kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
finally i am very pleased to see a reference to gold plating in this report and a call for member states to explain why they have chosen to go further than is required when they do so.
this is an issue of vital importance to citizens right across the european union.
they are looking today for leadership direction and a means by which they can go and create and develop their businesses and provide employment to grow europe.
are we giving them what they are looking for?
i am somewhat disappointed still to hear from the left of the house only one voice let us cripple and burden entrepreneurs with more and more excessive regulation'.
that is not an agenda that i am willing to sign up to.
i hear all too often from businesses right across the european union that the last thing they need is for that sort of approach to be adopted.
quite clearly where it is appropriate we have those measures and we are not dismantling those.
my colleague vicky ford was quite right in the approach that she took.
in relation to the role of national parliaments this house and these institutions have nothing to fear from the greater involvement of our parliamentary colleagues in national parliaments.
at present the amount of time that we have given to national parliaments to respond is simply not long enough.
it is down to us to increase the time period available to them.
these are the very people who played absolutely no role in committee on any of these issues.
they put forward no amendments and their input has been nil.
do you agree with me or not?
it is important to mention that eu member states and the eea associated countries comprise more than fifty of the membership of the arctic council.
as it is for the united states the arctic should be a strategic priority for the european union.
the whole of the international community stands to be affected by many of the changes that are already taking place.
mr president as i underlined at the beginning of this important debate the european union has to play an increasing role in protecting the arctic environment in promoting sustainable exploitation of natural resources and in enhancing arctic multilateral governance. we are committed to the preservation of the arctic and at the same time our aim is to contribute to a cooperative system that will guarantee sustainability as well as free and equitable access.
to the specificities of the arctic.
the acceptance of the commission's application requires the unanimous decision of all the members of the arctic council.
in this regard the commission proposes to promote the full implementation and elaboration of existing obligations rather than proposing new legal instruments in order to enhance security and stability.
the european union has to take this into account when we want to develop even stronger cooperation for the benefit of the arctic its inhabitants and its wildlife.
at the same time the eu has already highlighted that for areas beyond national jurisdiction the provisions on environmental protection under this convention remain rather general and we will continue to work within the united nations towards the further development of some of the frameworks adapting them to new conditions or arctic specificities.
strict environmental management and sustainable use of resources as well as open and equitable access.
finally let me say that the arctic coastal states have a clear preference for the unclos as a basis.
in order to succeed in these important endeavours we have to cooperate closely with all the arctic states and arctic stakeholders as i have said.
in conclusion i consider that the conditions are not yet right for an international treaty on the arctic and that we should rather focus our efforts on ensuring the effective application of the existing legal frameworks thus filling the gaps that might exist and adapting the rules
in this context we should not weaken the existing frameworks for cooperation as this would not really serve our objectives and interests.
the treaty is perhaps more symbolic but what we do insist upon is working with and respecting the nations and more particularly the peoples of the arctic.
we also have to prove our credentials for arctic involvement and our record as europeans is not good.
we have to listen to them and work with them because quite frankly their record of protecting their environment is better than ours.
it is our industrial emissions that have led directly to acute climate change in the region and we now threaten to impose our values and our traditions on the peoples of the arctic at this very sensitive moment.
our sailors and traders devastated the arctic environment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the so called rape of spitsbergen'.
at all costs we have to avoid a retreat into old style sovereignty territorial claims and intergovernmentalism. a new style of governance is needed for this fragile area of our globe in which every citizen of the world feels they have an interest or a stake.
our group has no problem in supporting the wish for an arctic treaty but more in the light of a quest for a new mode of governance.
it is people as you have already said that distinguish the arctic from the antarctic.
the european union wants us to meet our objectives of renewable energy.
i have seen the european union landfill directive which has had industrial waste laughingly called compost' thrown upon the land.
your record is appalling and the answer has got to be for goodness' sake keep your nose out of this.
wrecking our environment and pushing up the cost of food.
thirty five thousand wind turbines the size of jumbo jets the biggest desecration of my beautiful island since the industrial revolution.
we are now faced with the opening of hitherto closed seaways a direct result of climate change.
this is reason enough for us to be able to assert ourselves in the best sense of that word on the global stage on this issue.
apart from this the eu counts amongst its member states no less than three arctic nations along with two other eea neighbours accounting for more than half the numeric membership of the arctic council.
mr president yes the commissioner is right.
this highly vulnerable ecosystem is coming under increasing pressure from resource hungry nations which wish to exploit its potential without having due regard to its fundamental importance as a stabilising force in the world's climate. i agree with mrs wallis's point that a call for a fifty year moratorium
the arctic as i said then plays an increasingly important geostrategic role in our world and over the past decade several critical issues have emerged in this region.
this comes as no surprise since the arctic is warming at a much faster rate with an increase of two degrees in the last hundred years compared to an average of just.
it is not only the region itself which is likely to be affected but as many here today have recognised also the eu as a whole. against the background of these developments it is important that the eu approaches the arctic in a comprehensive
i consider that the council is now taking this issue very seriously.
it broadly supports the suggestions set out in the commission's communication.
this should constitute the basis for an arctic policy which needs to be developed in a comprehensive manner.
to those who are talking about the new treaty there is no council position at the moment because the council is only now in the process of examining the commission proposals.
in the conclusion we say that the objectives of the eu could only be achieved in close cooperation with the arctic countries and the eu should enforce its participation in conformity with the current international conventions.
as i mentioned earlier the commission proposals are now being studied in much more detail.
they will i believe facilitate agreement on an overarching response to the many varied challenges which we face in the arctic region.
the second day is very often devoted to opportunities in terms of geological exploitation.
at the same time since we do not have a careful sustainable environment framework in place for the kind of activities that are now being explored by the nations in this region i think this resolution sends a very important signal be careful.
the fact that all political groups are behind it i think is significant.
two a moratorium pending new scientific research and a better understanding of the region and its vulnerability or sensitivity but also pending the results of many energy alternatives that are now developing very progressively.
maybe in the future we will not need those fossil reserves at all. so i think that even if colleagues in this parliament may differ on the margin about the most responsible way forward i think it is very significant that we are all behind this resolution.
we want to ensure that the safety of the environment and the livelihoods of the people are protected.
nevertheless the effects of climate change and of human activities in the arctic region extend far beyond the arctic itself.
what happens in the arctic has significant implications for the eu as a whole. so far issues with an arctic dimension have tended to be addressed by the union within the context of sectoral policies such as the maritime policy or the fight against climate change.
this is now changing.
this report highlighted the new strategic interest in the arctic region.
the report called for the development of a specific eu arctic policy based on the growing geostrategic importance of the region and taking into account issues such as access to natural resources and the possible opening up of new trade routes.
the commission subsequently presented a communication on the eu and the arctic region last november.
this last point was covered in last october's resolution.
the full implementation of all existing obligations rather than proposing new legal instruments. this is one of the key elements in the communication.
in its conclusion last december the council gave a clear welcome to the communication and considered that it constituted the first layer of a future eu arctic policy.
it considered that the goals of the eu could only be achieved in close cooperation with all arctic partner countries territories and communities and also noted the intergovernmental cooperation in the region.
i hope it is clear from what i have said today that the council is taking this issue very seriously.
we fully recognise the growing strategic importance of the arctic region.
the council will certainly keep this parliament fully informed about further developments and is grateful for your continuing interest in this subject.
in the past six years alone the ice cap has lost up to half its thickness near the north pole and may have passed a tipping point.
the radical transformation of the arctic is having an impact on its people its landscape and its wildlife on land and at sea.
therefore now is the time to act. that is why we adopted the communication which is the first step towards an eu policy for the arctic laying the foundations for a more comprehensive approach.
the communication focuses on three broad goals protecting and preserving the arctic in full cooperation with its inhabitants;
promoting the sustainable use of resources;
the proposals in the communication are the outcome of a very thorough analysis made by the commission.
this involved consultations with all main arctic stakeholders including both eu and non eu arctic states.
this was all the more necessary because many eu activities and key developments of global scope such as the integrated maritime policy or climate change have an effect on the arctic.
so based on these discussions and in light of the motion for a resolution tabled for discussion today let me stress that the arctic region differs from the antarctic in a number of key aspects.
unlike the antarctic which is a vast uninhabited continent surrounded by an ocean the arctic is a maritime space surrounded by inhabited land belonging to sovereign countries.
so the idea of establishing a binding legal regime specifically designed for the arctic is unfortunately difficult because none of the five arctic ocean coastal states denmark norway canada russia and the united states is
rather than expending efforts on that cause the eu's interests and objectives are better served by building greater multilateral cooperation and making better use of the existing legal instruments.
through the un convention on the law of the sea unclos and other general conventions there is already an extensive international legal framework in place.
the unclos is also the basis for settling disputes including maritime delimitation.
we want to see these conventions fully implemented and very importantly adapted to the arctic specificities.
for example we propose a regulatory framework for sustainable fisheries management where areas and species are not yet covered by other instruments. secondly we will work closely with the international maritime organisation developing and enforcing solid international standards for safer
arctic navigation respecting human safety and environmental sustainability. this means either extending existing legislation or adopting new legislation. thirdly we will also defend the internationally recognised principles of freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage.
coastal states should avoid discriminatory steps concerning navigational rules.
any measures will have to be applied in full compliance with the international law of the sea.
fourthly it is not realistic to propose an international moratorium on the extraction of arctic resources.
the bulk of the estimated reserves of minerals oil and gas are either on the sovereign territory of the arctic states or in their exclusive economic zones and some of them have far reaching plans for further exploration activities.
however we insist that the extraction and use of arctic resources must always adhere to the highest possible standards for the environment and sustainability.
based on this we look forward to continued cooperation with you as we develop an eu arctic policy.
the money would be better spent by accountable politicians in our own countries.
it is as an absolute disgrace and this added to all the red tape and bureaucracy that the eu spews out holds back the economy and businesses from creating jobs and growth.
but this sums up the eu because whatever it touches goes bad;
it is the eu that is responsible for this lack of growth.
this top down model of eu control backed by billions being thrown at every crackpot project you can think of is helping absolutely nobody.
the uk currently gives gbp fifty five million a day to the eu while it is cutting back frontline public services and jobs.
i started my first business when i was twenty two and there are others in this house that started businesses in their teens.
it is so important that we improve the leadership and the management and the entrepreneurial skills among young people so that young people can actually start their own businesses;
do you know that in the united kingdom my country four thousand inventions are copyrighted every year and three quarters of them come from birmingham and the west midlands region? so let us make sure that these innovations can lead to real businesses
madam president in this review i think we must really focus on areas where the eu can add real value in helping member states achieve the two thousand and twenty targets.
i think that there is no shortage of ideas and inventions across europe.
they can become employers and not just employees.
they support workers made redundant to find jobs and they help the most deprived maintain a level of decency.
the european semester with the country specific recommendations is a key venue for calling on the member states to make good on their commitments and deliver on their targets.
the youth unemployment initiative has been frontloaded in the first two years of the programming period and we are working with the member states to get the funding on the ground.
it is accepted now that more and smarter investment in jobs growth and competitiveness is needed.
as to the europe two thousand and twenty strategy the commission is analysing the results of the public consultation and it will present its follow up in spring.
the globalisation fund and the fund for the most deprived can also contribute to the employment and social targets.
as president juncker said social fairness is as important as the stability of the single currency and the solidity of public finances.
both the existence and the distribution of these financial instruments were only secured with the very outspoken support of the european parliament.
the multiannual financial framework supports this ambition.
for instance the number of people living in or at risk of poverty has increased by more than six million. the economic and financial crisis has taken its toll social hardship and the rise in equality call into question the fairness and
you have to look at the outcome of what you are doing.
it is not enough for us to end the biting austerity measures which have had such a destructive effect on so many lives if we are not engaged in a socially just transition which is going to tackle inequality and move us towards a low carbon economy which is also part of the eu two thousand and twenty strategy.
and finally i also very much welcome the words of the council on the reference to governance.
so yes we would agree that new investment is needed but we should not forget as the commissioner has said that we need to make the money that we are already spending through the structural funds including the social fund work properly.
so we do need to look at the abusive practices that we have.
they are a key stabiliser and they actually give people a base from which to be able to move forward.
the benefits need to be spread throughout society and not just concentrated in the hands of those that are already rich.
but it is also clear that work in itself is not the answer.
as others have also been saying the quality of work decent work a job you can build a life on is also a key element of a job rich recovery and this strategy.
social security benefits are important;
we need to look at the way in which people are working many many hours and still actually cannot afford to live a decent life.
it is not just about social partners and the engagement of local and regional authorities;
we very much welcome the council's words about the balancing of the social and economic dimension because we think that the reaction to the financial crisis has been one of stand alone economics and that it has not taken into account the need to actually develop people's lives.
the issue of bureaucracy and administration costs for businesses is important but removing that does not necessarily give you a better society with decent work either.
and i will only quote the conclusion of the commission in its march communication which pointed out that for decades the eu has been a model of a mechanism which breeds cohesion and convergence and this convergence process says the report
to open a public consultation procedure for the review of the european semester in order to improve its effectiveness and legitimacy because it is clear madam commissioner that we do not need partial and auxiliary measures but a basic redefinition of the policy paradigm.
has slowed and even gone into reverse.
so that is why we welcome for the first time the use on the scoreboard of key employment and social indicators such as child poverty levels access to health care and homelessness.
some of the challenges are fiscal are debt related and while they are crucial we are not discussing them here this morning.
we are informed that levels of private debt among households and companies already high in some member states have increased significantly during the crisis.
but equally we must target decent jobs. i agree with my colleague casa it is crucial to address the abuse of vulnerable people.
and eight and two thousand and twelve now there are some positives in the report in that the share of young people in tertiary education has increased and the percentage of early school leavers has dropped.
we need to see how to get rid of that imbalance.
alarmingly it also points out that although significant inequalities already existed in some member states prior to the crisis those divergences have amplified both within and between member states.
yes we will have the details of juncker's package tomorrow but we need to be sure first of all that it is growth friendly investment and secondly that there is a redistributive effect from this growth.
i know there are issues about a legal base but i want to ask the commissioner what is your view on this how do you see the possibilities of rebalancing the economic and the social how can we make it real rather than just talking about it?
even though citizens will not see an immediate impact if we can find agreement on proposals to help member states achieve those targets then i believe we will have done valuable work.
you said yourself there is an imbalance there.
so i am asking the commissioner how specifically do you propose to deliver on those objectives? i was interested to hear the council speaking earlier about integrating the two thousand and twenty objectives into the european semester.
from a social perspective it warns that while gdp and wealth have marginally increased overall the crisis has constrained redistributive effects.
finally job creation is crucial and in that alde strongly supports the elimination of bureaucracy and unnecessary burdens for smes.
but crucially we ask that the scoreboard be used as an early warning mechanism in order to develop suitable policies otherwise we are just number crunching we are box ticking and that is less than useless.
i personally support this proposal.
those of us who support the eu as an entity need to find ways to help and support member states to deal with this immense challenge.
we need eu level action against zero hours contracts against. one four million people being exploited;
what we actually need is a proper implementation of the temporary agency workers directive not more abuse of the swedish derogation by the uk government.
and very importantly commissioner we need a fundamental revision of the original posting of workers directive to stop workers in the west midlands being undercut by what they think is the eu.
job destruction is now more important than job creation and we need to reverse this trend.
i believe that in order to reverse this trend we need to raise european demand by proper economic coordination.
seventy five we are very far from this and we know that in order to reach this target we have to create more than sixteen million jobs by. two thousand and twenty so far this is not working.
we must all take our respective responsibilities in formulating a comprehensive and considered response and i trust that the member states will take careful note of the report's observations and recommendations.
women have always played a huge role on family farms even if not always adequately rewarded financially.
the modernised and simplified cap will continue to foster and support european family
it also reminds us that there are challenges facing women but there are also opportunities.
farms. we need to provide opportunities to young men and women who wish to live and work in rural communities so that they can make the most of their potential.
honourable members this report reminds us all of the essential role that women play in rural areas and throughout society.
we also recognised the need to do more in relation to the roll out of rural broadband which is essential if we are going to encourage those who wish to live and those who wish to work in rural communities.
it reminds us that adopting legislation is not enough to remedy inequality.
of all family members and often as many as three generations.
today the numbers of women wishing to enter farming in europe has probably never been higher yet there are persistent barriers to entry that prevent many young men and women from taking up farming and women face particular problems.