kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i think it is a reflection of the political impetus behind the need to complete the single market and to raise its profile which was generated by president barroso's decision to ask mario monti to look at it and to ask our committee under the leadership of louis grech to look at it at the same time.
there are still national rules that impede free movement;
unemployed people cannot wait any longer for jobs citizens for better choice and lower costs business for better competition.
in this context the commission's initiative comes at the right time a time when we need to refocus on the real economy to get out of the crisis.
the four months ahead must be used in the public debate to build political support and to develop with citizens and stakeholders the fifty proposal outline in the single market act.
this will require partnership and shared responsibility.
in my view it should be given the same status that the delors white paper was given twenty years ago.
the single market act is an historic initiative.
the commitment of the business community is equally important with self regulation a key to success.
as the rapporteur on a more efficient and fairer retail market i wish to stress that retail is a pillar of the single market and of improving our citizens' lives.
i would like to repeat what professor monti said yesterday during the first single market forum.
the epp group will pay particular attention to the business environment for small and medium sized enterprises and will contribute to developing precise ideas on the governance of the single market.
i am sure that parliament in its report on the single market act will seek the right balance between its social dimension and promotion of business and growth.
in particular by preventing irregular migration and through cooperation with third countries.
in that respect the council adopted last year conclusions on the management of migration from the southern neighbourhood as well as on borders migration and asylum.
as part of this work the council agreed in march this year on a set of conclusions for concrete and practical ways to ensure solidarity towards member states facing particular pressures on their asylum systems including through mixed migration flows.
we all know the challenges that some member states are facing when it comes to large and mixed migration flows to the eu.
frontex has also assisted italy in the area of border surveillance and search and rescue operations screening of intercepted persons debriefing activities and reaction capacity.
in addition to these measures member states have been encouraged to support the activities of frontex in the region.
of course we are also working to put in place a strengthened legal framework which will enable the union and member states to provide better responses to situations of this kind.
the council is expected to adopt a set of conclusions soon concerning the eu approach to migration and mobility including on eu cooperation with third countries regarding migration.
i will therefore focus my comments on those issues which fall specifically within the remit of the council.
the action plan aims to prevent and control the pressures arising from illegal migration as well as abuse of legal migration channels. it combines and develops common eu action points and tools to prevent irregular immigration.
a number of these issues are more for the commission to address.
this support includes a joint operation epn hermes in the mediterranean sea intended to assist italy to address the increase in immigrants from north africa trying to reach lampedusa and sicily.
the situation in the southern mediterranean has been an important item for the justice and home affairs council in particular following the arab spring.
they highlight for example the importance of responsibility and mutual trust preventive cooperation the need for solidarity in emergency situations strengthened cooperation between easo and frontex financial solidarity and strengthening cooperation with key countries of transit origin and first countries of asylum.
these conclusions underlined the need for genuine and concrete solidarity towards those member states most directly affected as well as for a comprehensive response to the underlying causes. therefore and building upon the work of the former polish presidency the council has discussed ways of better managing asylum and migration within member states
support for italy has also been provided through funds made available under the solidarity and management of migration flows' general programme. we are also working on long term solutions for those in need of international protection in the countries of the southern neighbourhood such as resettlement opportunities and humanitarian assistance to countries in the region having to deal with people displaced because of the libyan conflict.
preventing such tragedies has to be a top priority.
the gratitude of the asylum seekers in lampedusa was breathtaking.
rescuing migrants in danger from the sea is of course the only proper response.
they thanked their hosts for supplying them with safe and expensive accommodation by burning it down.
however must the rescuer's country really be punished by having to entertain their requests for asylum? when the italian and libyan governments signed an agreement in two thousand and ten to return the immigrants to their home countries the flow of immigrants began to slow down immediately.
indeed the harbour was declared an unsafe area.
the member states have some flexibility in how this is provided and specifically designated reception centres are one option.
we are currently checking that this was done in line with the directive.
commissioner malmstrm was in rome two weeks ago and she was pleased to hear that italy intends to renovate the damaged facilities so that lampedusa can again become a point of first reception assistance and initial screening before
to help address those challenges italy has received substantial financial support from the eu with a total of eur two hundred and thirty two million allocated for two thousand and ten making it one of the largest beneficiaries of the solidarity and management of migration flows' general programme.
we all hope the situation in north africa will continue to stabilise but people are still likely to try to cross the mediterranean.
some of those arriving are fleeing persecution and violence and need international protection.
this is before you count emergency financial support which was over eighteen million last year and part of that was used to expand and develop government reception centres.
the ngos should be able to visit and the detainees need to be able to contact their families and legal representatives. both asylum seekers and those subject to a return procedure must have access at least to essential healthcare.
the commission is in close contact with the italian authorities with a view to ensuring appropriate conditions and will not hesitate to take appropriate action.
families must be given separate accommodation and children need access to education.
mr president everybody is aware that italy faced very high migratory pressure from north african countries last year especially after the events in tunisia and libya.
the eurosur system we proposed last year should also help by improving detection and tracking of small boats which should enable faster rescue missions.
as far as the guarantees i just mentioned are concerned initial findings are that italy has correctly transposed them.
the reception conditions directive obliges the member states to provide asylum seekers with appropriate accommodation.
we will continue to provide financial support.
mr president migrants suffer not only from the loss of their home from the long and dangerous journey but also from the border policy of the european union and the conditions they find here in a comparatively rich eu.
the member states and the commission need to do their utmost to guarantee and protect the human rights of migrants which are exactly the same human rights as those of everybody else.
it needs to have a common asylum system and the council should no longer block this very important undertaking which i think will enable us to have a proper and better asylum system in the european union and to guarantee the human rights of migrants and everybody else in the european union.
minimising the suffering ensuring that there is national support supported by the commission and other member states doing what they can to ensure that people are not left in a situation where there are no collective efforts to support a country in distress.
mr president no decent human being can feel anything other than deep sympathy for young men who leave their families and risk death in overcrowded boats in order to reach a new land of milk and honey.
who is responsible for luring these poor people into so much disappointment and even danger?
because every time the political class insists on giving one batch of immigrants the houses taxes and jobs that belong to the long suffering natives in manchester or malm or brussels or birmingham you incite another boatload to risk their lives to get to the promised land and be given other peoples' milk and honey.
parliament and the council can veto the commission recommendations under delegated acts.
my understanding is that the council refuses to accept that under the terms of the lisbon treaty it no longer has the sole right to determine such matters.
it appears that this blockage in the council is emanating from the official working groups rather than from the ministers themselves.
this follows a similar blockage in council on the implementation of pat the cope gallagher's report on a multiannual plan for the western stock of atlantic horse mackerel which has been log jammed for the past three years.
even the council's own legal services agree with parliament and the commission on this issue but the council remains steadfast in its opposition to delegated acts and the blockage seems set to continue.
two thousand and fourteen it is essential therefore that we resolve this issue.
to bring stability to the market and to provide fishermen and processors with the necessary long term security that high levels of investment in the industry require multiannual management plans must be introduced for the main commercial stocks.
the current situation is untenable and puts at risk the entire cfp reform process.
how can we argue that there is not enough money in the emff to reintroduce subsidised new build or modernisation for eu fishing vessels when we are unable to offer our fishermen the reassurance that they can borrow large sums of money from the bank to build or modernise their own vessels based on multiannual plans for fisheries management. no eu bank particularly during the current economic crisis will lend a fisherman up to eur two million to build a new white fish vessel unless he can show that there is a multiannual stock management plan in place that will give a concrete assurance of sustainable fishing over a long period.
if we end up going to the european courts to resolve this crisis which looks increasingly likely it could derail the entire timetable for cfp reform and it is worth noting that we have no legal basis for a new reformed cfp after one january.
in respect of the current reform of the common fisheries policy this legislative blockage is very dangerous indeed.
the working groups are determined to retain ownership of all multiannual plans through the use of implementing acts under the terms of article forty three tfeu which gives them sole competence.
the alternative is to use implementing acts which give the council more say in the evaluation of multiannual plans but in this case parliament can only give advice to the commission and of course our advice can always be ignored.
i have suggested in my report on west of scotland herring that via delegated acts the commission will evaluate the implementation of multi annual plans in full consultation with the pelagic rac the international council for the exploration of the seas and the scientific technical and economic committee for fisheries.
a report by ms bilbao barandica on a multiannual plan for anchovy in the bay of biscay has been similarly blocked. this is a pattern which has emerged not only in respect of fisheries reports but across all the work of our parliamentary committees where delegated acts and implementing acts have been disputed.
mr president at. four thirty yesterday morning ministers in the agriculture and fisheries council finished their deliberations on the common fisheries policy and put great emphasis for hour after hour on the need for a fishery by fishery approach based upon multiannual plans.
the sooner the council and parliament sit round the table and start negotiating the sooner we will be able to put multiannual plans at the heart of a sensible fishing policy.
we know they have every year they have met in december and set tacs and quotas above the scientific recommendations which is the reason we have such a depletion of our fish stocks today.
not surprisingly some members of this parliament would like to tie the hands of ministers a little and commit them to long term management plans that make some sense but we recognise what the treaty says and there was a genuine dispute between the powers of parliament and the powers of the council which must be resolved and will only be resolved by us getting round the table and negotiating.
i do not ask you to seek a solution but what i do ask the presidency to do is to come forward with a procedure for reaching a solution.
of course all this was a chimera a nonsense a fraud so long as they continue to block the creation of these multiannual plans. the council wants to be able to continue to allow ministers to set tacs and quotas each year because they have been a brilliant success over the years.
i am disappointed that the council is not here today because our problem and our difference is with the council not with the commission.
the advice and input of stakeholders is invaluable and results in greater compliance and support for sustainable fisheries management.
i fully support the recommendations contained in the report and in particular the need to consult with the pelagic rac and the stecf on a regular basis.
the longer this deadlock remains the more difficult it will be to explain to citizens that we cannot move ahead with these important fisheries management tools to ensure the sustainability of stocks.
i welcome the fact that parliament is fully exercising its new rights under the treaty. as my colleague commissioner damanaki has said before the commission fully shares parliament's position that multiannual management plans should be adopted under the ordinary legislative proposal.
i would also like to thank parliament for supporting the commission's empowerment to adjust parameters in the management plan in case science evolves.
this will help ensure that the management plan is adaptive and reflects at all times the best scientific information available.
i would like to refer to some specific amendments.
first regarding the definition of the stock and the area covered by the plan the rapporteur's proposed amendment is acceptable.
second regarding the duration of the empowerment for the commission the proposal of a three year renewable empowerment period is acceptable.
finally i would like to react to the proposed amendment whereby the commission before adopting delegated acts would have the obligation to consult the scientific technical and economic committee on fisheries and the north western waters regional advisory council.
the proposed amendment would go beyond this obligation and would limit the commission's discretion to seek the best advice in each case.
therefore we are unfortunately not in a position to support this amendment.
the fact is that the lisbon treaty has created a confused and unsatisfactory situation in relation to fisheries management decision making. the cfp reform process provides an opportunity for us to re examine and radically change the whole structure of fisheries management by sweeping away the over centralised methods which have so badly failed us in the past. instead of obsessively safeguarding the rights of eu institutions we ought to be designing a framework of decision making which will actually work and which will succeed in its objectives.
in my view that means maximum decentralisation so that europe's fishing nations can be empowered working together in logical sea basins to conserve stocks for their own long term benefit;
i hope that this parliament as part of the cfp reform process will put the preservation of fish stocks and therefore fishing dependent communities first before this obsessively protectionist view on our own input and our own centralised management systems which have miserably failed in the past.
he was hugely supportive and said that he has made it his absolute priority that eu legislative democracy lies with this house.
we are the directly elected representatives of the citizens of europe.
they are not treating this with sufficient seriousness.
we need to rattle heads together and get this logjam unblocked.
commissioner dalli you said that you were accepting and i am grateful to you most of the amendments in my report but you were a bit worried that we were going too far in asking the commission to consult with stecf ices and the pelagic rac.
i think it is absolutely essential and you have heard this from many of the speakers in this debate that the stakeholders themselves must be consulted.
it is avoiding consultation with the stakeholders that has led to many of the problems in the fisheries sector. i would ask you to look carefully at the result of today's votes in the house and i hope the commission may then think again.
it is not sustainable to only consider the economic development without due regard to the rich biodiversity and the consequences of climate change in the region and it is not possible to aim to protect the fragile environment without considering the needs of the local communities and the potential for developing a vibrant economy in a sustainable way.
our third priority is to strengthen cooperation with our arctic partners to address the challenges and opportunities we are discussing.
our second priority must therefore be to support its sustainable development so that it is a place where people can continue to live study and work.
the challenges that our oceans face today do not recognise national boundaries therefore stronger efforts are needed globally to address governance issues in this context.
across all these areas we have sought to emphasise the crucial role of science research and innovation and we have stressed the role of those who inhabit the arctic including indigenous peoples in this process.
the arctic is warming as we have heard twice as fast as the rest of the world but that affects not just the region itself but also the rest of the world.
we have included the arctic within our recent initiative for better international ocean governance.
the impact of the eu on the arctic and indeed of the arctic on the eu is becoming increasingly clear and pressing. our communication focuses on three priorities. first we must address the challenges facing the arctic by responding to climate change and protecting the arctic environment.
challenges like climate change are on a scale too big for any one state tackle alone so international cooperation is obviously key.
the arctic is home to four million people.
again thank you very much for this report and the opportunity to discuss these important subjects.
our joint communication sets out an integrated policy framework for dealing with the challenges and the opportunities in the arctic and for enhancing the eu's already substantial presence in in the region.
so it is no surprise that the draft resolution before you today shows that it has also been discussed extensively in this house.
our joint communication highlights that safeguarding the arctic's fragile environment and the sustainable development of the region can and must go hand in hand.
this balancing effort is at the centre of everyone's attention on arctic matters including national and local authorities of the arctic states and also in multilateral fora.
while overall we have reached i guess a good agreement on this report there is still as we all realise one open question on oil and gas extraction that we need to vote on tomorrow. i would just like to mention that the eu has outlined energy security as one of the cornerstones of the energy
union strategy and as a key political priority and this means less dependency on non european countries and sources and also diversifying our own energy sources here in europe.
that includes the foreign and security dimension.
first and foremost oil and gas extraction in the arctic is a sovereign decision of the arctic states as manifested in the united nations convention on the law of the sea article.
seventy seven the eu should not call for a ban on something that is a sovereign right of a state under international law.
considering that the eu is the world's leading funder in the arctic it should finally be able to become an observer as well.
more than half of the remaining resources are expected to be located north of the arctic circle. if we propose to ban the oil and gas extraction for the eu and eea arctic states as proposed by these paragraphs then we are deliberately putting ourselves in a more vulnerable position.
the arctic has long been an area of constructive international cooperation and it has remained a low tension cooperative regional order in the world. we want to keep it that way.
we need to acknowledge the increased activities of russia in the arctic the opening of military bases and their increased military presence in the russian arctic.
there is a need to avoid the militarisation of the arctic.
the geopolitical developments in the arctic region affect the security situation in northern europe and globally.
these paragraphs talk about the ban on the oil and gas extraction in the arctic that has an important energy security dimension for the european union.
secondly it is important for the energy security of the eu.
all of the eu arctic member states as well as some other states have their own national arctic strategies which include a security dimension but the eu does not have such a strategy.
the european union should contribute in building civilian security mechanisms as well as in enhancing crisis and disaster management capacities search and rescue infrastructure and support the development of infrastructure in the european arctic including infotechnology and communications.
the climate change effects and growing competition for access to the arctic natural resources and increasing economic activities have brought opportunities but also risks to the region.
three eu member states are full members of the arctic council and seven others are observers.
i think we have to accept the wordings in the report that the commission and the member states should work very hard on international fora to get a full ban on arctic oil drilling. it is also the most dangerous kind of oil drilling that there is.
i believe that with norway being a part of the european economic area a very close partner of the european union we have to care about that.
madam president many of you may not have noticed that norway has just this week announced that they will open ninety three new blocks in the very northernmost waters of the barents sea for oil drilling.
i think we should not be polite to norway and accept that they do this.
many colleagues have spoken very well about the alarming pace of climate change in the arctic and believe me a lot is at stake.