kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
so we are objecting to the commission exceeding its implementing powers and that is a legal question that all our colleagues need to answer.
this is not about whether you like it or not this is about whether we allow the commission to change a crucial part of the law through implementing powers.
to be very clear we have been debating this since two thousand and nine when the commission was asked to come forward with criteria to define what endocrine disruptors are.
that was a crucial debate.
ultimately as i have said we have the right of scrutiny even when the commission thinks it should not be reminded of the limits of its regulatory power.
furthermore the way the proposal is presented it is simply introducing a derogation an exemption that is creating an improper loophole in the regulation allowing continuous use of dangerous pesticides.
the commission's task was to set scientific criteria nothing more nothing less and we will not accept the commission deciding to go beyond its legislative power and introduce exemptions.
that is why we want the commission to withdraw the draft regulation and submit a new one setting strict straightforward and legally sound scientific criteria without this aforementioned derogation.
the commission had to set the scientific criteria but by introducing a derogation it took not a technical decision but a political decision.
commissioner i am afraid you have just given all the arguments why this is a political decision.
you talked about year long negotiations within council. why should you negotiate for a year if it is a technical decision?
you talked about a balanced compromise but that is incompatible with a technical decision. i am afraid that you have completely side lined the european parliament we should have been part of these negotiations with council and that is why you leave us no other solution than to object.
i think all of us want to protect public health.
the question i face somewhere in between the extremes in this debate is whether we are better to go with what the commission has tabled so that we make progress it is better than the status quo as i understand it and i listened carefully to the commissioner's statement or whether we should go with the objectors and say
that we reject the commission proposal and start from scratch.
my fear with that proposal is that we would then wait another eight years to achieve any progress at all.
perhaps i am exaggerating the case but it does seem to me that that is the likely outcome.
i am looking towards an election in the european parliament a change of members of parliament a change of commission and all the reasons why things get delayed along the way.
i am not sure what is wrong with the world health organisation definition which we are accepting here and i think that is something to follow and wisely so.
but we are talking about the health and well being of consumers and of farmers and we have to put that as our priority.
these fine words mean nothing.
a new empire?
finally regarding sharks the south and west coasts of the uk are full of small sharks.
this has nothing to do with the disgraceful practice of finning.
what is the eu?
they are very important because they promote environmental sustainability as on the one hand they allow the european fleet to access the surplus resources and on the other hand they subject the vessels to the same rules of control and transparency.
firstly the sustainable fisheries partnership agreements are a regulated and transparent tool which allows us to frame the activity of the eu fleet in partner country waters in full observance of the principles of sustainability good governance and fairness.
they are now being recognised as such by most of the stakeholders including many ngos.
takes note of the nomination of a new government in that country. we remain concerned about the political and institutional situation there and we encourage all political leaders and institutions to work together to overcome the existing divergences and to find a stable solution
for the time being the situation has no direct consequences for the fisheries agreement between the european union and guinea bissau.
i am also pleased to note that the reports adopted in the committee on fisheries recommend that parliament give its assent to the three protocols we will be discussing today.
i can assure you that i have taken careful note of your suggestions for improvement.
our strategy underlying fisheries agreements is to consolidate and possibly extend the network of agreements in particular tuna agreements.
they will ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources. they will support effective fisheries management and they will contribute to the fight against illegal unreported and unregulated iuu fishing and they will help the development of local industries and guarantee good value for
let me now say a few words on each of these protocols.
under the new protocol the eu fleet has been able to resume its fishing activities in guinea bissau after an interruption of over two years and these fishing activities are sustainable the stocks are considered to be in a good state and fisheries indicators such as catch levels and fishing effort have remained stable over the past years.
fishing opportunities were in fact slightly reduced and we took specific conservation measures.
having said this it is clear that the situation needs to be monitored very closely.
scientific cooperation with guinea bissau should also be intensified as well as scientific cooperation at regional level. sectoral support to guinea bissau has been programmed mainly to improve the management of fisheries resources to further reinforce control and surveillance capacities to improve sanitary conditions
as mr van dalen mentioned the sustainability of shark fishing was a concern under the previous protocol.
firstly the reduction in fishing opportunities for longliners is expected to reduce or at least freeze' the number of shark catches.
and second its provisions on sharks and the protection of the most vulnerable species.
this should help make madagascar one of the major regional players in the fight against iuu fishing.
on shark fishing the protocol very clearly defines the scope of authorised shark fisheries.
with regard to protection of the most vulnerable species and i am referring here to sharks sea turtles marine mammals and seabirds the measures in the protocol go beyond management conservation measures adopted by regional fisheries management organisations.
the protocol specifically defines prohibited species in relation to capture and retention on board.
on top of this eu ship owners have put in place best practices to decrease incidental catches and to handle vulnerable species caught incidentally in fishing gear.
let me thank you again for today's opportunity to debate three of our fisheries agreements.
we have also put forward new innovative ways of financing investment in the european union for example the concept of project bonds.
i think this is absolutely vital.
the commission has two minutes to reply if only one commissioner is to be responsible for answering and if both want to reply today each commissioner has one minute of speaking time. the officials on either side of me have been catching your eyes and
each member has one minute to put his or her question and after the commission's reply has the right to put a supplementary of thirty seconds.
we will produce a list broadly in proportion to the group size.
how can the commission help in a very tangible way to create a context in which markets will rejuvenate and modernise existing industries and at the same time allow the process of creative destruction to go ahead do its work and create new niche markets? i think that additional tools have to be found to make additional finance for rd available and also to bring this rd into the market and bridge the value of that for new products.
this ranges from education research and innovation to the promotion of sustainable production.
one of these is the connecting europe facility.
it is important for infrastructure in transport energy and telecommunications.
what are you going to do to help protect these budgets whatever the size of the whole budget?
i think the point is that there are quite a few eu member states where very focused industrial policies have been successful in retaining industry in retaining competitiveness through cooperation with the social partners through very focused investment and the coordination of policies of innovation
we already had a number of opportunities to discuss with the social partners including trade unions sectorally but also with the umbrella organisations the importance of industrial policy and the importance of human capital investment inside industrial policy.
of course nowadays it has to be interpreted in the whole european context and not just in the national context of individual member states.
greece unfortunately is a very specific case because of the high indebtedness and the fact that it was not so transparent in the past years.
i very much hope that this is linked to a judgment that competitiveness is improving and the operation of all these stakeholders which are listed is now hopefully bearing fruit.
we have seen none for nearly twenty years.
hundreds of billions of euros of investment yet no progress towards our emissions objectives.
a recent study by respected environmental economist bjrn lomborg showed that germany's vast usd one hundred and thirty billion investment in solar pv will have the effect by the end of this century of delaying the progress of global warming by thirty seven hours!
we had energy commissioner gunther oettinger telling us that europe could not afford to pursue a unilateral climate policy. we had industry commissioner antonio tajani telling us that europe faced an industrial massacre as a result of energy prices.
colleagues this must surely be the most expensive failure in history.
if emissions increase despite our best efforts when the economy is struggling what will happen if the eurozone ever recovers?
but that is exactly the pattern we saw a thousand years ago before the medieval warm period;
our problem is not with the climate but with our climate policy. yesterday i attended a briefing by euroelectric and eurostat on energy statistics.
we saw it three thousand years ago before the minoan optimum and in none of those cases was there a tipping point.
in none of those cases was there a disaster. we are dealing here with well understood long term natural climate cycles which have been in place for many thousands of years.
we saw it two thousand years ago before the roman optimum;
we heard that the eu's emissions were flat in two thousand and twelve and are expected to increase in two thousand and thirteen this despite vast investments in green infrastructure specifically in renewable energy projects.
we have seen less than one degree of warming in the last hundred years.
this is the damage that we are doing.
a delay of thirty seven hours is effectively zero.
this is recognised not just by me my party and my group but by the commission.
it is time to stop this folly.
i thank you very much and i appreciate very much the contribution and interest you have paid to this issue and i look forward to jointly succeeding in the green infrastructure goals.
to mobilise experience and expertise at these levels we need increased investment in training and capacity building at appropriate levels in member states.
for green infrastructure in europe with significant benefits for securing the resilience and vitality of some of europe's most relevant green infrastructure with consequential social and economic benefits.
the integration of green infrastructure into future policy instruments is an ongoing process. the commission will furthermore assess the opportunities for developing an eu ten g initiative developing trans european priority access
let me assure you that the commission will do its utmost to support and add value to the work of national and local authorities throughout europe to make green infrastructure the success we need.
mr president honourable members the success of green infrastructure solutions depends on the decisions that are made at national regional and local levels.
the social funds and the life programme.
based on experience across europe what is becoming clear is that green infrastructure solutions are often more cost effective more resilient and bring more long term benefits than artificial heavy infrastructure.
nothing much will happen unless green infrastructure is a priority in the partnership agreements backed up by specific actions in the operational programmes.
there are also benefits for our health and well being green spaces improve general health;
the new multiannual financing framework provides significant new opportunities for the first time the cohesion fund will provide explicit support to green infrastructures.
it is therefore reassuring that the private sector is more and more recognising the opportunities for investment in our natural capital.
investing in natura two thousand is vital.
the strategy on green infrastructure which the commission presented in may sets out ideas on how nature based solutions like green infrastructure can protect biodiversity enhance the economic benefits that our nature delivers and contribute to growth and jobs.
the target of five of erdf resources for integrated sustainable urban development measures also provides opportunities for financing urban green infrastructure. there are also opportunities within the new common agricultural policy
the commission is working with the european investment bank to set up a pilot natural capital financing facility next year.
all the openings are there but those opportunities need to be taken up.
local initiatives to invest in green infrastructure are creating jobs in planning building energy efficient green roofs and walls restoring and maintaining urban and rural ecosystems and restoring brownfield sites and watercourses.
on twenty three november last year in which fifty seven people were killed has highlighted long standing human rights issues in the philippines related to the disappearance or unexplained killing of citizens and the effective impunity for the perpetrators in the past.
with muslim rebels in mindanao on the basis of a peace deal that is fair to all sides.
the government has taken some important steps in strengthening human rights.
we shall also put in place a monitoring system to develop confidence. epjust has an initial duration of eighteen months and is funded under the instrument for stability but can be extended.
we are also negotiating a pca with the philippines which will include important human rights commitments.
these include monitoring of the implementation of international commitments actions to support the ratification of the rome statute of the icc and voter education. the eu is also helping in the mindanao peace process for the moment mainly through support for social services and confidence building activities but we stand ready to do more if the process advances.
the eu has a well established dialogue with the government of the philippines where both sides discuss a wide range of issues including human rights.
we actively support the government in its efforts to improve respect for human rights.
this is a very timely action aimed at capacity building for the philippines judicial authorities including police and military personnel to help them investigate cases of extrajudicial killings and to prosecute those guilty of murder.
it is important to break the culture of impunity about such killings and to put an end to them.
the current administration of president arroyo has abolished the death penalty and with asean has advocated including human rights provisions in the recently adopted asean charter. an objective still to be achieved is ending the forty year old conflict
there appears to be renewed progress and hopes have risen for agreement later this year.
it reveals the extent to which lawlessness has taken root in some parts of the philippines.
constructive engagement and targeted assistance offer the best chance of helping the philippines a country which shares our common values in many ways in order to enable them to embed the rule of law in central and in local government.
mr president this horrendous crime in maguindanao is undoubtedly deserving of our strongest condemnation.
we should not disregard the efforts that the philippine government has made to develop a more democratic political culture in the past twenty five years following the fall of the kleptocratic dictator ferdinand marcos.
there are many reasons for this depressing development the dispersed nature of the islands of the philippines archipelago the weak central government corruption poverty and an ongoing islamist terrorist insurgency supported by al qaeda in the south.
in ukraine warmongering over another country's borders and still proceeding to destabilise another country.
and that is the power play and aggression of russia in syria siding with the terror of assad;
not causing confusion by acting unilaterally.
it actually achieves very little.
do. time for people to lead with their heads and not their hearts.
saying let them all in' or let no one in';
but if you want the uk to leave so you can continue to construct a united states of europe tell the uk to stop wasting its time and close your mind to reforms.
to all my friends here in this house if you really want the uk to remain a member of the eu help the british government to achieve these reforms.
tackling this issue at source in syria and libya needs concerted action not only at european level but at international level to get the various militias and their proxies around a table to seek a political solution.
end. so these are tough and challenging times.
the eu has to reform.
was it because we did not have enough responsibility? was it because we did not have the right rules in place?
in my last five years here in parliament my political group has grown to be the third largest group representing not people from one country but from sixteen different member states because people realise that the eu cannot go on as it is.
because yet again political capital is being spent talking about ever closer union instead of delivering ever growing economies and an ever more competitive europe.
no it is because the rules in place were flagrantly ignored.
so instead of highly complex rules for monetary union that powerful countries flout when politically expedient how about a few rules that we actually follow?
the eu has to change.
what we need is to put the foundations of that cooperative system in place so we are better able to offer help to the most vulnerable people escaping this conflict taking them directly from the camps and bypassing the traffickers. it may not sound as poetic as saying that the eu has a solution to every problem but it is a responsible way of delivering a solution intended to help people who want to fulfil their dreams and a better future in their own homes.
otherwise the only alternative is a military solution in a powder keg and the alternative is starting something that nobody knows how it will
on the refugee crisis let us get away from polarising the debate telling people that you are either pro immigration or you are anti immigration;
or we should do something' or we should do nothing'.
therefore in preparation for the summit i hope leaders look to ensure that the basic foundations of a functioning and cooperative asylum system are in place humane and fast processing; immediate returns for failed asylum seekers;
but we urgently need a comprehensive policy here that includes legal avenues for migration a real eu asylum policy with a permanent distribution key and a real eu border control system.
how can you expect citizens to be confident that europe can handle the situation if government leaders themselves do not show that they are up to the job?
i hope for your sake that refugees have the same notion of lasting prospects'.
it is very clear that the current financial framework does not allow for these kinds of exercises. and besides i would like to echo the words of other speakers who ask themselves how can we be sure that the human rights of refugees will be guaranteed in turkey?
but i wonder the commission and in particular the council are making promises about financial support without actually specifying where the money will come from.
but they also want to know that europe is able to cope with the situation.
but the member states have not even properly delivered on their previous pledges never mind for additional refugees and the only response of the council seems to be let's keep our eyes closed and maybe the problem will go away.
but the majority of european citizens i am convinced want to welcome refugees and they want europe to show solidarity.
they see the images of large numbers of refugees coming this way.
they also see refugee centres being established in their neighbourhoods and they are anxious.
but citizens are concerned not just members of parliament.
unfortunately the determination of the council ends after the first sentence. the decision on the one hundred and sixty zero was already inadequate and everybody knew it and many more people will come our way.
earlier promises of funds as mr juncker just set out have not been delivered upon so how can you promise more money to a country if you have not even delivered on your earlier promises?
they want to see leadership but instead the government leaders are dithering and hesitating and ducking the issue and coming up with half hearted and inadequate solutions.
on the talks with turkey i think that is very welcome and it is essential.
the commission and parliament have put forward proposals repeatedly for a comprehensive strategy but the council is silent.
you asked for solutions madam and i cannot think of a more perfect solution. would you agree with me that that is the best idea? we build camps next to the syrian border and we make sure that we get funding not only from europe apparently britain is the largest contributor to this. let us see some more action from the rest of europe and from the gulf states.
what we need is a serious debate that understands the uk point of view but understands that reform is not only wanted by people in britain it is wanted by people right across the eu.
you can talk about what you want but we know what you want.
we know that you want to leave.
any more questions?
cameron has taken many months to provide any inkling of his demands. some of what he suggests is sensible and in line with what the labour party has been arguing for for many years but he has been ambiguous in other areas not least when it comes to workers' rights.
that is despite the fact that guaranteed holiday and controlled working hours are one of the key reasons why many british people support staying in the eu.
so i want to ask the representatives of both the council and the commission please if david cameron threatens working rights make clear to him the damage this would cause to support for the eu.
in fact these were explicitly and conspicuously made ineligible for emff funds.
everyone acknowledges that and this report on the emff is an opportunity to consolidate this good work.
let us talk about engines.
what should be transparent becomes opaque.
now we want to reintroduce aid for construction which was abolished in two thousand and two for being unsustainable.
we should say no' to construction no' to engine replacement no' to temporary and permanent cessation and no' to mutual funds. there have been attempts to compromise but in the end no compromise is possible on these black and white issues. there is no middle of the road available.
how can we do that?
so how do we consolidate?
i think we can all agree on that. but this report as amended by mr cadec represents an attempt to confound the simplicity of that approach by over complication and obfuscation.
i will take one small example.
nothing in the commission proposal was there for upgrading or replacement.
this is something which is very obvious.
my message is clear if you are going to decide about this it has to be capped because this is the best way to spend our