kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
as you know the treaty provides for the eurozone finance ministers to elect their own president currently jean claude junker to whom i want to pay tribute today for his work and his engagement.
it is in the interest of the non eurozone eu members that its financial stability is organised and secured.
secondly in terms of improving fiscal discipline should we go further in terms of the automaticity of the sanctions provided for under the excessive deficit procedure?
it is often overlooked and underestimated not least by the outside world and the markets and we need to be extremely vigilant in implementing it.
and also to stick voluntarily to the recommendations of the commission and the relevant commissioner regarding the implementation of the stability and growth pact.
does this strengthening of cooperation among the seventeen i repeat among the seventeen no more no fewer create a two tier europe?
firstly as regards strengthening economic convergence we need to examine whether to go beyond the six pack' in terms of further macroeconomic surveillance how to strengthen the framework for commitments under the euro plus pact and whether there are areas in which enhanced cooperation is desirable among the seventeen
i will present an interim report to the december european council which will include a roadmap on how to proceed while fully respecting the prerogatives of the institutions including the european parliament.
the eurozone summit and i quote will define strategic orientations for the conduct of economic policies and for improved competitiveness and increased convergence in the euro area'.
twenty seven it is my intention to organise eurozone summits as a rule in conjunction with european council meetings if possible following them.
the european semester provides an annual cycle of intense macroeconomic budgetary and structural policy coordination.
in doing so it is my intention to examine the what' before the how'.
we need to acknowledge that this means a sharing of sovereignty for all members of the eurozone and not only a loss for the countries in difficulty.
market pressure will complement the above because institutional and peer pressures will also have an impact on the market amplifying their political effect. markets may now be over reacting but they will not go to sleep again!
a lot can be done within the treaties including the use of instruments such as enhanced cooperation.
i wanted to outline all this to you because it shows that the steps taken over the last few months each one perhaps small in itself amount cumulatively to a significant change already in our governance structures.
this will guide my thinking on the fundamentals of the economic and monetary union in the months ahead.
this crisis in the euro area does require us to do more.
in discussing this i think it is first advisable to look at what we have already done over the last twenty months and then to see where it is desirable to move further.
at their summit last month eurozone member states entered into a number of additional commitments notably the following to translate the stability and growth pact rules into national legislation preferably at constitutional level or equivalent by the end of;
institutional changes are no substitute for dealing with the immediate financial crisis so we have to get the different time perspectives right.
this parliament has always been a rich source of ideas a laboratory of proposals for the development of our union.
yet these are two sides of the same coin short term solutions will not be credible in the absence of a longer term perspective.
one hundred and thirty six the commission has already strengthened the role of the competent commissioner in this field and i would like to congratulate olli rehn on his elevation to the vice presidency of the commission.
as i said to you last month the eurozone is not a derogation from the european union it is part of the european union.
should there be a limited mutualisation of public debt and what further regulations are needed for the financial sector?
to consult one another and the commission before the adoption of any major fiscal and economic policy reform plans with potential spillover effects;
it is useful too to give the public and the markets a sense of our medium term direction.
at that point it will become clear whether or not such further advances need treaty change and if so what changes.
it was also agreed that for euro area members in an excessive deficit procedure the commission and the council will be able to examine national draft budgets and adopt opinions on them prior to their adoption by the relevant national parliament.
indeed the existing treaty already provides for that with a special chapter containing provisions specific to member states whose currency is the euro and other provisions where only members of the council from euro member states can vote.
some of these areas in which improvements to our economic governance could be envisaged are obvious; others less so.
instead of reducing the number of euro zone members that might create a leaner healthier and stronger single currency you have gone the other way round. i am sorry to say this but this is once again ideology prevailing over economy.
they will not grant automatic approval to any treaty change because what happens in the euro zone does affect all of us.
we will negotiate for more flexibility.
your direction is clear.
we will negotiate you may want more centralisation we do not.
the third point i want to make is in relation to growth and a point made recently by the former british prime minister gordon brown.
it is right that countries should behave responsibility and ethically but it is also right that public service institutions serve the public interest and equip themselves to address manipulation and reckless greed.
i invite the president of the commission to reflect on this matter.
the answer is none of the presidents here present. apparently the real power to do this lies with the president of the french republic who happens be in the chairmanship of the g.
he said that the imf has said that if there were a global growth pact to increase consumer spending in asia and infrastructure spending in the west the world economy would grow much faster and twenty five to fifty million jobs would be created.
when things are set down in the treaties it is best for small member states it is best indeed for the union because we are not then at the whim of a particular leader in a particular member state.
is it good governance that states and multinational institutions dance to the tune of powerful unelected wealthy secret figures?
the eu has shown its utter contempt and arrogance concerning the detrimental effect your deluded economic policies have on their lives.
maastricht had only four criteria that you negligently brushed aside and now you are proposing a six pack.
this exercise will fail and expose the soft underbelly of europe.
absolutely none.
your answers to economic problems are more political solutions more political and financial integration and more blatant disregard of democratic values.
stop now' my constituents say.
it takes a wise person to accept they are wrong.
further shocks will happen and i do not think that we can avoid accepting losses on overpriced assets at some stage.
if guarantees are wrong instead of a transfer of funds from germany to other parts of europe which does have mutual benefit we risk transfer of those same funds to china with no benefit.
the single market is crucial for growth.
the fruits of tighter discipline within the eurozone could be undermined if intergovernmentalism and protectionism fragments the eu and damages reputation.
he has also quite correctly said that all member states should be committed to achieving that exercise.
now we do have contagion see the example of italy without having made any significant move to solve the greek crisis.
the commission and the whole european political class is dangerously behind the curve.
having left university he went through a series of temporary posts where he was grossly exploited quite frankly. as a result of the directive he now has pro rata rights with full time workers.
mr president when there is a stench of death and decay in your house there is no point complaining about the neighbour's drains or arguing about which air freshener to try next.
the first thing to do is to admit that the real problem is the rotting corpse of the dead elephant in the living room.
it is absurd to speak of economic governance while ignoring the root cause of the debt crisis that is dragging europe and indeed the world down to economic disaster.
a system that allows the banks to create credit out of nothing and lend it into circulation as interest bearing debt;
a system that makes bankers the masters of the universe instead of the servants of productive industry. a system that leads to poverty division and war.
the first step to long term economic stability is to put an end to the international bankers' swindle and restore the power to create credit to sovereign national governments.
this is the only way out of the crisis;
this demand has been laid down in the copenhagen criteria so why do we apply different standards to candidate states from those applied to current member states commissioner reding?
but you are wrong if you say that the eu has no role to play here.
madam president i have to confess i was rather shocked by the statement of commissioner reding because indeed the member states are primarily responsible for ensuring respect for democracy and fundamental rights.
there are other countries where there are violations of press freedom or freedom of speech such as the czech republic which has just passed a law restricting the freedom of the press or ireland which has passed a draconian blasphemy law.
six secondly mrs reding when we are negotiating with candidate states we insist that they apply the highest standards of press freedom otherwise they cannot join the european union.
that was drawn up in order to help mainly the journalists in the new member states and they had asked for this help from the journalistic community.
would legislation solve the problems you all have in mind today?
this clause would apply only if there were a complete breakdown of national jurisdictional orders and fundamental rights systems in a given member state.
of course it would be possible to arrive at such a very generous interpretation of the treaty to allow the eu to tackle the matter.
so i invite parliament to discuss this seriously and i invite parliament to respond to this question in an own initiative report adopted by a majority of members. then the commission will take that a step forward.
because it was considered to be outside the competences of the eu.
that is also what the other institution wants because we do not want political usage of our basic freedoms.
i can assure this house that whenever there is a problem in establishing these independent media authorities the commission will act.
we want these freedoms to be a basic value and to be treated as such.
i have in the last five years regulated when it was necessary.
and i would like the european parliament to identify clearly which internal market problems it wants to be tackled with such a directive.
a strong agreement that the freedom of the press does not have an if or a when it is the basis of our european union.
second question why does the commission not activate article seven of the eu treaty in the case of italy?
in my introductory speech i also underlined the very clear actions the concrete examples of where the eu can act and has acted and i underlined the problems which have to be solved at national
to activate article seven of the eu treaty.
you know that i personally am not the kind of commissioner who has a problem in regulating.
i just want to recall this because it has been said in this house that there are problems with public television in many of our member states.
now where there is a disagreement in this house is on how to bring together eu competences with media policies.
i do not think that we have reached such a situation in any of our member states.
but before even starting to think about this the commission would need to have the strong support of the whole european parliament.
madam president i think that this debate was very important because it made very clear that there is a strong agreement in this house
the constitutional court of italy which acted yesterday has clearly shown what that means.
it is for this reason that we have voted in the new television without frontiers directive with the help of the parliament for the establishment of independent media authorities in all of our member states.
all this would need to be clarified before we could start a legislative process.
they will be the basis for our future work.
in the meantime the commission has done its homework by establishing the risk indicators that will help us to analyse this whole problem in all member states on an objective basis. i think in the end that is what the parliament wants.
you might recall that the european commission started to work on the draft for such a directive in the one thousand nine hundred and ninety s and you will also recall that all member states without exception were against such a directive at that time
i must say that i was very disappointed because we had a public workshop on this and not a single parliamentarian turned up to participate in the workshop.
we want these freedoms to be a right;
many of you have not been in this house before so i will just recall the action of the european journalists to set up a european charter on freedom of the press.
we have to defend it it is a fundamental value we have to speak up when it is not honoured and we have to act if there is a problem to be solved.
i mean radio spectrum policy.
the european court of justice by the way has confirmed this important principle which directly results from the freedom to provide services in its centro europa judgment.
concerning the written press the competences of the eu are substantially more limited.
it is also a reminder for all policymakers in their field of competence that in order to have effective freedom of the press public authorities do indeed have a role to play they must be ready to protect freedom of expression and foster its development.
this directive needs to be implemented by all eu member states by the end of the year and will make important contributions to a pluralistic landscape when it also comes to the online environment.
i fully endorsed that charter when the final outcome of this work was handed over to
on you not to make use of the eu institutions to solve problems which should under our treaties be solved at national
thirdly and this is of utmost importance there is a reference in the new directive to the need to have independent media authorities at national level.
there is a rule in the directive that broadcasters need to reserve at least ten of their transmission time or ten of their programming budget to european works created by producers who are independent from the broadcasters.
states. it would also allow journalists to discover the political economic and social situation in other member states and to write about it. it would allow journalists to compare the situation across europe and to present that to the readers including the situation with regard to freedom of the
the result of this will be a substantial market opening and a win for media pluralism.
i recall in particular the important role played by the eu's television without frontiers' directive which since one thousand nine hundred and eighty nine has made sure that citizens in all eu member states are free to receive without restrictions broadcasts from other eu countries;
the freedom of information across borders beyond broadcasting to other audiovisual services and particularly those transmitted by internet.
this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
the provisions of this charter are addressed to the institutions bodies offices and agencies of the union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the member states' but only when they are implementing union law'.
an eu directive which has substantially contributed to the free flow of information across borders and to a more pluralistic media landscape in all member states. in this context i would like to thank the european parliament for having helped the commission to get a modernised version of this directive which extends
within the eu's sphere of competence which we have to respect the european commission has always stood up for freedom of the media freedom of expression freedom of information and freedom of the press whether within the eu or in our external relations with third countries.
the commission welcomed that ruling as a contribution to fair competition and as an important foundation for strengthening media pluralism. on that basis the commission has repeatedly acted against member states where the system of spectrum management has appeared to be in contradiction with this principle. by way of example
under the pressure of this procedure the italian authorities are now changing their approach.
this is a reference which was proposed by the commission and which could only be adopted in the end thanks to strong support by the european parliament.
we are using our competences to uphold those rights and freedoms in our work on the basis of the treaties and will continue to do
such a programme would in difficult times for the written press allow journalists to work for a limited time with editorial staff in other member
secondly the directive foresees in its modernised version the right of journalists and news organisations to access short extracts across the eu for the purpose of short reporting.
now let me recall another important aspect in the eu's field of competence where this institution can act and has acted for the benefit of media pluralism.
the charter is therefore an important step towards reinforcing these basic values and rights allowing journalists to invoke them against governments or against political public authorities whenever they feel that the freedom of their work is unjustifiably threatened.
let me also recall three other very important elements of this directive. firstly the promotion of independent tv productions.
me. the charter on the freedom of the press initiated by the european journalist community is an important reaffirmation of the basic values enshrined in fundamental legal texts such as the eu charter of fundamental rights.
level. we should not claim a role that we do not have and we will not have it under the lisbon treaty either. let us concentrate here on applying effectively the rules principles rights and freedoms in areas where the eu is competent.
the written press is one of those prime examples of national or even regional competences and its situation very often reflects the varying cultural traditions in our different member states.
you all know that there cannot be broadcasting without access to radio spectrum and it is the eu policy to ensure that all players on the market get non discriminatory access to radio spectrum.
national authorities are thus not entitled to freeze by means of spectrum allocation the competitive situation on the media market for the benefit of the operators already active on that market.
our group feels that media pluralism is not just an italian issue.
all member states are involved and all member states of the european union should guarantee these principles of media pluralism.
this house has long been asking the commission to take action to guarantee pluralism of the media.
the commission is committed to putting into place a three step approach to define the indicators of pluralism including a working document an independent study and a communication. commissioner reding has not mentioned that two of these steps have already been taken.
indeed our perspective is based on the fact that the european union has not only been an economic and monetary union or a loose coalition of member states but a collection of values also.
it is incredibly important in this debate to restate that perspective.
one of these rights freedom of information defined by the eu charter as the right to receive and communicate information without interference from public authorities is vital.
for italy and the particular position expressed by david sassoli from my group this is a genuine concern; but the wider concern for the european union is a challenge for our group for all members including those members from italy.
this is an unprecedented situation in italy but it could be a dangerous situation for the whole of the european union and that is the perspective of our group.
i would have nothing against a european discussion on that issue here as well.
while the new ex communist member states have made great progress towards a free press the media domination enjoyed by silvio berlusconi would have made erich honecker green with envy.
so why do we have any european treaties and laws including those on the requirement of fundamental rights and the rule of law?
there is in fact a clear legal competence for the eu to act to uphold freedom of expression and fundamental rights in general.
that is an interesting question. it takes historical research have the centre left governments done anything about it?
although this has been a debate about freedom of information in italy as other speakers have said there are serious issues in other countries in the european union. one of these is the united kingdom.
rupert murdoch is not a head of state but he is an international media mogul with his own very particular agenda.
he is not democratic and we need to legislate for the likes of rupert murdoch as well as for the likes of silvio berlusconi.
this is a sensitive question but i think that it would be a further step forward in improving the popular legitimacy of parliament and the quality of our law
in the course of progressing a draft law.
mandatory system which ought to bring greater transparency and improved consultative processes. i commend especially paragraph nine of the report which invites the bureau
integrity of the work of lobbyists at the eu level is of the highest.
furthermore we need to make the new register operational as quickly as possible and as soon as the register is operational all persons and organisations falling into its scope should provide correct up to date information so we can see who is influencing what.
it is another step in the right direction because openness and transparency are at the heart of the democratic decision making process and we should be made aware of all of those who influence and sometimes have an undue influence on policy procedures and outcomes. however we need to do more work we need to ensure that the transparency and
as usual the law abiding will bear the brunt of the red tape and wrongdoers will just find a way of carrying on.
it will be business as usual.
the lobbyists will always get through.
to discover that corrupt lobbying had been taking place under its very nose.
the register will change little;
a voluntary system of registration was introduced;
now some light will shine on what is going on but most of this will be thrust back into the murky depths of the stagnant pond;
indeed the text explicitly mentions that local regional and municipal authorities are not expected to register. this approach is even reinforced by annex i which indicates that public authorities themselves are not expected to register.
the register aims to give citizens more transparency as regards organisations and self employed individuals engaged in eu policy making or trying to influence the eu decision making process.
i think we all share the view that the achievement of common cooperation with the commission and parliament would be further consolidated with the involvement of the council.