i will never tire of saying the lisbon treaty was undemocratically imposed on the peoples of europe without their consent.
the lisbon treaty was illegal under existing english constitutional law and everything that stems from it is therefore illegal in england.
there is another problem here which is the european convention on human rights.
british courts are obligated to protect the human rights of foreign nationals in the uk.
once in the uk they only have to claim that their human rights are likely to be at risk in their own country and the courts will not send them home.
as a result of this we have given refuge to all kinds of criminals.
if i heard him correctly mr busuttil said that all operations would be suspended while a human rights issue was being considered.
this is like baling out a boat with a bucket that has an enormous hole in the bottom.
the uk independence party will vote against this proposal.
in the explanatory statement from the rapporteur its function of preventing illegal migration is so understated as to become almost invisible.
however what it means in practice is the principle of so called non refoulement ' which means that illegal migrants from dangerous countries must not be returned to those countries even if they are not at any particular risk compared with other residents.
the logic of that principle is that all of the populations of dangerous countries should be brought to europe.
then again the human rights officer will not be independent and the termination of operations will only happen in cases of severe human rights violations.
can somebody tell me where one draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable human rights violations?
will it be somebody with lots of knowledge and experience in the field and somebody with a strong will or somebody who does not want to harm his employer? what rights will she he have?
what rights will the consultative forum have and what rights to information?
how detailed will the commission's reports on monitoring the fate of returnees be?
i really hope that there will be an improvement soon and that these new small steps towards more human rights protection will be properly and fully implemented.
the amendment of the legal framework of frontex has been a priority for us and the developments in the mediterranean have of course put even greater emphasis on this work.
this requires a whole range of different instruments.
but turning to the future of frontex the commission will further assess the work of the agency and launch a study to determine if it is feasible to create a european system of border guards.
we ask that richer eurozone governments be honest with their voters that their taxes will be transferred to the budgets of poorer eurozone countries possibly forever for that is the way that currency and sustainable currency unions work.
countries signed up for cooperation in key areas of mutual interest with their eu neighbours not to see more and more decisions made in one city on the other side of the continent.
we have appreciated your honesty about your ambitions here today.
while i may be one of a number of meps who will not return to this chamber after the two thousand and nineteen elections the ecr group will continue to fight for a vision of a reformed european union.
but when countries do agree that an eu solution is the best solution all countries should stick to the rules and not pick and choose as we saw with the stability and growth pact or with the dublin regulation on asylum.
while there will be many in this chamber who see you as a saviour of the european project of political integration many outside this chamber do not want to see an eu dominated by just one or two large member states.
whilst we share your commitment to strong transatlantic relations cutting red tape to help businesses create jobs and the need for closer security cooperation your vision of a european union with a bigger budget harmonised corporate taxes unified social policy a common asylum system and a european minister for finance
the growing dissatisfaction amongst voters has not been because the eu has too little power but because it has too much.
but rather than sleepwalking to use your phrase towards your goal it should be presented to voters across the eu with an honest disclaimer in large letters bold and underlined that member states will become less and less sovereign as the eu becomes more and more sovereign as you wish to see. all politicians need to be careful.
the european conservatives and reformists group welcomes a leader with a bold vision and a desire to shake things up for too many national politicians praise the idea of ever closer union when in brussels or in strasbourg but when they return home their support for the european project of further political integration becomes a barely audible whisper.
they want national leaders to find common solutions which are agreeable to all member states but what you propose monsieur le prsident is revolutionary.
you talk about temporary taxes but i am reminded of ronald reagan's line that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government programme.
may be the right vision for france but the ecr group feels it is not the right vision for all member states.
monsieur le prsident what you say in paris is what you have said here in strasbourg and that is to be respected but when it comes to your desire to reform the european union the ecr group agrees with the objective but i am afraid the devil is in the detail.
nine hundred and fifty s that is why the ecr group believes that the eu should facilitate nations to cooperate where necessary but return powers to member states and local communities in areas such as immigration and social policy.
as our two nations the uk and france work together with the us in syria supported by our european and international partners can i thank you for your cooperation and hope that our countries will continue to act as partners where it is in our interests to face global challenges together.
we will continue to oppose calls for ever more political integration but where there is common ground the ecr group hopes to work with you to shape a reformed european union which respects all member states and their citizens.
the ecr group believes that common sense and proportionate regulation rather than more political integration will allow businesses farmers fishermen and entrepreneurs to compete in global markets but we also ask for more honesty.
despite this power it has failed to secure the greater stability and prosperity that was promised.
and what if my voice does not count?
there is no vote on a president of europe there is no european wide referendum.
do so. and those who want to become a commissioner next year should probably run in the european elections. let the people decide who the government should send to the commission next
it gives people a say and brings them together.
so what is true democracy?
candidates must stand for election must defend their programme explain to people what they stand for and finally they have to look for the support of a majority of this chamber of freely elected members of the european parliament.
a lot. the ppe is ready to work for a democratic europe with ambitious projects but in the end the people are the owners of the european dream and the european
world. a true democracy in europe also means believing in
is possible.
political issues in europe must be in the hands of the voters during the european elections just as national interest issues are in the hands of voters during national elections.
a true democracy can only survive if it has common basic convictions.
true democracy does not work just during the meetings of the heads of state or government.
it is good to knock on the doors of europeans and ask for their opinion on europe and many members of this european parliament are doing this on a daily basis;
time. only. with generous cooperation between the peoples of europe will it be possible to create the ground on which a new construction
to speak to convince to discuss with europeans.
there is no french german or croatian way of life there is only a european way of life and we can be proud of this fundament.
project. if we ignore the european people the people will ignore us and that is what we are facing sometimes
and freedom. and the task of my generation now is to build up a real democratic europe but the future is in the hands of the people of this continent a true parliamentary democracy
this is visible everywhere today in newspaper headlines in facebook comments and in voting turnout.
i want to be a little bit more precise.
brussels. i tell you my main fear is not another
europe is much much much much more. true democracy does not mean denying responsibility.
democracy. and i know this idea is not welcomed by everybody but we have to overcome our
and you are right secondly to convince europeans it is important that europe must deliver protect our borders stabilise our euro fight against terrorism common defence fair taxation the list is long and you can rely on the ppe as a strong partner in this agenda.
to answer this question we do not have to invent anything new.
we must dare to practise parliamentary democracy in the future.
mr president the european parliament this house has waited a long time for a pro european french president like mr macron.
the key question for the future of europe is who has the power? the people in europe or some elite groups?
concrete projects and values this has always been the approach for convincing people about europe over the last decades. so why today is europe under so much pressure and even in crisis? my answer is people do not feel involved.
then it starts to feel like this is not my europe.
you can find communists you can find conservatives christian democrats liberals greens social democrats and even right wing extremists.
it is simply parliamentary democracy in practice which gives the power to the people.
you spoke about democracy.
ambitions. the french say no more treaty change the germans say no more money the central europeans say no more
leaders and national ministers cannot keep blaming and shaming brussels for their own decisions and true democracy does not mean dividing us into good and bad europeans.
when you lose people you lose europe.
it is unique in the
today. so let us rebuild europe as the most successful form of government ever invented by man a parliamentary
and now to be more precise.