kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i was delighted you mentioned the house of lords because i was also going to reflect on that. we have assured them that their report will be able to have a material contribution on the outcome given the time we have available.
the eu has a unique mix of tools and instruments.
such future perspectives should not let us get distracted from the concrete work which we have been undertaking over the past year. the global strategy and the new level of ambition derived from it provide us with a strategic vision and purpose which are now translating into concrete action.
irrespective of the particular circumstances of a conflict or crisis the union's action is always guided by respect for the principles of the united nations charter and international law which are essential elements of our union.
and its implementation.
so we considered that in this case we did support putting the ecb's right to consultation as far as delegated acts.
we are already working on the next statistics file which is on the functioning of the statistical framework and independence of statistical institutes regulation two hundred and twenty three as it is known in the jargon.
i find that very worrying indeed.
we did insert more safeguards into the text including tasking the commission with reporting back to us on existing information on public private partnerships and other implicit liabilities which were at the heart of the matter as you have heard.
we will be watching this closely and i thank you for the update showing that this work is already in hand.
they have that right with regard to all union acts and therefore we consider this to be an extension of that. you commissioner and also vicky ford and sven giegold have mentioned the public liabilities point so i will come back on that briefly as well as insisting on mandatory transmission.
we also charged the commission with producing another report assessing whether we need to do even more in this area.
unfortunately the feedback i have received on that so far is that member states are again reluctant to sign up or even discuss increased transparency for example by publishing on their websites whether there is a commitment on confidence in statistics established in their member state.
the agreed wording successfully reflects that.
among the various reforms expenditure on rd and weapons is transferred into capital formation which reflects the economic situation. there are some knock on effects on gdp and subsequent allocation of structural funds but these will not impact until two thousand and twenty
this was unacceptable to parliament.
how are we to have an honest debate on public finances if member states insist on hiding uncomfortable truths?
this is a good win for transparency and good governance.
but as i have explained it had its moments of excitement and is also a fundamental tool to deliver proper economic governance.
deficit effects will also be monitored and are also expected to be small.
indeed it has long been an objective of this parliament for statistics to be improved and the powers of eurostat increased.
in the budgetary framework of the six pack it was agreed that there should be better reporting of public sector liabilities and an end to off balance sheet accounting for governments.
mr president national and regional accounts are the cornerstone of all macroeconomic statistics and are the lens through which we look at our economies. everyone agrees that getting the collection of european statistics right is vitally important.
the other the infamous annex a consists of the statistical and accounting methodology and is many hundreds of pages long.
one should think back to the start of the economic crisis and realise that manipulating statistics or providing incorrect data can have a detrimental effect on the whole of the eu.
one consists of lists of data which need to be collected and which are quite self explanatory.
however eurostat can only be as good as the statistics it receives. we have done a lot in the six pack and the two pack to improve economic governance.
it takes good statistics to track that.
but we wanted to ensure that derogations are kept to a minimum that they are constantly reviewed and that the commission provides methodological support for member states that need it with a view eventually to discontinuing any derogation.
in the trialogues the mission of the parliament negotiating team was clear.
after several more rounds of negotiation we obtained agreement that all member states will transmit that data.
there are other parliamentary achievements in the report and i thank the shadow rapporteurs for their work on what many saw as a dull file.
we saw it as a blatant attempt to keep potentially embarrassing information out of the public domain and away from calculations.
in order to press our point we enlisted public support through the press.
the biggest sticking point came when four large member states were reluctant to have mandatory transmission of pension liabilities data as provided for in the budgetary frameworks directive under the six pack.
and are small.
so thank you to the smaller groups for standing up for the people and for transparency on this issue.
two years ago when i worked for this parliament on the so called six pack' the twenty seven countries agreed that they would disclose what they owed both on balance sheet and off balance sheet.
it was the smaller groups of this parliament who brought them back to the negotiating table and said on behalf of the people who paid the taxes that they needed to disclose where the money had gone and where there could be problems in the future.
i think it is perfectly reasonable for people to know where that money has gone and what the government owes both on balance sheet and off balance sheet.
we definitely support the compromise text because it enables the commission to obtain the required data for its policies and to exercise its monitoring tasks even if recital sixteen includes elements that we consider as deviating from the common understanding of the european parliament the council and the commission on delegated acts.
the revision of the esa has been based on a wide consultation of the national accounts experts and of users and producers of statistics in europe.
the objective of the proposed regulation on esa two thousand and ten is to revise update and improve the current european system of accounts esa ninety five in line with the recently updated international system of national accounts.
the commission will now concentrate its efforts on preparing the application of esa two thousand and ten monitoring the full implementation by the member states of the agreed new framework so that the required statistical data are truly available and fulfilling its own reporting obligations to the european parliament
and the council in this context.
thanks to an excellent cooperation between the three institutions i believe that we have reached our common objective of setting up a very robust framework for harmonised and reliable national accounts data on which european union institutions governments and economic and social operators can base their decisions.
it reflects the need for comparable high quality and up to date macroeconomic aggregates for the member states.
at a european level the esa is an essential tool for national accounts data used for major administrative purposes such as own resources excessive deficit procedure and structural funds and for the analysis of the coordination and convergence of member states' economic policies.
we consider that the proposal is well balanced in terms of user data needs and of the burden put on respondents and administrations. following fruitful discussions a compromise text was agreed between the european parliament and the council with the aim of reaching agreement at first reading.
the commission would therefore clearly state that it is of the view that article two hundred and ninety of the treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that it is autonomous in the preparation and adoption of delegated acts. the standard recital on expert advice contained in the common understanding agreed between the three institutions
indeed collecting regional government statistics is key to understanding public spending choices and the reasons for regional disparities for establishing coherence and complementarity between interventions and different governance levels for informing future investment decisions and improving the efficiency of scarce public resources as well as for assessing the impact of policy intervention which is particularly important in the case of cohesion policy.
i think that the commission should be more involved in regional statistics in order to have a clearer picture of what happens in member states.
the annex reflects that there should be an analysis of the inter dependence of regions and member states.
the eu remains at risk for new epidemic waves of bluetongue in the future and it is important that member states have the opportunity to protect animals against the virus when they are at risk.
however recent years have brought several epidemic waves of the disease affecting many member states including in central and northern europe causing significant losses to livestock production and disruption of the trade in live animals.
the report rightly recognises the need for urgency in order to give member states sufficient time to vaccinate animals before the next bluetongue season starts.
the past few years have seen a significant improvement in the bluetongue situation across the eu thanks in no small measure to massive vaccination campaigns largely cofinanced by the european union.
member states should be able to optimise their vaccination programmes with the aim of reducing the impact of future bluetongue outbreaks in the european union.
we must not lose sight of the fact that although the bluetongue situation has improved greatly in recent years the disease has not been eradicated.
for too long our vaccination strategy has been held back by the fact that we have not developed sophisticated enough products to allow vaccination of animals outside exclusion zones. being in an exclusion zone can be disastrous for a farmer's livelihood.
it can also be disastrous not to protect your animals from disease especially one as damaging and virulent as bluetongue.
the development of new vaccines and the rules changes which i hope the parliament will agree today will allow the uk to move to bluetongue free status.
it will allow freer movement of animals and save money in rural areas.
however it is vitally important that these rules are brought into force as soon as possible.
farmers in the west country need to be able to vaccinate before the end of may to ensure that animals are fully protected.
all of us here understand the background to the interinstitutional battle raging over correlation tables but i can tell you that the farmers i represent do not understand it and they rely on us their elected representatives to sort it out for them.
this is an urgent issue and common sense must prevail.
while i am generally in favour of the principle behind this report i would like to add that this vaccine should only be used when the competent authority identifies significant risk to the livestock population.
in northern ireland both farmers and the department of agriculture and rural development have worked extremely hard to keep northern ireland a free area.
it is important that the commission and the council recognise free area status within the eu and put safeguards in place for these areas.
however there still remains a significant risk within europe that this disease may spread and as a result i believe it is necessary that northern ireland has the ability to use the vaccines.
it is imperative that the competent authority monitor movements and impose trade bans where necessary to stop the spread of bluetongue and that good practice is followed by all of the actors.
it is important that all member states work constructively together to reduce the risk of the spread of this disease and protect the industry from a major outbreak.
communication between member states and the commission is a vital part of monitoring and controlling disease outbreaks.
as a uk farmer i will rely on veterinary recommendation and not the opinion of bureaucrats in other countries.
i appreciate the support of the british taxpayer who funds my vaccines and i am frustrated that the eu needs to be involved at all.
we do not know how the issue of correlation tables is going to be resolved and this topic perfectly illustrates the confusion that so called codecision can lead to.
whilst the british government will spend what it takes to conform to your way of thinking other member states may view things very differently.
the commissioner said that he hoped it would be good enough but i have to say to the commissioner that hope' is not enough.
on this occasion i think we have got to move and i want the commission to give us an assurance that bureaucracy will not hold us back.
the disease causes intense suffering and death amongst the affected animals and has a measurable negative impact on the rural economy and the farming community.
the only mechanism provided for by the agreement for the settlement of disputes is a joint committee of representatives of the parties.
in that context i regret to inform the house that no concrete progress has been achieved on most of the issues identified by parliament's resolution of seven september two thousand and ten in spite of almost two years of discussions with switzerland within the joint committee and in technical talks.
beyond the lack of an effective mechanism for the settlement of disputes this agreement also has other shortcomings.
therefore the decision taken by the swiss authorities to re establish quantitative limits for nationals of eight member states is highly regrettable in the context of very close and very good relations between the european union and switzerland.
i on behalf of alde strongly regret that the swiss authorities have decided to re establish these quantitative restrictions these quotas on residence permits for nationals of the a eight member states a year after the transitional restrictions expired.
illegal to differentiate.
i am sure that switzerland appreciates that the free movement of persons is of huge advantage to the swiss economy making a crucial contribution to the creation and preservation of jobs. alde believes that this measure is neither economically justified by the labour market situation nor by the number of eu citizens actually seeking
i agree with catherine ashton's statement that the quotas are in breach of the agreement on the free movement of persons.
the eu is a playground bully and a control freak.
i make no unfavourable judgment about the general populations of eastern europe;
all member states and non member states should stand up to the bullying and retake control over their own borders regardless of treaty obligations.
speaking in a personal capacity i am concerned by this resolution which seems to go beyond the issue of residence permits.
while i do not have sufficient time to address each aspect of the resolution i understand that there are some issues which require clarification.
i would sincerely hope that this resolution will not tarnish the good relationship between the eu and switzerland our fourth largest trading partner.
i have my own experience from international negotiations in an environmental area where we have extremely good cooperation.
the commission attaches great importance to the solution of the institutional issues which affect our relations with switzerland and in several areas which are related to the internal market.
also the council in its conclusions of december two thousand and ten on the relations with efta countries indicated that in assessing the balance of interests in concluding additional agreements it will have in mind the need to ensure parallel progress in all areas of cooperation including those areas which
to conclude yes we have a problem and yes we are working on solving it.
the inadequacy of our current agreement.
i would like to thank honourable members for raising these questions.
they are also truly a globally respected partner. but this is an important issue we are discussing today and it deserves a clear united and straightforward approach and reaction.
this resolution was prompted by the decision of the swiss authorities to re establish quantitative limitations on the long term residence permits granted to the citizens of eight member states from eastern and central europe.
we are of the opinion that such measures are discriminatory since according to the commission's legal service there is no basis for such a differentiation as the transitional period for the safeguards has run out.
we differ on the interpretation of the safeguards with the swiss authorities but this situation actually points to the deficiency in our relations as there is no legal guarantee that mutual legal obligations will be implemented in a uniform manner.
we are of the opinion that the labour force coming from the eu has contributed to the growth of the swiss economy and this is actually confirmed by swiss farmers and small and medium sized enterprises.
if that is indeed the case there is no justification for using the safeguards regardless of the interpretation of the protocol. less me stress that we do not want to be paternalistic towards our swiss partners.
we have shown an enormous degree of understanding of the sensitivities of our partners in the swiss confederation and engaged in a very positive dialogue with our friends in the swiss parliament.
in the resolution we reiterate certain problems that we have in our relations as regards the provision of services for example not because we are upset but because we are concerned about our relationship with switzerland.
the people of wales and britain voted to leave the eu not europe.
a week ago today the prime minister triggered article fifty formally beginning the uk eu brexit negotiation process.
after legal challenges lengthy delays and threats we will be leaving the eu and become an independent self governing and democratic country once again.
can i just ask this do you actually want a brexit deal?
we still want to be your friends and trading partners but if you are not going to make us any sensible offers we will take our business elsewhere.
such assessments would have to be updated within five years.
these are restrictions that would affect taxpayers in northern ireland very directly.
it would prevent the uk from opening trade talks with noneu countries before.
from the outset i do welcome the fact that the text recognises northern ireland's unique position in respect of our land border with the republic of ireland. this builds on existing commitments by both the uk and irish governments and indeed the european council to give these challenges priority and adopt a flexible and imaginative approach.
two thousand and nineteen it would take future trade relations with the eu off the table for the next two years and it would tie the uk into paying an endless and excessive divorce bill well after it leaves.
however i cannot neglect the fact that this resolution would severely limit what can be achieved in the talks ahead.
i want that difference to be the only one that exists after brexit but let us be frank and honest there is a lot of work to do to live up to the words that we have voted through and there is a political responsibility on the british prime minister and her government to deliver more on this commitment.
it very specifically says that we must do everything possible to avoid a hardening of the border.
for me and for the people i represent which is a border constituency in ireland with northern ireland paragraph twenty is important.
i drive through northern ireland to visit my constituents in donegal. i see no difference in our territories except that there are kilometres where i am from and there are miles in northern ireland.
it talks about the unique position and special circumstances on the island of ireland and says it must be addressed in a withdrawal agreement.
when it becomes clear that that is not possible then there will be a question as to what happens next.
that is why i am glad that this resolution confirms that it is possible for article fifty notifications to be withdrawn and revoked.
the british government still has not said what it wants on many of the key issues that will be coming up in this mother of all divorce cases but it has said that it wants exactly the same benefits as britain currently has as a member of the single market.
well we will hold them to account on that but it does seem generally that the british government is intent on testing to destruction the theory that you can have your cake and eat it.
what should britain do if the outcome of this brexit process is damaging costly and dangerous to britain?
britain wanted to be part of a common market not a common government.
guy verhofstadt expressed some of the reasons very well in his speech this morning the fundamental difference between a bottom up common law system and the napoleonic system on the continent.
it is not an argument that applies everywhere but our economic cycle has always been atlantic rather than european;
our outlook has always been maritime rather than continental.
in the talks at the beginning of last year david cameron tried to get a looser a deal from the inside.
what should be the framework of that deal?
it is not part of that union but it enjoys the closest military security economic and commercial links with that union compatible with being a sovereign state.
it does not represent the views of the vast majority of the british people or the views of colleagues across this chamber.
real people's lives jobs and future are at stake and we need amicable solutions. there is a huge amount of work to be done on our future relationship.
i do think this resolution could have done a lot more on that future relationship and set the tone on some of the detailed discussions that we need to go ahead.
it is time to roll up our sleeves colleagues and help to find those solutions.
written as it was by groups with whom we have fundamental disagreements regarding the current and future direction of the eu we in sinn fin consider this report to be a successful vindication of the dialogue with which we and other irish meps have been engaged in since last summer.
parliament's position is even more positive when compared to the draft of the council.
despite assurances from the fine gael government the council draft is weak non specific and simply not up to the standards that the irish people north and south require.
mr president almost a year since the uk referendum a period in which the eu was only a bystander to the phony war on brexit the start of the exit negotiations themselves comes as a sort of relief. the start of open honest and transparent discussions between the two partners was long overdue. euphemisms used for a radical departure be it a clean exit' or a new partnership with europe' might have made possible until now to mask for many the hard choices and trade offs of the negotiations to come. but now the time is slowly coming for the cake proverb to be put
but the need to come to terms with what an idealistic notion of undiluted control' in a vastly interconnected world really means as opposed to true influence and significance is not limited to britain but applies to the eu too.
mr president i want to pick that point up actually because of course the economies of northern ireland and the republic are inextricably linked as of course is the peace process that was painstakingly negotiated over many many years.
it said that the common travel area is not dependent on eu membership and i was surprised to see that the tories supported it as well.
yes the common travel area predates the european union but it was drawn up at a time when the immigration policies of the republic of ireland and the united kingdom were the same and indeed the customs policies were broadly similar.
it is the policy of the british government now apparently to tear those two regimes asunder.