kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
by contrast for rd agreements where there are a limited number of parties often only two the public consultation showed that stakeholders considered that there is in practice no real problem of patent ambush as the parties have an incentive to bring innovations to market and any potential problems can be solved upfront by contractual means between parties.
although this does not completely remove the risk it does reduce it.
in the responses to the public consultation around two thirds of stakeholders commented on standardisation.
close and strong.
most of us consider that the free movement of persons is a fundamental right guaranteed to eu citizens by the treaties and that it should not be compromised.
i believe that we should not say anything which would inflame the situation.
may not be created in the future and that economic growth in switzerland may be lowered over the next three years by almost.
our colleague who was brandishing the swiss national flag today was not helpful.
business as usual is not an option here.
nobody can pretend to be surprised here. of course nobody has an interest in breaking off dialogue and we will continue to engage constructively in the hope that a solution can be found rapidly.
i want to make it very clear that this freeze on negotiations is not a punishment or sanction for the expression of the swiss electorate but a logical consequence of the choice switzerland itself has made a consequence which was very well known before.
but we have to take into account the changed circumstances and the non conclusion of the croatia protocol.
in the same vein and i want to be equally clear nobody on our side has an interest in terminating the freedom of movement of people agreement and invoking the so called guillotine clause linking the package of agreements concluded in.
agreements can be renegotiated but they cannot be fundamentally altered.
i for one do not think that the swiss people want to break our strong ties but i do think that over the next three years we have to look clearly at the consequences.
as i would say rights come with responsibilities and very clearly the swiss people know what they expect from us when we sign these agreements and we are very clear what we expect from our partners and our friends in switzerland.
it also acknowledges as we do that there is now a period of great uncertainty in switzerland.
it is that decision or that inability to sign that requires us to say we will cancel talks in relation to erasmus and scientific research programmes.
our swiss partners would like to pick and choose who to allow access to in terms of free movement of people and there is talk of quotas.
but it is clear that it is not the case because the people of switzerland voted on one element and one element only of their long standing relationship and agreement with us namely to restrict access to switzerland for citizens including citizens of the european union.
quotas are the exact opposite of what we have agreed with our swiss counterparts.
but what we are doing this morning is analysing the consequences of their decision.
the commission has stated and many commissioners have stated including here this morning that it is impossible to restrict free movement of people while expecting to retain and enjoy the benefits of free movement of goods services and capital. the swiss government has acknowledged that there is now a systemic change in our relationship
the people of switzerland have spoken but let the eu be clear that we expect full adherence to all our agreements we defend the principle of free movement of people as a core and defining principle and we await clarity from our swiss partners.
but freedom of movement of people is a fundamental part of our agreement with switzerland and it is a fundamental principle of the european union.
i understand that some businesses are looking at relocating their business base out of switzerland because of this uncertainty.
you could interpret the outcome of this vote by the swiss people as a desire to end their agreements with the european union.
arising from the referendum outcome.
there are three years in which this referendum outcome needs to be put in place but already the government has responded to the outcome by declining to sign the protocol with the european union extending free movement to citizens of croatia.
it is impossible to come to the table with an irrevocable position and expect partners to bend and yield.
i believe that the meps from croatia respect and want us to stand up for their rights.
governing eu switzerland relations which was agreed at technical level.
furthermore the new article of the swiss constitution prohibits the conclusion of new agreements and obliges the government to renegotiate international agreements which would be or are contrary to the new provisions.
for us for the european union the free movement of persons is one of the four pillars underlying the internal market.
the commission stands ready to listen to the swiss proposals which are now being considered and which we have not yet seen.
the swiss federal council has up to three years to implement the vote so there is no immediate massive crisis.
it is very difficult to imagine how immigration quotas and national preference could be made compatible with the agreement on the full free movement of persons we have with switzerland. quotas are contrary to the principle of free movement and the principle of free movement is not only an essential part of the internal market which cannot be decoupled from the other freedoms
a package is a package!
the swiss government have indicated to us that they will have concluded their internal reflections on the protocol by early april.
following this constitutional change the swiss federal council has informed us that it is still evaluating whether it is in a position to sign the already negotiated and initialled protocol extending the free movement of persons' agreement to croatia.
our margin of manoeuvre however is extremely limited.
it is a fundamental right.
the ball is in their court.
this core principle of the free movement of persons is a cornerstone of our relationship.
switzerland is deeply interconnected with its neighbours in terms of infrastructure culture and family links. the eu and switzerland are bound by dozens of bilateral agreements which give switzerland privileged access to the internal market and promote exchanges both commercial and personal
all of these were concluded based on mutual trust interest and reciprocity.
the swiss authorities told the commission that they need time to reflect on how this could be implemented.
but is also at the heart of our overall relations with switzerland.
a deal is a deal and selective implementation or even cherry picking is not an option.
in the meantime and i want to be very clear on this both sides must continue to fulfil all their obligations under the existing agreements pacta sunt servanda' as they say in latin.
it is not simply negotiable' as some tend to believe.
it is one of our major trading partners and our economies are closely interlinked.
we believe that generalisations and stories about benefit tourism or fraudsters are very dangerous to the public perception especially in the light of rising populism.
public perception is directly linked to political statements.
allegations should be based on facts and figures and not on perceptions and opinions.
mr president freedom of movement is a very important principle of the eu and i am very proud to live in a part of europe where many people want to come and live.
but we also need to recognise that migration can put significant pressures on public services and listen to the local communities' concerns.
immigration brings great benefits to our economy and we all benefit from this sharing of knowledge.
its people are perfectly entitled to choose their own way of controlling their borders but this is a complicated and sensitive subject and we need to be calm and considered in our response. switzerland is not in the eu but works with us on many issues.
in science and research funding it contributes money and its researchers universities and businesses take part in collaborative research both based in the eu and trying to solve problems for citizens of europe all over the world.
we all benefit from the knowledge and innovation that working together they contribute.
any attempt to sanction switzerland by limiting its participation in science and research could be very detrimental to us all.
europe is changing.
some countries want closer integration;
others do not.
if we want to keep everyone in the single market we will need to allow some countries to stay out of other parts.
the reaction to this vote in switzerland will be watched very carefully.
it would be very foolish to retaliate too harshly.
i do not want to give anybody the impression that i have not been doing anything in relation to the marketplace.
of stopping the export of our products to the russian market.
we have not been able to achieve the type of market options around the world to replace that particular market for fruit and vegetables.
these are the issues that we have been improving.
some of the markets that we have had in the past the products perhaps may not be suitable anymore in relation to these particular consumer markets and we have to look at options and consider helping in the research area with companies like pc fruit in order to develop alternatives in terms of consumer tastes and to promote those types of new products.
these figures are no consolation to our farmers who are involved in the fruit and vegetable sector who still need our support and who are continuing to suffer market losses and income losses. in view of the persisting market difficulties the temporary exceptional measures in relation to fruit and vegetables have been prolonged
i would also like to underline that in some member states and for certain products such as peaches in spain or apples in poland there are structural problems of over production in those countries and we have to look at these issues and monitor them.
this was done in a delegated act recently for producer organisations and it is applicable since june of this year.
i am disappointed however that the united states has not fulfilled its promise to open the market for fruit to poland and belgium in particular as it promised to do some time ago.
the eu support allows producers to adapt to the new market situation and in parallel we are working to ensure a gradual opening of new markets for european union apples by lifting sanitary and phytosanitary barriers particularly in asia in countries like china india and vietnam and in the american countries particularly the united states and canada.
significantly the support in terms of the withdrawal scheme and the amount of product for fruit and vegetables.
by mentioning these particular issues i am saying that we are doing everything we possibly can by all the means at my disposal to help farmers in the fruit and vegetable area to overcome the market difficulties in the food and vegetable sector arising from the russian embargo and that farmers are not being left totally on their own.
these temporary exceptional measures cannot be considered as the appropriate way to remedy these types of situations and we will continue to look at those markets and those particular products with member states in order to see what we have to do to address this problem of over production in an appropriate way.
i would like to underline that the updated eci will benefit from technological improvements in particular for collecting signatures online and a collaborative platform.
what is important however is that the commission will now be able to partially register the initiative in cases where the commission only has the power to propose legislation.
this system will have superior standards and most importantly will be more user friendly.
finally to what extent has the eu timber regulation been raised in dialogue with japan as another major importer of timber and a trading partner of the eu?
i really welcome this agreement with vietnam committing now to only importing and exporting legally harvested timber.
deforestation as we've already heard is the second leading cause of global warming and this agreement will be key not only in achieving the two thousand and thirty agenda for sustainable development but also the paris climate change goals.
with a planned network of national coordination centres we want to make sure that member states bring together all relevant parties involved in developing new cybersecurity capabilities for the digital single market the public and private sectors as well as academia.
secondly and equally importantly i would like to strongly welcome the report on the cybersecurity competence centre and network of national coordination centres proposal.
it is in europe's strategic interests to make sure that eu industries are at the cutting edge in developing next generation cybersecurity and digital technologies. we have proposed the digital year programme to finance the development of new cybersecurity capabilities in europe and to invest with the member states and the private sector in their deployment across the european union.
this agreement is the result of good cooperation between the co legislators on the future of enisa the european agency for cybersecurity and on setting up a cybersecurity certification framework for the digital single market.
getting the right balance on this was important to all the groups especially ensuring that there was no discrimination to eu nationals who would be included if they had a third country nationality as well.
the existing rules make it easier for non eu nationals to hide crimes they have committed on eu soil than it is for eu nationals.
at the core this is about ensuring judicial authorities have a complete picture when carrying out their work meaning they can apply sentences fairly.
at present officials who suspect a non eu national has a criminal past can only find those convictions by individually asking all twenty seven other member states.
it is a gaping legal loophole which leaves people in the eu less safe.
you are saying you want to discriminate against eu citizens in the eu and you admit that you want some people to be able to hide serious criminal convictions convictions which have been handed down on eu soil.
the legal services of all three institutions agree that there is no discrimination.
this legislation closes the gap while also providing a fair balance between protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that past convictions are correctly attributed.
let me be clear here as there is some misunderstanding especially within the alde group.
i believe that we have got this balance right and we won some significant safeguards in those negotiations particularly regarding fingerprints.
if we don't have this system authorities will have to make judgment calls on which system to search and that would probably mean profiling based on race and name.
overall this is about ensuring judicial authorities have a complete picture in order to react adequately and to apply the right measures.
in addition the collection of the fingerprints for dual nationals will be exactly the same as for eu nationals.
it is a good agreement.
this is for eu convictions only so no turkish convictions or convictions from any other non eu member state are involved it's only eu convictions.
our legal services see no discrimination in the text.
there is no conviction data stored in the central database and so there is no differentiation of treatment between eu and third country nationals as both the eu and the third country national systems ultimately result in the same outcome i. e. that member states' judicial authorities are able to request previous criminal conviction information from the relevant member state so that that can be taken into account for the sentencing of new convictions. critically the inclusion of dual nationals in this system means that nationals of both a third country and an eu member state can't hide their past criminal convictions in the eu simply by disclosing only one of their passports.
we have ensured safeguards on how specific and targeted information can be shared.
let me be clear if colleagues here vote to reopen the deal you are putting your own citizens at risk.
this deal was voted through the libe committee with a considerable majority.
mr president sharing information across borders is essential to fight crime and terrorism in a world where people are increasingly mobile and cross border crime is on the rise.
this regulation is an important step to close these loopholes and improve information sharing and cooperation between member states in the fight against cross border crime and terrorism.
we can all agree that non eu nationals should not find themselves with more rights than eu citizens in the eu itself.
the difficult sickening truth is that it has and it is.
the fundamental rights agency's report on this last year shows conclusions that are alarming and frightening beyond words.
when i visited several years ago i could not have imagined that today several years on and well into the twenty first century anti semitism would have again become a cause of deep worry fear and dread in europe.
it is doing so in the most grotesque frightening and upsetting ways possible significant increases in anti semitic incidents across europe in recent years.
this vile hatred in all its forms must be confronted online on the right on the left inside political parties across political debate and in wider society.
when you entered your position you promised that you would uphold the positions of this parliament and this parliament has consistently voted in favour of sexual selfdetermination and lgbti rights. i ask you are you going to fulfil the promise and uphold these values or are you going to attend this congress?
i cannot stress enough the importance of the whole process.
one thing is to stimulate economic growth but we cannot forget about sharing our norms and values as well as promoting social inclusion and environmental protection.
we should be proud that we now have over seventy preferential trade agreements in place.
mr president today we are discussing yet another trade agreement. it's the last in this parliamentary term after japan and singapore. it warms my heart to see that we are opening our markets to high standard trade. i have always spoken in favour of trade agreements as they boost trade promote international competitiveness of our companies as well as create opportunities for investments outside of the eu.
it now wants to make it even more difficult to reach the one million signature target by phasing out one of the options to collect them by.
in the case of the stop ttip' petition we can clearly see that the commission refused the initiative because it was counter to their own policy.
but having starved this horse the commission now wants to shoot it.
two thousand and twenty two the commission likes to talk about listening to the citizens. sadly though it does anything but.
only two have seen the commission reply with legislative proposals water and sanitation is a human right and stop glyphosate out of those two neither were considered to have reached a satisfactory outcome by the organisers of the petition.
instead we should be closing the corporate tax loopholes and introducing a wealth tax to frontload the investment in sustainable alternatives and set a timeline for fossil fuel phaseout.
all the while corporate polluters are let off the hook and continue to extract fossil fuels.
rapid farreaching and unprecedented change is what the ipcc report called for and instead we are discussing carbon tax topups that punish ordinary families.
mr president four hundred zero households in ireland are in fuel poverty. deprivation levels for single parent families have doubled over the last five years yet we have talk of a hike in a carbon tax.
we also need an eu special envoy for peace.
furthermore the establishment of additional institutional mechanisms such as task forces for specific conflict prevention situations are also important aspects on how to strengthen the institutional capacities for conflict prevention and mediation.
the report also suggests the appointment of a vicepresident responsible for coordinating the mediation and facilitation of dialogue activities.
additionally i have been clear on the budget issues.
we must also see the fundamental logic of the active work and representation of women with women's experiences youth and civil society at all stages of conflict prevention and mediation work.
this advisory board will set up a pool of senior political mediators and conflict prevention experts.
the main idea of the report is to reinforce the institutional capacities of the eu for conflict prevention and mediation as well as to increase the role of the european parliament in this area. our most important suggestions are to establish an eu highlevel advisory board on conflict prevention and mediation
this is why i put great effort into mainstreaming the gender perspective in the report in line with the internationally accepted women peace and security agenda.
under the vice president high representative.
a yearly report to parliament on the progress made in implementing eu policy commitments on conflict prevention and mediation is also requested.
there is indeed a need for a clear mandate on how to build and promote peace at all levels in the world.
in the establishment of a pool of mediators that includes current and former members of the european parliament;
as such we must remain committed to reinforcing our role as a global actor for peace.
order to rebalance the report i have now put forward amendments for the plenary on the following topics to call for the eu to take a lead role in the implementation of the un security council resolution on women peace and security;
finally this is a very good piece of legislation.
we now need to build upon it and i want to thank too all the campaigners across europe from the fair trade movement from traidcraft in the uk from the fair trade advocacy office and the cooperative movement and all those who campaigned for this.
everyone will be able to sign no matter where they live.
the commission regrets that some of the objectives which it wanted to pursue in this reform and which it shared with parliament could not be fully achieved.
as such the initiatives are an important instrument to promote and stimulate their participation in the democratic life of the european union allowing them to initiate european debates and help set the agenda of eu institutions.
it will offer more opportunities for initiative organisers to receive support and advice in particular through an online collaborative platform and contact points in member states.
in the end it was not possible to lower the participation age from eighteen to sixteen across the eu.
the personal data that people have to provide in order to sign.
in addition while the new regulation introduces a central online collection system that the commission provides for free we would have preferred to retain the option for organisers to use their own systems if they wish.
two thousand and twenty two however i would like to stress that the commission is fully committed to delivering a high quality central system which we will develop in close consultation with stakeholders.
all in all i believe we have already delivered on our objective to make the european citizens' initiative more accessible less burdensome and easier to use.
but at the end of the day if we take a comprehensive look at the file if we consider gains and losses we have to accept that the global proposal of the eci regulations means a very important step forward.
individual online collection systems will only be allowed until the end of two thousand and twenty two but not beyond this date.
this directive on unfair trading practices used as one of its bases the uk's grocery supply code of practice.
the uk found that purely voluntary systems didn't work. voluntary codes didn't change buyers' behaviour and that is why legislation is needed.