kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
and then of course next year will also be the year of the mff mid term review which is also going to be a big challenge for both our institutions.
that comes on top of the one hundred and forty proposals which are pending on the table of the co legislators.
i hope that we can work closely together with parliament on this.
i want to mention this at the start of my contribution today because i do believe that we as europeans whatever our position may be on european integration on european cooperation at that moment had a sense of destiny of common destiny.
where legislation is the right response to address the big things we will be big on legislation.
in conclusion mr president aligning our political priorities and planning can help make all the difference to whether europeans look at europe as part of the problem or rather as part of the solution to the huge challenges they face.
some of these proposals are already before you and more are coming starting with the revision of the energy labelling and emissions trading legislation next week.
we need to be i believe pragmatic and result oriented.
i remember vividly those days.
we will present an action plan for developing a real capital markets union in autumn and we will accompany it with the first legislative proposals in the most pressing areas.
let me say something briefly about this year's state of play and the commission work programme.
our strategic agendas those we have already presented and those still to come later this year will obviously be the main frame and we will keep a clear focus on delivering what we have announced there.
the importance of the social dimension in emu obviously but also more widely is something president juncker and i are both very attached to.
if i look back at the last couple of years we have seen that europe is facing a number of huge challenges terrorism as i just mentioned;
the college will have a further orientation debate dedicated to social policy immediately after the summer. before looking ahead towards two thousand and sixteen i would like to stress that it takes in this case oddly enough three to tango.
to launch and guide our discussion a letter of intent' will be sent in parallel with the state of the union address here in this house.
our proposal pays particular attention to reinforcing and consolidating the annual and multiannual planning and programming.
so please remember that those are the pivotal points in our commission work programme.
and before the end of the year we want to put to you a comprehensive and clearly much needed 'emu package'.
there are so many challenges we face and so many results our citizens expect of us let us do it together.
delivering results where it matters is a shared responsibility of all three institutions.
so that is for september. you can expect another targeted and balanced work programme focused on two thousand and sixteen and two thousand and sixteen only grounded in the ten priorities set out by president juncker and agreed with your parliament.
these agendas and action plans signal a considerable legislative workload for this house in the months and years to come.
and if pending proposals need to be repealed or withdrawn to allow the co legislators to use their energy on files that have a chance of being adopted we will flag them.
we have set out strategic agendas including for investment energy union the digital single market migration internal security and a fairer corporate tax system.
mr president exactly ten years ago in london fifty two people died and hundreds were wounded in a terrible terrorist attack.
we are working on ambitious strategies on trade and investment on the single market for goods and services on an ambitious package for the circular economy.
i look forward to the resolution that this house will adopt later this week which will be very useful in guiding the commission's ongoing reflections.
in september we will have an opportunity to take stock of the progress made and of the challenges ahead during president juncker's state of the union address.
there will be a strong emphasis on refit because keeping the acquis up to date and pertinent to today's challenges requires a permanent effort.
whatever else we may do right or wrong we have a common duty to fight for the security and safety of our citizens.
in total over forty proposals for legislation will flow from the strategies we have already presented.
if others need to be prioritising and speeding up we will flag them too.
i remember the outpouring of solidarity in london in the united kingdom and across the world especially in the european union.
so please let us bust this myth that this commission is not forthcoming enough.
i strongly believe in this and i think we need to deliver better results for our citizens.
this is the backdrop against which we are working on our commission work programme for this year and for next year.
let me turn briefly to the preparations for next year.
this is the basis upon which we will develop our concrete proposals.
the need to face the changes in the world's economy and the place of europe therein;
we will also listen to the input of member states in the general affairs council.
it is not just about us and our little differences or indeed the things that bind us it is about future generations.
on the big themes we are talking about improving the eurozone and that is not just greece that is eurozone governance and we need to go much further than the five presidents' proposals.
as far as i am concerned that is much more about the process than it is about the outcome because the outcome is a matter of political choice.
a second point it is a minor one and is not in the resolution but i think i am speaking on behalf of all of us would be getting true and serious responses to our written parliamentary questions rather than the non answers that we usually get.
in the process i think there is a lot that needs to be improved and the commission can do a lot there too for example by introducing a true culture of transparency and access to documents because despite all the nice words i find that the three institutions and that includes the european parliament still have a very conservative reflex when it comes to opening up and being transparent.
it also means responding to legislative proposals by the european parliament.
quite frankly cutting red tape important as it may be is not the answer to all the big challenges of today.
i think what we need to keep in mind is that what we are doing here today is creating the european union that future generations will be living in.
i very much welcome the aim of the commission supported by the majority in this house to cut red tape.
first of all i have to say that there is broad support for working closely together on a commission work programme that is targeted and of course that chooses political priorities after a debate.
political priorities are something you debate and you look for majorities to get them clearly. at the same time i also see the willingness in this institution just as much as i know it exists in the council and in the commission to reach an interinstitutional agreement hopefully before the end of this year on better law making. of course better law making is not the answer to all our problems better law making will not solve the crisis in greece;
better lawmaking is not the way to tackle putin.
i accept all these points.
but better law making is a way of trying to answer the plea of an endless number of smes across europe which are telling me whenever i go to a member state please help us cut red tape;
please help us create more clarity;
please help us understand that it is possible to create clear legislation not legislation where member states then have endless possibilities of gold plating so that we are completely lost.
' these are things that are important.
yes of course this is not earthshattering this is not going to change the nature of europe.
but it is going to make a difference for hundreds of thousands of people who are trying day by day to work very hard to create a living for themselves their families and the people who work for them. therefore this is an important thing for me.
the way we create legislation is important to hundreds of millions of europeans.
even if they do not know it is important to them it still is because the outcome is something they have to deal with.
and let me be very clear on impact assessment.
let me be very clear on more scrutiny.
this does not lead to taking away the power of politicians.
we do not change that.
it leads to better informed politicians.
i do not know what would be the problem with better informed politicians.
better scrutiny and better impact assessment means that the politicians when they decide are better informed about what they can decide.
do not use the argument that the politicians should be in charge' to dismiss impact assessment and to dismiss scrutiny.
that would be changing the argument you are using against me completely around.
the commission does not want to use impact assessment and scrutiny to disempower politicians.
on the contrary we want to help politicians to be better informed.
we see across our member states that sometimes scrutiny or analysis leads to a conclusion and the experts then say this means that this measure is going to be more costly for this or that reason.
the recipients of our legislation where we are responsible parliament and commission and where the member state is responsible.
there is still a tremendous amount of gold plating going on. and again here member states have the full right to do that.
if they want to create stricter legislation it is entirely up to them they have the full right to do it.
be honest about it be transparent about it.
i think the proposals we will discuss in our interinstitutional agreement will help us become more transparent.
there i hope we can reach an agreement which will create more transparency.
everyone will understand that.
of course we will need to act on a number of things that are very important and migration is one of them.
but the commission sticks to its proposals.
i think we have less support in europe for asylum policy because many of our citizens know that the system is being abused and because we are not able if we discover people abusing the system to make sure they return to the countries they came from.
if we want a credible migration and asylum policy we have to make sure that the rules are actually applied so that people who deserve asylum get asylum unfortunately too often the system fails them and that people who do not deserve asylum are sent back to where they come from and also that we have agreements with third countries to do that.
but we also need and this is simple demographics possibilities for the european union to have traditional legal forms of migration.
there needs to be a possibility for people to apply for a visa at an embassy in the country where they live to come and live and work in europe.
let me conclude by saying that for me the important thing here is that our two institutions work closely together because i do not think anybody disputes our goal that we should perform better in delivering results for our citizens. sometimes these are huge
but the debate of course is about what we call big and what we call small. that is a political debate and a political decision.
let us not hide between impact assessments scrutiny boards or whatever.
is it because of the rising unemployment in europe?
is it because of the rising inequalities in europe?
i think it is the latter.
well i still have to say that we need to see some proof of that. one of the biggest moments when we are going to read that out is of course when you come forward with the so called more ambitious proposal on the circular economy package.
mr timmermans you said in our group let me prove you wrong' because you know we are sceptical.
well i am happy to be proved wrong but we have to see it.
we should have far more on transparency and country by country reporting.
let us not hide behind bureaucratic impact assessments and let us make it a political debate where all three institutions are at the same level.
europe does need to change and the perpetual path to political union is not the solution and my group does not support this.
in my country six years ago we faced a deep economic crisis but we now have more jobs than ever before and it is the fastest growing economy in the west.
in europe the economy needs to come first and it is competitiveness that drives jobs and growth. this resolution has some helpful suggestions.
the eu should not churn out new laws without thinking about the impact on growth small businesses and innovation.
the commission has cut back new legislation is focusing on making sure existing laws work and has promised to remove burdens for businesses and set a target for cutting red tape.
this report supports all of that.
i have also said that every eu initiative should face the simple test will it make it easier or harder for businesses to thrive? this report supports that.
a generation ago politicians created the single market to make it easier to trade. this report says we must make it fit for purpose in a digital age underpinning the digital revolution not undermining it.
this report supports that.
we must increase external trade too.
let us sign the deal with canada and keep negotiating the one with the us.
yes we need investment built on private funds because the crisis in public debt is even more acute today than it has been in the past.
structural reforms are key.
majorities in this house at the moment are very narrow.
we do need less law but it needs to be very well targeted to get support.
the exercise of discussing the commission's work programme is something like that. let us go back a little bit.
but this year is a full year which means that we can already have full preparation which we are doing. obviously i am not saying that the preparation process is perfect.
of compromises.
very often we do not need new legislation;
the commission has to do the same.
this is a big delay;
we should solve this problem;
we are against any revision of these two main instruments for the moment;
finally labour market conditions favourable for work life balance can only be created if quality of life is supported within and outside work.
family and private life.
the eu has to urgently adopt work life balance policies today's reality by taking into account the needs of an increasingly diverse society.
caring for and spending time with family and friends and time for leisure and personal development.
furthermore member states are in particular called upon to provide for accessible available and affordable high quality care services for children older relatives family members with disabilities or those with illnesses.
a specific part of the report is dedicated to the quality of employment.
having achieved the situation where women and men are equal earners and equal carers there is a need for strong action at european local and national levels for legislative measures combined with nonlegislative measures in order to allow men and women to better reconcile work
it is therefore important to ensure an inadequate wage for all workers and provide worker oriented flexible working arrangements that do not cause an additional burden for the personal and family situation of both women and men.
this means ensuring people have enough time outside work for personal development and leisure and combating inequalities in society as a whole.
to care is to be human and anyone can become a carer. in fact many men would like to spend more time with their families but do not have the possibility or are somehow discouraged from doing so.
the commission's aim now is to present a more holistic approach to addressing the challenges of work life balance.
both the legal instruments and the policy measures need to be modernised and updated. first to enable both women and men to realise their potential in the labour market.
we are envisaging a comprehensive package with both legislative and non legislative elements to support working families and businesses.
there needs to be a decent level of childcare and care services infrastructure in place to give people a meaningful choice.
subject to the social partners' prerogative to negotiate it is the commission's intention to accompany this process.
if the social partners decide not to enter into negotiation the commission intends to explore all avenues leading to the establishment of an effective legislative and policy framework.
you have seen this commitment in our work programme and we are pleased to have your support in this endeavour.
it is extremely important that the report takes a clear stand against austerity and widening social inequality.
it highlights the sad reality that women are especially affected by precarious labour zero hour contracts and cuts in public services. the commission and national governments must heed the call here and take action.
it is an important example of how the eu promotes gender equality and social justice and why it is so important that we stand up for our core values.
as labour meps here in the european parliament we have a duty to draw attention to the important work done in this house.
we must make sure that our constituents in the uk continue to benefit from the social protection enshrined in eu law in any eventuality.
we are going to work very hard to pursue the four main activities related to smart regulation.
we are going to simplify legislation which is already on the books.
we are going to continue with impact assessments.
those members of large party groups who wish to obey unthinkingly do not need to concern themselves with this because they blindly follow the instructions of their party or group leaderships.
however independent minded meps either of large or small groups who wish to take an independent judgement before they vote must sometimes decide between attending a debate during the morning preceding a vote and leaving crucial judgements to their assistants or absenting themselves from those debates so they can make a personal decision.
mr president first of all i should like to thank my colleague the rapporteur for this report and everything she has included in it. better lawmaking is a challenge of vital importance for the future of an eu that is relevant for citizens of our member states.
much of the good lawmaking that we do in this house is however unfortunately negated firstly by the large number of completely unnecessary regulations that still sit on our statute books and the administrative burden that places on the backbone of the eu economy i.
i am pleased to see that the commission has today recognised that in this house.
moving forward from the lisbon treaty however it is important that we concentrate on many of the issues that have been raised by my colleague.
first of all as the standing rapporteur on monitoring subsidiarity and proportionality i can tell you that it is certainly of vital importance that our national parliaments play their right part in our process of lawmaking here but without adequate interpretation facilities that part of our job is not done to the best of our abilities.
i welcome the report's call for smart regulation to be defined. impact assessments should be presented in committee right at the outset so that parliament can share its views with the commission before any assessment is undertaken.
in short my group is very supportive of the fact that we move forward on the following bases the european institutions must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
all draft legislation must include reasons for concluding that this level is the best at which we come forward with that regulation;
all legislative proposals should be accompanied by an impact assessment with a greater degree of independence;
the commission should present all impact assessments to the committee right at the outset;
and we must ensure that decisions are taken as closely to the citizen as possible.
instead of seeing them as a threat we should see what they can offer us.
perhaps their advantage is that they were not in the european union and that they were therefore able to tailor their policies to suit their own conditions and needs.
the rest of us could learn from countries which have proximity to the citizen small scale of government and efficiency in fiscal matters instead of trying to bully them.
now when i look at their lack of vat their maximum cap on income tax their lack of inheritance tax and i see that they are providing the same level of public services as anyone else i do not think it is they who have the problem.
so this change will make a big difference to all our lives.
two thousand and seventeen this is great news for all of us and means that soon when we travel within the eu we can use our phone just the same as if we were at home.
how do they supply their peoples with the highest standard of living in the world while taking less than thirty of gdp in combined cantonal and federal spending when we spend so much and get so little? do you know what i would say that is not they who have the problem.
not just the fact of being outside the european union but the fact that they dare to prosper to be according to the united nations the happiest and wealthiest country in europe with a remarkably low tax take.
perhaps instead of trying to push the people of that sturdy mountain republic into joining the european union we should instead petition to become cantons of the helvetic confederation.
i travelled to five different states yet despite the fact that america is not in the eu three was able to get a roaming free deal across america. why do we need the eu to legislate on this?
i use three for my mobile phone.
there are always unintended consequences to legislation.
during the summer i went to the usa and was able to use every feature on my phone at no extra cost.
this is something we have fought long and hard for and it shows also the power of the european parliament and the european union that it can take on big businesses and defeat them for the benefit of consumers because the roaming charges which were excessive are now going to end in.
also as my colleague and rapporteur pilar del castillo said it guarantees open internet equal access and protects consumers.
two thousand and seventeen that is certainly something to celebrate.
madam president this is my last contribution right now. so i think it is a good one because this is a day of celebration celebration for the european union because we have shown very clearly that when we work together we can do so for the benefit of all citizens of europe and indeed all businesses and particularly as has been said we are saying goodbye to roaming.
package travel is becoming increasingly popular and this directive protects both the consumer and businesses by setting clear standards for liability cancellation reimbursement and a limit for post contractual price increase.
market forces not state intervention better regulate the market.
ill thoughtout consequences come from interfering in the free market.
madam president i take a very dim view of torture and anything which could be used for torture around the world and i recognize the difficulties which this report is trying to prevent and protect against in that respect.
with the issue of capital punishment my views are also fairly well known i am no fan of the death penalty per se.
but at the same time i believe that it is the sovereign right of other countries across the world to make their own decisions as to whether or not they should or should not have the death penalty.
i do not believe it is for us to impose a particular worldview upon those other nations.
it should and does defend international human rights standards. we reject the use of torture and the death penalty.
indeed the vast majority of meps voted for its abolition last month in this chamber.
the way we trade with the rest of the world must reflect these fundamental values.
the changes proposed by the commission and amended by meps today and in the trade committee in which i sit will improve existing eu legislation.