kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we have got to keep that particular position that is a principle that we must never bend the knee on.
we have been united in this and together we managed to include very strong safeguards.
these rules will give our customs officers the right to seize counterfeit fake products transiting through europe.
i would very much like to underline the position and the fact i can assure everyone that there will in no case be any problems for the transit of generic medicines to developing countries as a result of this legislation.
i am proud today of the balance that we have achieved between fighting organised crime and the dangerous trafficking of counterfeit products and protecting the interests of legitimate trade. i would like to stress that there is no risk of confusion between generic medicines and counterfeit fake medicines.
i would like to draw your attention to the achievements on this file.
administrative procedures have been streamlined according to best practices and we will see an increased harmonisation of the national systems along the lines of best practices.
some of you might have received letters during the week from ngos expressing concerns on the issue of transit of generic medicines to developing countries.
two thousand and twelve i would like to take this opportunity to thank all colleagues and their staff both in parliament and the commission.
we have also managed to include important safeguards to protect freedom of expression by limiting the possibility of rightholders to bring legal actions against people using trademarks for reasons for example of parody or artistic expression.
for this i would like to thank an old colleague from sweden who was with us but who is not any more. he drew our attention to this.
i would also like to warmly thank the many presidencies that have worked on this dossier and perhaps most importantly the italian and the latvian presidencies which provided excellent work in the most critical stages of the negotiations.
the reforms agreed in trialogues will ensure that companies in europe have faster and cheaper access to trademarks both at national and european levels without compromising on the quality of the decisions.
throughout my life i have fought for development and i would never ever allow a law bearing my name to hinder people in developing countries from getting access to medicines.
any holder of a european trademark trying to incorrectly stop goods in transit which are not breaching the rights is also liable for damages in accordance with the eu customs regulations.
now in europe we will be able to help developing countries in an important struggle against organised crime which preys on the most vulnerable of us.
this is something that we are all united in.
the ambition has been shared by the entire parliament negotiating team.
it should also be noted that the problems that have occurred in past times with regard to the transit of medicines have exclusively related to patents and not trademarks.
in relation to the regulation regarding the procedure of preselection and appointment of an executive director of the agency in alicante that is responsible for administering the eu trade mark system it has to be stressed from the commission's point of view that the final text is not aligned with the principles of the eu's interinstitutional common approach on decentralised agencies.
allow me now to highlight just a few of these benefits.
the reform package will foster innovation and growth by making the trade mark registration system all over the eu more accessible and efficient for businesses whether in terms of lower cost increased speed more predictability or legal certainty. the clear benefits of the compromise package are there for all to see.
secondly the reform of the directive will ensure more streamlined efficient and harmonised registration procedures across all trademark offices in the european union. faster and less burdensome procedures will constitute a great improvement for growing companies mainly smes which roll out their business beyond one member state and are seeking trade mark protection.
at the same time there will be appropriate safeguards in the interest of legitimate trade.
the arrangements for common application requirements and the future availability of administrative opposition and cancellation procedures at national level are a good illustration of this.
this will help prevent abuse of the union and its transit routes in its role as a central hub for the worldwide distribution of such goods.
firstly the agreed fee reductions at european union level will lead to savings of up to almost forty in particular for businesses that seek protection of the registered eu trademarks beyond an initial period of ten years.
the package marks a significant step in both the modernisation and the further harmonisation of the trade mark system in europe.
eu's competitiveness and innovation strategy.
notwithstanding this shortcoming and also the fact that key elements of the commission's proposals concerning the budget were not retained the final text of the regulation will nevertheless bring about major improvements in the governance and accountability of the agency.
and fourthly the reform will bring modernised rules and increased legal certainty by adapting trade mark rules to the modern business environment and clarifying trade mark rights and their limitations.
the agency previously known as the office for the harmonisation of the internal market or ohim will change its name to the european intellectual property office eu ipo.
we have succeeded in lowering the fees as much as possible without interfering with the national systems and will increase the funding dedicated to cooperation projects between the eu agency and national agencies which will lead to soft harmonisation as well as capacity building in the national offices.
all in all this is a very large and complex dossier that will now come to an end and as i have said many times throughout these years this is not a revolution it is a modernisation which was needed on the existing eu trade mark system.
i trust that colleagues will support the agreement that we have reached and i thank you all again for your support and for very fruitful and sometimes quite lively work and discussions on this dossier.
madam president as one of the co authors of this question can i just support jim nicholson's plea regretting that the socialists in particular who are now crying crocodile tears about this issue for populist reasons refused to support a resolution on this important issue.
they will revolt in time if they see that those standards are debased by imports from third countries.
i do not have faith in the current commission to deal adequately and responsibly with this issue.
however i am putting the next college of commissioners both president and members on notice that i and others in this house will pursue this to the very end because we have got to persuade and cajole our producers to meet high standards.
sometimes late at night we get cross but sometimes it is justified.
does that tell us that the others should not have been exporting at all? there are serious questions which we raise and rightly raise in this house about this importation. i have a little time left so let me stretch this with two points.
you may not realise the anger that is on the ground but let me tell you it is there.
you were forced to act only because of pressure from and action by the irish farmers' association which was reported in the irish farmers' journal and followed up by this house.
i certainly would not give them an a' grade for their work.
madam president the commissioner said we cannot impose the same standards but we must ensure they have an equivalent effect.
i was a maths teacher for most of my life and if i gave my students twelve problems to solve like the twelve visits that the commissioner had to establishments in brazil and they only solved six of them correctly i would not stamp satisfactory' on their exam paper.
eu farmers want fair trade as well as free trade and eu consumers deserve certainty.
but my issue is the recent fvo report on beef imports from brazil.
yes additional requirements were authorised;
my problem is that both the commission and the fvo consistently play down the impact of their findings and they minimise any adverse information.
she spoke of eu traceability from farm to table but she also told us that in third countries the scope of traceability is much more limited. if the scope is much more limited and those are the commissioner's words then how can it have an equivalent effect?
if three had minor and three had major problems i would not consider that a good outcome particularly if i had spent years working with them to improve their grades.
given the fifteen minute presentation we heard from the commissioner earlier on would you accept that that is just clearly not the case;
and that you are not actually helping the case you are hindering it?
some of the world's largest retailers such as carrefour and wal mart have already banned brazilian beef on the grounds of the deforestation the industry is responsible for.
around one hundred farms per month are given that right.
it is also widely held that many inspectors have strong connections with or even own the farms being granted authority to export beef.
the lack of strict regulation in brazil means exporters also have an unfair competitive advantage over european farmers.
european farmers must abide by rules put in place for the safety of the consumer.
whilst we are told we must commit to an ambitious climate change agenda the eu turns a blind eye to the fact that the brazilian beef export industry is responsible for eighty of deforestation in the amazon rainforest.
the meat brings with it the risk of contamination such as foot and mouth disease as we have heard tonight.
the fact that their foreign counterparts do not work under the same regulations gives overseas exporters an unfair competitive advantage. the uk beef industry faces real problems from producers outside the eu who can mass export meat at much lower prices.
the extent of hypocrisy on the matter of foreign beef exportations is made even more apparent in the context of climate change discussions.
at the start of this issue the food and veterinary office reported significant problems in brazil with the certification of farms and traceability of livestock. there are grave concerns about unidentified cattle in slaughterhouses.
each year an area in the amazon the size of belgium is cleared for the lucrative beef export industry.
i am not asking for restrictions to be put on brazil;
in the last major disease outbreak in the uk which you referred to in your speech foot and mouth erupted and we destroyed a million animals and it cost our taxpayers gbp four billion.
we need to see a clean bill of health to reassure farmers taxpayers and consumers that they are protected and that free and fair trade can resume between brazil and the eu.
i do not need to remind the house of the impact a major disease outbreak can have on taxpayers farmers and customers.
eu inspectors found that one of the government supervisors just happened to be married to the person responsible for cattle identification and it turned out that they actually own some of the cattle on that holding where the stock records were inaccurate.
there was a lack of documentation;
i accept your point if you are talking about strict disease control but we are talking about equity and fairness.
we support you in what you are saying about the import controls and about fmd.
for an fvo report to come back that said fifty of the inspections failed or had problems with them is just like throwing red meat to a pack of hungry wolves as you perhaps see this evening.
so it troubles me to hear you accept the fact that brazil has lower standards of traceability than we do because it might not create such a disease risk coming into the territory of the european union.
it is not just about brazilian beef.
it is about the wider principle that our consumers our voters and our farmers demand that imports from those countries which would seek to bring their produce here meet our standards and that means meet all our standards.
frankly that is not quite what this issue is about and that is why i am so glad that those who wanted to broaden this issue out to imports from third countries have achieved that aim.
our consumers demand and our farmers demand and we frankly demand that we have exactly the same standards of traceability across brazil and across all third countries.
our consumers expect exactly the same standards in all things coming into the european union.
it is produced as cheaply as countries can produce it. tragically to produce one kilogram of beef takes one hundred times more water than to produce one kilogram of soya.
the commissioner is right to do what she can to ensure consumer protection in europe and colleagues in this chamber are right to hold her to account and to hold the highest standards.
if we are concerned about consumer protection worldwide we will do two things. first we will help third countries more to develop the kinds of systems of traceability that they need and second we will follow the advice of my colleague chris davies in the last debate in encouraging all of our citizens to stop eating meat.
these problems were recognised to be minor problems by the fvo team.
i want to assure you that we shall continue sending missions to brazil and to other third countries to make sure that when deficiencies are discovered they are put right.
i am sorry that even after a presentation of ten to fifteen minutes i failed to explain the rules we impose when we import from third countries. i must remind you that at the same time as we are importers of meat from third countries
this is what we are doing.
we shall remain vigilant and strict.
madam president when it comes to the issue of meat imports we in europe must nail down the principles which form our policy on this and have a strong but fair system of regulation. those principles must be based on consumer safety and trust protection of the environment and vitally a fair playing field for producers of meat.
currently the system is operating in a way that is blatantly unfair for both farmers and consumers. we are forcing our farmers to go through a range of time consuming and costly practices only to allow them to be undercut by meat products from outside the eu with brazil being a prime example.
there is huge evidence from the fvo in relation to this.
this situation is simply unsustainable.
also naturally owing to the way the food chain is integrated once you have meat in the system it will disperse across a wide range of products and become untraceable.
how is that fair to consumers in europe?
beef producers across europe are getting it in the neck and the situation cannot last for them or consumers.
we cannot stand idly by and let this practice continue.
it is simply unfair.
i am saddened that i stand here tonight and we do not have a resolution.
i do not know why but i understand that some of the big groups in this parliament were not prepared to stand up to the brazilian ambassador who lobbied last week in brussels.
i want to make it very clear.
maybe he did not think i was worth coming to see;
come here and lecture us about the wto and everything else.
i have to say to you commissioner that we are here for the next five years.
i hope you pass that on to your officials because we cannot be expected to accept this on behalf of those who are our producers in europe.
british farmers are amongst the most efficient in the world and they work after bitter experience to the highest standards of animal welfare and traceability.
only this week we see that this parliament will be entertaining the vegetarian lobby claiming that meat eaters and by association farmers are climate criminals.
beef farmers are not asking for special privileges just a level playing field. it is absolutely vital that we support them not by protectionism but by making sure that all exports to the eu match their high standards.
i urge you commissioner to sharpen up your act stiffen your backbone reread your fvo report and deliver.
secondly i am not convinced about your argument regarding brazilian beef.
farmers in the eu conform to the world's highest standards and rightly so.
past experience has shown us that you cannot leave it to commercial interests to resolve this problem. you have to have a sound eu food policy.
now for many of our farmers that would seem an unfair position to have and i would respectfully suggest tonight that yes we can impose standards until we are sure.
many of our farmers are suffering under the huge strain of production and feel the unfairness and i think that you can hear in this chamber tonight the anger that many feel in relation to this particular issue.
doha is the best trade policy instrument available on both those fronts. doha would also deliver the development that so many of the poorest countries in the world are looking for.
the lisbon treaty actually offers an excellent opportunity to take our collaboration with parliament a step further and this will be a key priority for the commission's trade policy in the years ahead.
meanwhile we will continue to push so that the interests of the european union in areas such as trade and services and protection of geographical indications are covered.
our priorities included the need to strengthen the role of the wto in monitoring and analysing protectionism;
the reality is that the united states has serious concerns and constraints which it is discussing with the large emerging economies.
i think we all agree that if we want a conclusion of the doha round before the end of two thousand and ten we have to see modalities in place on agricultural and non agricultural market access before the end of march.
the rising number of regional free trade agreements here we need to ensure that these actually complement the multilateral trade system;
in all areas of the doha negotiations the development element for the countries concerned has already been taken into account.
so i expect this to go forward.
on many of these issues wto members agreed that the organisation can and should work.
i think it is important to underline that this seventh ministerial conference was not a negotiating conference it was more a discussion on various topics.
it would do that through new rules on market access farm reform and customs facilitation in particular.
and finally there is the contribution of trade policy to the fight against climate change.
but of course we can conclude the doha round only if all wto members are on board.
wto accession such as for instance the accessions of least developed countries into the wto which we certainly think must be promoted;
apart from doha the ministerial conference addressed some important issues for wto members.
all of us will suffer if protectionism increases just as all of us will gain if the economy picks up.
our priority list of course begins with the doha development agenda.
i think that being able to get consensus between more than one hundred and fifty different countries with totally different approaches probably will mean that you would never get the best of all worlds.
i think that the negotiating text on the table today shows that if we conclude this round it would indeed deliver on development.
but i have to say as well not only here but i have said it elsewhere including in the negotiations in geneva that the european union is not going to give any further concessions in agriculture.
for instance the market opening obligations for developing countries will not be the same as for the developed countries and the poorest countries the least developed countries will not have to open their markets at all.
the doha development round was certainly meant to be a development round.
it will count on the council's and the european parliament's support to adopt the necessary legislation and make these proposals operational as soon as possible. as part of the legislative package we will propose a new toolbox of sanctions and incentives for compliance with the stability and growth pact.
as outlined in the thirty june communication we will propose in the first stage a new system of sanctions for the sixteen euro area member states on the basis of article one hundred and thirty six tfeu and for firstly the preventive and corrective arms of the stability and growth pact and secondly the corrective arm of the surveillance of harmful macro economic imbalances.
the sanctions will be complementary to those already foreseen by the stability and growth pact but intervene at an earlier stage of the excessive deficit procedure and more automatically.
this reflects the greater interdependence and stronger constraints in the monetary union.
strengthened enforcement mechanisms for fiscal rules are a central element of our proposals key to the credibility of our fiscal framework and an important topic under discussion in the taskforce.
we propose a more effective surveillance framework with improved fiscal surveillance stronger surveillance of macro economic imbalances and a more rigorous ex ante coordination of economic policies under the european semester'.
the conclusions of the european council of seventeen june gave a clear endorsement to our suggestions and encouraged us to go ahead with making better economic governance in europe a reality as soon as possible. the commission will adopt the necessary formal legal proposals in the course of this month.
to improve compliance in all twenty seven member states we plan in the second stage to introduce the possibility of suspension and cancellation of current and future financial appropriations from the eu budget.
this should protect ongoing projects under multiannual programmes and provide sufficient time for the member state concerned to take corrective action in line with the council recommendations within the edp.
the concrete proposals on the range of relevant expenditure categories and the design of the sanction mechanisms will ensure that this condition is met.
in the case of multiannual programmes the suspension of budget commitments would not have an immediate impact as payments can be made against related commitments within a period of usually two years.
negotiations on the continuation of kyoto are much more advanced than negotiations on new action from the us and emerging economies.
it is also crucial that we make substantial progress when it comes to measuring reporting and verification of emission reductions and to financial support.
we are also delivering on the fast start finance so again we are not the problem. last but not least i was also asked about this in the questions we are conducting a very active outreach to a number of other countries and the commission is also working with the member states' diplomatic services now with a view to launching a specific eu green diplomacy network demarche in the run up to cancn to sensitise political decision makers in selected third countries to our
these kinds of obstacles must be changed in a future set up and we should take care that we do not just take a second commitment period without making this very clear and having it corrected.
finally it is also on our wish list that we should see progress when it comes to emissions from aviation and maritime transport.
needless to say when it comes to fast start' financing one of the defining issues for cancn will be whether the rest of the world can see that the developed countries live up to their financial pledges given in copenhagen for fast start financing. but we should also now try to discuss the architecture of the longer term including how to establish a green climate fund'.
we must be able to make an ambitious decision on forestry.
as we see it we should aim at solving key architectural issues and launching concrete action through a set of decisions.
these weaknesses must be addressed in particular in relation to the accounting methods for developed countries' forestry and the banking of surplus emission budgets the so called aaus also called hot
an important way for the eu to contribute to success in cancn is to continue to lead by example.