kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
a recently published report by the european court of auditors assisting the facility's intervention in microfinance concluded that thanks to the use of financial instruments it has adequately addressed the needs of micro entrepreneurs.
i therefore welcome this report which sheds light on the european progress microfinance facility's achievements in making entrepreneurship an option for all including vulnerable persons and those who would be otherwise financially excluded.
your report rightly highlights that the facility has substantially contributed to job preservation and if i may add to job creation with over sixty zero jobs created or maintained thanks to this facility. in addition half of micro borrowers reported an increase in their turnover thanks to the microloans made possible by this facility.
two thousand and twenty this includes eur ninety six million in guarantees which can leverage more than eur five hundred million to micro and social entrepreneurs.
therefore it would be advisable to stick to this definition.
combined with technical assistance and dedicated support for capacity building of microcredit providers and increased complementarity with other instruments have been taken into account in the design of the successor employment and social innovation programme as well as specific support for social enterprises which is a priority objective of the commission.
this will help microcredit providers develop their business and better channel muchneeded funds to the most excluded clients which are often hard to reach.
in four months the european investment fund which manages the scheme has received over thirty applications accounting for approximately half of the total budget.
madam president it is right that we focus on small business which in my country is creating three times more jobs than big listed companies.
according to social enterprise east of england over half of our social enterprises are less than five years old and nearly one in seven export precisely the businesses that this european facility should support. i am proud to have supported a commitment of gbp ninety six million to voluntary and social sector enterprises in the structural investment
funds in the last five years in addition to one hundred and thirteen community grants in my constituency in the last year alone but this should be business funding too.
but i want to back tonight paragraph thirty of the report which regrets the lack of funding to social enterprises and calls for more help for social entrepreneurs.
it has helped those they support to realise their potential as entrepreneurs to develop new skills through training and monitoring and to find jobs.
there have been a number of comments raised in the report.
entrepreneurship gives people meaning allowing them a stake in their own community and that filters through in the value that it provides in terms of job creation confidence and certainly vibrancy in that community.
it has to continue because it has been a success.
most of them do not need and do not want state assistance but rather want to be empowered to manage their own lives.
when the microfinance facility was eventually established in two thousand and ten it was conceived in response to the worsening credit market in the european union and in order to reach the goals of the eu two thousand and twenty strategy on growth and jobs. however even if overall the microfinance facility can take credit for making finance more accessible and for contributing to job preservation and job creation
people's lives can change for themselves and also for their employees.
this is one field in which i hope that we will do better in the future. i cannot but hope that the instrument which will replace it from two thousand and sixteen easi will take into consideration our recommendations.
after all the economic incentives should go hand in hand with social inclusion measures.
and maybe other similar instruments should be set up to empower more categories of people those who as revealed by the evaluation belong to an unprofitable target group like the young unemployed or self employed immigrant minorities and disabled.
such instruments are the right answer to the question what kind of help do people need?
the european parliament has been calling for such an instrument since two thousand and eight by means of its own initiative resolution.
madam president our debate today demonstrates that we largely share the same position as regards the need not only to pursue the support provided under the progress microfinance scheme but also to improve its performance and coverage.
i am particularly satisfied about the excellent cooperation we have established with the eib group so far and the strong start for the easi programme.
even the member states that are traditionally historically more reluctant to see the added value of the common foreign and security policy at european level i think after this past year have realised very well that a european common foreign and security policy is an added value also for their own national interests. obviously we have to make this emerge more and more. it is not only but it is also a matter of narrative and visibility as someone has mentioned.
june. this is an area where a little bit of our serious committed cooperation can develop a huge potential for
if we did not have a european common reaction on the ukrainian crisis think of that.
the real substance of the process is that we know all of us that without common real foreign policy each of our member states will not have the means to respond to the challenges we have in front of
i always give this example take the doorstep statements that the ministers make when they go to the foreign affairs council and you will see all shades of different positions but the important thing to me is that we go through a process not only in the meetings themselves but actually an everyday process so that when it comes to take decisions we are all united.
use the treaties use the articles of the treaties that we are currently not using because we still need to build the political will that will allow us to use our full potential.
you that when it comes to a stronger coordination between the work we do in the council the work we do in the commission the work we do with the european parliament we are making very relevant steps.
think of the work we have done on the internalexternal coordination.
if you see the innovation that the report calls for this commissioners' group on external action you see the core group that was established as something already ambitious.
russia. working on strategic communication not only on russian but on arabic is key to our
i know that very well. what i see is that crises around us starting from the crisis in ukraine are telling us are telling our member states are telling the governments are telling the national parliaments are telling your fellow parliamentarians in your respective member states that yes we do have an added value when we manage to decide and to act together as europeans.
in asia. there is not a single place in the word where we can afford not to invest politically.
i would not exclude anyone from the exercise because i see in everyday work that there is a need for that and there is also the willingness for
fyrom. it happens sometimes especially when you deal twenty four seven with crises and jetlag that you make a mistake and i apologise for that because i always stick to the formal official recognised name and i discussed that with the greek authorities as
i think that here we have a space to develop and to use in the coming years.
some of you asked for a relaunch of relations.
it is a matter of making the common interest and the common added value emerge.
think of where we would be here today.
do you people really think that it is sensible for spanish military planes to deliberately spook civilian airliners landing in gibraltar?
an eu foreign policy is unworkable at best and irresponsibly dangerous at worst. member states have very different foreign policy needs and concerns.
therefore i thank him for a very good report which suggests the main aspects we should work towards namely the credibility of our international action the comprehensive character of using all aspects of our work including political security defence economic trade development humanitarian leverage and especially trying to have the flexibility on a budgetary level to use the global actor role for the european union that we are all working for. i very much welcome the fact that you are going in the direction of a strategic review because doing this in an open manner will be your legacy
how can the british government allow my country's only aircraft carrier to be retired and rely on a french carrier but then resist the development of common security and defence policy missions which are both badly needed and which could help problems of overstretched defence resources?
how can the british prime minister call for tougher european action on russia then himself threaten european unity to achieve it?
madam president i support mr brok's report but parliament will understand if i use this short speech to warn how the security threats facing europe underline how much my own country needs europe and how dangerous is the domestic debate which threatens britain's future in the eu.
or promote a trade agreement between europe and the united states then threaten to remove british business from its benefits?
last year was no better so we have to do something about that and i urge you to apply all the pressure you can on the member states' governments to address this issue.
my group the ecr is particularly delighted by the strong wording shown in solidarity with ukraine.
i welcome this emphasis and the emphasis being placed on an eu future energy union.
i also welcome the brok report underlining the vital importance of nato in our collective defence and as a friend of taiwan the improvement in the far east of crossstrait relations. calls for more efficiency and value for money in the external action service are also welcomed as is the push for better language skills for eu diplomats particularly in arabic and russian.
these are both foreign and domestic threats as the high representative has pointed out common to all eu member states and our governments understand this phenomenon and seek cfsp common policies only when appropriate such as tough economic sanctions against russia and iran.
the emerging threats now seen in the european neighbourhood region increase the importance of diversifying our member states' energy supplies away from the exclusive sourcing from russian gas in particular.
madam president this week we had the commission president mr juncker blatantly calling for a common european army to and i quote allow europe to take on responsibility in the world and to send a clear message to russia.
it is always a bad military tactic to divide your army but this report would divide nato and the eu.
the brok report calls for coordination of defence budgets an eu arms trade authority common eu defence attachs and a permanent eu headquarters the very headquarters proposal that was voted down in the council just over a year ago.
the true purpose is to destroy our national ability to act independently so we have no alternative but to pool and share our armed forces.
we need to react to this demanding international situation.
we need to be strategic consistent coherent and efficient.
defence where the latest developments indicate a change of security paradigm in europe is another field of attention.
under the new circumstances created by the illegal annexation of crimea and the subsequent destabilisation of ukraine relations with russia including in the energy sector require a revisitation.
with respect to the southern neighbourhood the report is asking for a thorough revision of the policy instruments and methods employed by the eu unequivocally condemning isis what it represents its ruthless inhuman tactics and illegal dealings generating important financial resources.
the usual references to other countries and regions of interest to the eu the backbone of the previous reports are now placed in the larger perspective of the global world order.
in that context mr brok underlines the importance of strengthening transatlantic relations particularly through the signing of the ttip the strategic answer of the west to all challenges in the current world order allowing for the continuation of western centrality to the current international system.
in conclusion this report is a new substantive and therefore valuable approach by the parliament to the high representative vice president's external activity on behalf of the eu.
i think it is a very strong text and of course he was also very generous as a negotiating partner and i welcome very much that approach which should be exemplary to all other negotiations within this house.
this can serve as a basic text to which we can return in order to find the minimum common ground on which we can work out the necessary broad consensus without which a european common and foreign policy might not work.
of course as a green group we welcome the mainstreaming of our most important priorities in the text.
we welcome the emphasis given to climate protection and disarmament which has been a long standing request from the green group.
whether it is common or not is not tested very well in peaceful times but it is seriously tested in crises and we are surrounded with crises which cannot be resolved or solved by any of the member states but through common action and that common action presupposes a common understanding and a common voice.
that common voice being the most important i very much hope that the next council meetings will be able to come up with that necessary common voice to serve as the foundation for future common action.
it needs to be pointed out although i know you should understand this that the eu is not a nation. you do not need to be doing these things.
we live in a more globalised world where there are more challenges in terms of property rights and ownership.
madam president the creation of an eu wide system of protection of geographical indications has already proved its vital importance for many of our agricultural products.
now it is vital that we extend it to include authentic local products.
the fact is that we have a fragmented situation where some member states offer no protection while others have widely differing definitions.
this will mean there is a clear and strong legal framework for protecting our local producers and that is why today i voted in favour of the extension of the geographical indications to non agricultural products.
until they know where they source their minerals from we cannot reasonably ask the majority of downstream companies to know.
on the other hand we need to break the link between minerals and conflict the most obvious example of which is the conflict in the great lakes region in africa.
it is by nature multidimensional and extremely complicated. so we must look at it from different angles development political the trade perspective all at the same time.
there will be a lot of pressure from you from ngos and from other business.
but precisely because of our importance in trade we can also make things worse if we do not approach it in the right way.
it operates in parallel to the eur twenty million package that the high representative and the commission have announced to further support capacity building in conflict regions.
this challenge is particularly acute in developing countries and the issue of conflict minerals is one of the most glaring examples.
the draft regulation we are discussing here today is only one of its components.
moreover the commission proposal sets up an enforcement structure to be deployed by member states' competent authorities to ensure that operators claiming to be responsible are truly so.
we also risk creating trade diversion resulting in prejudice against individual countries or even the whole continent and that would lead to plummeting prices for minerals from certain origins.
if you do not believe me you can have a look at the situation in the great lakes region since the us mandatory scheme in the dodd frank act came into effect.
it will include responsible smelters and refiners in the eu and worldwide on a white list and consequently a name and shame' system for those that do not appear on it.
we can also create a severe shortage in the eu for companies that are most of the time willing but unable to check their supply chains effectively and we will have achieved nothing on the ground since we will have placed fragile mining areas and local communities under additional pressure from international markets.
many of them might be tempted to lie.
one of the challenges in trade policy is to harness the potential of our economies while creating effective systems to avoid negative consequences like the one we are discussing today.
if we impose a mandatory scheme without making sure that the conditions on the ground in the conflict regions are right in order to support the implementation of such a system we do run a high risk of further disrupting global supply chains and driving them away from africa altogether.
on the one hand we do need a global market based approach to raw materials that provides developing countries with a vital source of stable income through trade in natural resources.
i insist on this integrated approach because it is crucial to understand and i know you all do that there is no silver bullet to deal with this problem.
it also includes a strong review clause to open the possibility for switching in a staged manner to a mandatory approach in the event that the current proposal does not deliver.
there are no more than forty smelters in the eu.
by doing so we will reduce the great hardship endless wars and human rights abuses that have traditionally come with them.
the size of europe's trade footprint is such that businesses here must play their part.
the difficulties there are described in united nations reports year after year.
our plan is focused proportionate and designed to complement the other components of the integrated approach. our proposal focuses on smelters and refiners.
therefore following calls for action by the united states the g eight and this parliament based on the work of the oecd the commission developed jointly with the high representative an integrated approach.
the eu's track record in africa is wholly underwhelming.
in creating the poverty particularly in africa that engenders armed groups and makes illegal trading in metals so attractive in the first place.
it is this us law that has already reduced funds to groups that thrive on conflict minerals by almost two thirds.
further and predictably the eu is behind the pace in cracking down on conflict minerals.
the united states has already acted and indeed the dodd frank act was passed and enacted in july two thousand and ten four years ago.
the eu is fully complicit and i wish people would realise this and the eu should stop its protectionist and destructive trade policies that impoverish the african continent and thus create the context in which the trade in conflict metals flourishes.
i want to see an end to the exploitation and the use of conflict minerals but the best way forward is a scheme headed by the united nations and working with individual african countries not a scheme under eu control.
it does not unilaterally impose obligations on eu companies;
today and tomorrow in the vote we have a chance to turn that curse into a blessing.
we need a mandatory due diligence scheme from the start to the end of the supply chain.
voluntary guidelines have been in place for years and eighty of european companies are ignoring these guidelines. due diligence is not working.
mr president as this parliament's rapporteur on corporate social responsibility i view this legislation on conflict minerals as a test of europe's claim to be a leader on responsible business.
you all have a letter here from over one hundred and forty catholic bishops;
they should be rejected and replaced by the amendments.
they have been here they have told us what they want they want proper regulation throughout the supply chain.
if we vote tomorrow along the lines of the inta committee we will have a fig leaf of legislation which pretends to do something but which actually achieves nothing at all.
but as long as we adopt a strong review clause which i believe we have done in our committee vote it gives us the opportunity to assess the impact of our legislation and particularly to take into consideration the voluntary uptake for the scheme for downstream companies and the impact that it has really had on the ground.
we have established that there is a pinch point in the supply chain where there is a very realistic opportunity to determine the source of the minerals.
mr president tomorrow we have big decisions to make in order to stop the fuelling of conflict through the extraction of and trade in minerals and metals in conflict areas around the world.
evidence from the congo already points to this very problem.
unfortunately in my view there is a real risk that by going in a certain direction we make matters worse for those on the ground.
while there are differences between the us dodd frank act and the mandatory measures being proposed by some groups my concern is that the effects of a full mandatory approach will have similarly cumbersome requirements particularly for the downstream supply chain.
this is not what we want to do.
the response of many european companies following the implementation of these requirements will be to source elsewhere creating de facto embargoes to the detriment of innocent miners and their families.
while we cannot agree on the form of the eu's approach and which direction it should take at least we can agree that this is a problem that must be overcome.
a political compromise in the committee vote led to a mandatory approach being taken for this critical part of the supply chain and i am happy to support it.
if changes need to be made at that point then we will make them in full possession of the facts rather than rushing into creating a top down scheme that may do more harm than good.
we also create an eu list of due diligence for the downstream companies with a possibility to name and shame and i am quite confident and this has strengthened in me after this debate that most if not all companies will be on that list.
that awareness and that public pressure has also made many of the global mineral supply chains increasingly aware of the need to set due diligence standards as part of their corporate social responsibility.
in the commission proposal we do address the upstream part of the supply chains and with the accompanying measures we have set aside eur twenty million this money is to improve the conditions on the ground but also to help companies especially small and medium size companies to be able to do the checks the audits and the traceability because that is not easy today.
we need to break the link between conflict trade minerals and the terrible violence that we have all witnessed which affects so many children women and men.
so that we can ensure that the revenue from this trade is available for good governance for health for schools and for other vital public services;
this debate shows that we all share the same goals.
if this is not effective there is a review clause to push further.
we need to promote transparent responsible mineral supply chains so that we can keep the money out of the hands of rebel groups;
we should not fool ourselves.
and so that we can encourage economic growth that provides conflict affected areas with hope for a better future.
mr president we need to recognise the fact that we are massively behind the curve on this.
we do this for timber we do this for diamonds.
but we need to be clear that it would be utterly ludicrous to subject just nineteen or twenty european companies to this scheme not least because the smes that we are talking about would be excluded from the additional public trust and confidence that this scheme would bring.