kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i also agree with those who have said that we need to have a rational and calm debate on this issue based on facts rather than scare stories.
very many of you have called for free movement to be strongly defended.
i could fill my speech pointing blame at senior politicians from all countries indeed in all political groups but we need a more constructive debate.
the people of europe look for leadership.
it does not help us to find the best way forward.
when you refer to my prime minister please also remember that the leader of the labour party in the uk has said exactly the same things in relation to these matters as my leader has.
but this should not translate into an attempt to destroy freedom of movement and discriminate against individual member states.
the uk in particular has benefited through modern history from this form of two way migration through our commonwealth through the thousands of brave and hardworking polish citizens who helped rebuild my country after the war after fighting alongside us for freedom and democracy through other european migration and also through the three million british citizens who benefit every day from living working and retiring across the european union. but like any system which is nearly thirty years old there needs to be a moment when we can look at how we need to adapt
hot tempers blame finger pointing and the political point scoring which has been taking place is not something that helps to restore confidence;
reform and sometimes even strengthen it in order to ensure its future success and survival.
that tone mr swoboda is a disservice to this parliament and to all the people of europe.
freedom of movement has brought economic growth and cultural diversity and has helped europe meet the modern challenges of changing labour demands and global markets.
reform and clarification yes.
with such rhetoric we play into the hands of those individuals and the media who want to call this parliament and the eu irrational and out of touch.
on the contrary the commission's submissions in this context are based on the premise that member states can refuse to grant social assistance allowances to inactive citizens.
but the evidence shows that people actually go where they find jobs and not benefits.
the free movement of workers benefits individual workers by giving them access to a greater range of job opportunities and experience and it also benefits the economies and welfare systems of the host countries.
thanks to amendments proposed by the parliament it will also be empowered to liaise and cooperate with similar bodies in other countries.
those nine member states which were still applying restrictions in two thousand and thirteen have now lifted them.
amongst the five actions foreseen by the communication one concerned the publication of a practical guide on the habitual residence test.
the guide was jointly drafted by representatives from member states and the european commission.
because eu migrants are more likely to be economically active than nationals of the host member states and less likely to claim social benefits they are net contributors to the host country welfare system in the vast majority of the member states.
this directive is aimed at ensuring better national enforcement of the eu rules in the field of free movement of workers.
this is confirmed by a recent report published by the commission as well as by previous experience.
in order to ensure that eu workers are better able to exercise their right to free movement in practice the eu treaty also includes rules to ensure that they do not face discrimination in terms of access to jobs or working conditions.
in this context let me express my satisfaction for the agreement reached at trialogue level concerning the proposal for a directive on measures facilitating the exercise of the right of free movement of workers.
there are clear safeguards in eu law to prevent people from abusing the social welfare systems of other eu countries and this guide will make it easier for national and local authorities to apply the habitual residence safeguards in practice with the objective of facilitating the free movement of people throughout the european union.
concerns have nevertheless been expressed even by some members of this parliament about the risk that increased flows of people would put an excessive burden on the social security systems of some member states.
it provides for the existence of at least one body in every member state to provide assistance and information to eu workers and their family members on their eu rights.
ironically those countries or those politicians who are now engaged in a frantic debate about the dangers of abuse were the first to let us down when we wanted an improvement of the eu directive especially the eu directive to prevent social dumping.
twenty six five million people unemployed in europe today. nine per cent of all europeans live in extreme poverty. one quarter of europeans are at risk of poverty and social exclusion.
i certainly do not make any criticisms of labour and conservative politicians in this house where i think we have had a rational debate.
looking at the citizenship reports from the european union that the commission has produced we know that there is a lack of information for people when they move about how things work what their entitlements are and how they actually fit into systems.
this is why we discussed labour inspection this week partly as a direct response to some of the issues that have arisen through people moving within the european union.
we should deal with those difficulties and we should also deal with the gaps that there are in protection. but the principle is clear. if you move there is equal treatment with the nationals of the state that you are in.
this means that if you are contributing you have entitlements.
and i am really concerned about some of the actions calling into question the entitlements of people who have contributed to a system so that they are actually going to get nothing for something the opposite of what is often said.
mr president an overwhelming majority in this house says that freedom of movement is an important positive right for all european citizens without exception.
we as a commission will make sure it stays so.
this house also agrees that free movement is a fundamental right and is not open to negotiation.
a sensible immigration policy in britain would allow entry only to those people we might actually want people with the skills to fill jobs that genuinely cannot be filled by our own unemployed;
we also get criminals drug addicts alcoholics beggars vagrants and benefit seekers.
decent british people see their living standards being driven down while benefits and social housing are given to people who have never paid a penny in tax in the uk.
that is what the eu has delivered for us and next may the voters of britain will deliver their verdicts on you fellow members when they vote for the uk independence party in massive numbers.
it is not helped by the constant scaremongering we hear from some of the other uk parties.
we need to have a sensible discussion and to recognise the concerns that many people have not just in the uk but also in many other countries including germany and france.
people on the doorstep constantly tell me that it is not the issue of migration itself that concerns them it is more the fear that they will lose their job because someone from elsewhere will be willing to do it for less. they know that migration has brought huge economic benefits to our country but this does nothing to allay their fears.
you may or may not agree with their fears but we cannot ignore them.
what should we do?
firstly we should ensure that any domestic minimum wage legislation is properly enforced.
secondly we need to strengthen the agency workers directive which is often used to undercut workers' terms and conditions and to exploit migrant workers.
i know that some rogue employers would not be happy with these changes because quite frankly they prefer to continue to hire cheap labour and treat workers as just another commodity.
we must stop once and for all this constant race to the bottom;
instead we should be aiming for a race to the top.
freedom of movement is a fundamental principle of the eu.
will he join with me in calling for an honest debate not one built on myths and one that acknowledges that eu migrants in the uk pay one third more in tax than they receive in benefits and are much less likely to claim welfare than british people?
by the way i do agree with him that labour party leaders are also at fault in the uk and i hope to blue card ms willmott later.
would mr bennion agree with me that we should stop this defamation of hard working migrants across europe and could he also give me the evidence and quote where the labour party has purportedly said that eu migrants who are hard working and come to the united kingdom are scroungers?
this includes the need to protect other important public and private interests and to weigh other fundamental rights that may be affected.
and resolutions adopted by parliament at the december two thousand and eleven part session.
however the commission insists on the need to strike the right balance between the fundamental right of access to eu documents as set out by article forty two of the european union charter of fundamental rights and the need
mr president i would like to make the following statement.
however in the commission's view insufficient time was devoted to in depth trialogue discussions between the institutions.
in the commission's view these amendments are not compatible with the interinstitutional agreement on recasting. the commission stated its position with regard to the amendments of the european parliament in its communication on the action taken on opinions
the objective was to make the regulation compliant with the new treaty and the european charter of fundamental rights which since the lisbon treaty is legally binding on eu institutions when they propose laws and on member states whenever they implement eu laws.
in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure the commission's proposal and the first reading position of the european parliament are currently under consideration by the council.
the commission supported the efforts of the presidency.
citizens have the right to know how we take decisions on their behalf which affect their lives.
of course exceptions should be made and it is a complex issue.
let us make them feel that they are part of a community where decisions are taken democratically.
please let us move together and adopt this regulation.
let us open our doors and encourage them not only to follow but also to participate.
let us show them that they are truly represented.
parliament is ready and i call on the commission the council and the presidency to sit down at the table and relaunch negotiations on the outstanding issues in a constructive spirit.
it is not about shortcuts or compromises at any cost it is about enhancing transparency with a responsible and clear commitment.
we have nothing to hide.
we want fresh information and any possible compromise or common denominators that are envisaged while at the same time taking into account the fact that we will not support any watering down of key legislative areas.
i want to echo what my colleague michael cashman has said that citizens have the right to make sure this parliament as a democratically elected institution is held accountable for what we do in their name.
we are in a different age an age of social media where people demand to see what is going on. we are lagging behind with the delay on this file.
two thousand and fourteen now more than ever we need to send a message that we believe in increased transparency accountability and democracy for eu citizens.
two thousand and eleven this dossier remains a priority for our group and we will continue to reiterate our insistence that the file be adopted before the end of this mandate in.
tonight's debate gives us the opportunity to once again publicly state our commitment to reaching an agreement on access to documents.
the delay that we are seeing is something that needs to penetrate the minds of the commission and council and they need to be aware of what is going on.
we want answers as to whether the commission is confident that we can achieve a compromise and if not what it intends to do in order to progress.
the same goes for actions carried out by both the commission and council on their behalf.
i would also like to remind this chamber that an attempt by the danish presidency to reach a compromise agreement did not succeed.
the cypriot presidency explored the possibility of finding common ground but concluded that the conditions for a compromise were not met.
it was stated that efforts were supported in order for us to try and reach an agreement.
the commission has never presented any proposals amendments or compromises during our trialogues and its position was to simply sit and say no'. so therefore i say to the commission if this is not accurate please publish and present the proposals you made.
will they withdraw the regulation and allow the court of justice to do the work that we legislators should be doing for our citizens?
the court of justice has reached several far reaching and important judgments for the understanding of the new legal framework on access to documents created by the lisbon treaty and even recently in its conclusions on the appeal on access information the advocate general brilliantly stated that legislating is by definition a law making activity and that a democratic society
can only function through the use of procedure.
so we have the advocate general siding with parliament openness and transparency.
of course we need to reach a compromise but there are certain minimums that i cannot trade off. for instance we need to extend the scope of the regulation to all institutions offices agencies and bodies.
we need clarification that no member state veto exists.
we need legislative transparency no exceptions for certain kinds of legal advice.
but for the rest parliament is ready to find a compromise.
we are ready to sit
we will put down what we believe is the way forward.
let us work together to break this deadlock.
but parliament cannot do it without the commission or the council and should this deadlock remain i tell you now that citizens will further disconnect from the european project.
at a crucial time you will have failed europe and its founders.
i cannot believe that i have heard someone say in this hemicycle well we should not give too much information to the citizens because they would only get confused'.
it cannot be real not in this house because the eu ms sommer who has disappeared is no longer the old project of diplomats where the culture of this question of secrecy prevails. it is rapidly evolving into a mature political union of citizens and the citizens ms sommer and dear commissioner are clamouring for transparency because transparency is essential for accountability which in turn is indispensable for a mature democracy.
we talk the commission talks a lot about winning the trust of the citizens yet there is no culture of transparency in the commission.
i can testify to that because i actually took the commission to court in a case where they refused access to documents.
i took the council to court and i am very ready to take the commission to court again and i am pretty sure that this will happen.
have you ever heard of acta?
if you want a demonstration of how secrecy will actually sink your own plans acta is perfect.
i think it is regrettable that the commission and the council take a minimalist approach to transparency and disclose as little as they can possibly get away with.
so commissioner do everything in your power to unblock this dossier.
first of all to eliminate one misunderstanding i did not say that wikileaks should stand in place of the transparency regulation;
that needs to be discussed.
mr president it is an extremely important point of order. given that parliament takes a completely different view of the role played by the commission in the negotiations under the danish presidency and the cypriot presidency and that we are prepared to bring forward and publish our amendments and our proposals will the commission publish its amendments and its proposals on drafting that it brought to the negotiations?
they brought none but if they wish to prove that the rapporteur has suddenly amnesia will they publish them?
without its first reading we need the commission to either agree with us or withdraw its proposal.
so the commission i am afraid is the problem.
the need for eu expenditure to standardise cross border technologies to implement this legislation is beyond belief.
uk police need the ammunition to be able to track and enforce drivers who ignore the law on our highways but it is our own uk border control that needs to store data on the vehicle registration on entry with the driver's appropriate legal licence not the eu's.
years after the implementation of the prm decision the majority of member states are still not able to exchange any of the three types of data deemed necessary for dealing with cross border information exchange.
at least this way anyone who leaves the uk can be stopped at our own border control and dealt with appropriately.
just on the figures there are some very extreme examples both ways of how this has worked out.
in my country i know that this has not been universally welcomed and in many cases we have been urged to try to stay out of this.
it works for the benefit of all across the eu and it also underlines the need to do more on road safety in general in order to meet our road safety targets which we are going to be at a push to meet by two thousand and twenty in particular making sure that conditionality on road safety is a point on all major transport infrastructure projects in line with the trans european network guidelines.
now make no mistake this is a road safety measure.
on a london ring road people going twice the speed limit in foreign registered vehicles are not being caught;
it is about deterrence and it is about good governance;
eu funding should not go towards projects on urban mobility or on transport unless road safety is absolutely a top priority.
i am calling on the government today to change its view and to try and implement this more quickly than it has said it can.
we have made considerable progress and i know madam commissioner it is one of your priorities to reduce deaths on our roads.
we cannot have one law for domestic drivers and another for foreign drivers who choose to break the law. the eight traffic offences that have been covered are i am sure the most common.
i do not think anybody can argue with that statistic in terms of the work we are doing here in ensuring that those lives are saved not to mention the horrific injuries that we also have on our roads.
according to an eec impact assessment study these new proposals will save between three hundred and fifty and four hundred road deaths per year.
too many europeans are still victims of reckless drivers who do not respect traffic rules.
the new directive will now be implemented according to the transport legal basis in the treaty and applied across all twenty eight member states and not only to the twenty five as before which excluded the united kingdom ireland and denmark. the adoption of this proposal will ensure legal continuity
this is a perfect example of how good cooperation between our institutions can bring tangible results very quickly and efficiently. the commission is very grateful that we managed to address the issue on which the court ruled last year while staying true to the principles of the original
as soon as one of the traffic offences listed in the directive is committed the respective enforcement agent will be able to identify the owner of the car and ask him or her to justify him herself.
by making it possible to easily identify drivers from other member states who commit traffic offences the new directive is expected to have a positive impact on the behaviour of many motorists.
for the quick examination of this proposal and the finalisation of the report within the deadline set by the court.
so congratulations.
do you not therefore accept that there is a need to have some form of a system in place that allows drivers travelling into one or the other jurisdiction to live up to their responsibilities under road safety regulations?
ms seymour your arguments would make sense were it not for the fact that your own country has a jurisdiction in ireland which comprises along the county that i come from around five hundred regional and local roads which it would be impossible to enforce any sort of border control over.
it shows me that we are together in this ambitious plan for road safety.
this is just the first step and the real work still lies ahead of us and say that the commission will now concentrate on implementation.
we know that this is a serious issue.
if not i can assure you that the commission will not hesitate to propose additional measures as just outlined.
two thousand and sixteen this assessment will be an opportunity to look further as some of you invited us to do.
so that goes both ways both in terms of the uk and on the continent.
it is an interesting point and it is something that all of us involved in transport work and road safety are very mindful of.
zimbabwean government that human rights lie at the core of our partnership and the gradual normalisation of our relations. to mark the second month of this abduction the european union missions in zimbabwe published
about his situation.
but the problem goes a lot further.
because we are responsible for the situation that we have this morning and for other instances where voters' rights and citizens' rights in that country are at risk and individuals are also at risk in terms of their personal security and safety.
i am wondering how many people must be killed before state sponsored violence in zimbabwe disappears once and for all.
given our major role as a provider of humanitarian and development assistance in the region is it not time that the commission and the council again paid attention to zimbabwe?
at the same time we have seen a massive increase in china's presence in the country. i have to say that we have been discussing the issue of zimbabwe since my time in this parliament began and i have been here fifteen years now and it does not seem to get any better in spite of some efforts.
madam president over two months have passed since the disappearance of itai dzamara. this should be a matter of great concern not just to people in zimbabwe but to the wider international community. most regrettably it is indicative of the very serious situation in zimbabwe which is in a state of economic and political turmoil and where political freedom does not exist.
in particular i ask that the council reconsider its decisions of february two thousand and fourteen and of february this year to scale back almost to zero the targeted sanctions on zimbabwe.
zimbabwe is also his wife who is undergoing enormous pressure. but zimbabwe is also dozens hundreds and thousands of other people who do not know for an hour a minute when something can happen to them. so zimbabwe is a dictatorship regime.
we do not know. the police and intelligence organisations are denying involvement and failing to comply with a high court order instructing them to search for mr dzamara and report on his progress.
this all raises concern about the mugabe regime and how it deals with political opponents journalists and activists who dare to criticise the government and state in zimbabwe. we know that human rights activists in zimbabwe face severe challenges and restrictions on their work including political intimidation harassment arbitrary arrest and physical violence to them and their families.
this is all taking place in the face of a new constitution and a new zimbabwe human rights commission both of which were supported by the eu and brought hope to the people of zimbabwe.
it will completely undermine the efforts of colony egg producers in the uk.
two thousand and twelve unstamped eggs are a gift to a fraudulent trader.