kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it is very important to remember what has been said about what links this country and not just what divides it.
yes corruption is an issue.
there is more that we could be doing.
the people of nigeria want a government that is fit for purpose.
that is why as we have heard they were willing to stand for hours in the sun waiting to vote.
however i believe that the european union too needs to change its relationship with nigeria and that this parliament should be strengthening its relationships with the nigerian parliament.
mr president coming from northern ireland i know only too well the fear and the pain the nigerian people are suffering as the result of the wanton violence of terrorist groups who kill others because of their religion.
in late february in the city of jos three people died as a bomb was driven into a church in but one of the latest attacks.
the terrorists gave this chilling warning we attacked simply because it is a church and we can decide to attack any church.
it seems that the militant islamists of boko haram desire to rid nigeria of its christian population. of course i accept the point made by others in this house that others apart from christians have suffered and died and i want to make it clear that i condemn all these attacks.
losing your life because of your religion is not acceptable. we in this house should call it for what it is.
it is not simply all about poverty or corruption but it is about attacking a particular section of society.
the report is very timely because the commission is at this moment preparing a legislative proposal for modernised technical conservation measures for the whole eu.
it is also important to underline that the new proposal will not change the conservation standards that we have now it rather enables improved conservation.
we have largely overcome the interinstitutional and political differences and the commission is hopeful that we can achieve a compromise soon.
these plans are a crucial element of the reformed common fisheries policy because firstly they are the main instrument for achieving the objective of maximum sustainable yields in an orderly fashion.
thirdly they are an important tool for implementing the landing obligation and regionalisation.
the new proposal is a priority for the commission and i can confirm that we intend to table the proposal early in. two thousand and sixteen it will basically consist of a framework body of basic rules covering all eu waters.
this will allow for regionalisation and changes to the substance will be limited to simplification by removing redundant measures and regionalising others.
i am happy to say the report is well in line with our own analysis recognising regionalisation and simplification as the way forward.
we intend to concentrate on changing the governance model.
secondly they contribute to certainty and stability for the industry.
the negotiation on the first such multiannual plan for the baltic fisheries is finally progressing well.
we will continue to facilitate such an agreement.
on multiannual plans again the commission very much agrees with the analysis in your report.
this is an ideal opportunity to apply a more flexible approach to achieving our objective of sustainable fisheries management.
it is estimated that the developing countries lost about eur.
no reducing of data protection in ttip;
as once again this place votes for increased powers for a european police force votes for a european security and justice system that will allow the european union to have its own security services and security services that will have the powers to look over and control the security services of nation states.
obviously the less waste we have the more use we make of our resources and the more efficient we are.
i think we should try to follow it through and give the lead particularly in europe on how this can be done.
the word waste means that you are wasting something.
the things that they are objecting to the resolution of disputes mechanism the contracting out of public services are not introduced by ttip they are intrinsic properties of the european union.
but it also allows corporations to erect barriers to entry to take control of the regulatory regime in order to make life harder for their smaller rivals and therefore by implication for consumers.
mr president unlike most of the people who have just spoken i have no problems at all with the principle of free trade.
if you have a democratic objection and i can see why you might then it is really the entire eu you have your problem with.
it has raised millions of people throughout the world in agrarian as well as developed economies.
part of it will involve uncontroversially good things like mutual product recognition.
you should be honest about the origin of what it is you do not like. it is not something that suddenly becomes objectionable because it involves the united states.
we have had a record voting session and here we are now talking about shareholder rights and corporate governance and ignoring the crisis that we have created with our own policies a crisis which we are now exacerbating by feeding the patient more of the medicine that sickened him in the first place.
in all the hours of debate in this chamber one question was never asked how do you help a stricken country in greece's situation by forcing more loans on it?
it provides a comprehensive overview from requesting a reliable indicator for extreme poverty to identifying risks to the success of the youth guarantee. it asks member states to cut red tape for small businesses and it also talks about promoting entrepreneurship.
crucially it talks about aligning training systems in member states more closely to labour market needs and tackling precarious employment. but i also wish to reiterate the words of commissioner thyssen in the debate on this dossier when she said that all citizens want decent work decent jobs
at the same time we will be strengthening our economy and creating the millions of decent jobs that we urgently need in regions like my own.
then we still voted on the same amendments because that pretext was no more than an excuse to stifle debate.
millions of european citizens made their voices heard on ttip and we chose in this place to squash debate rather than hold it. i believe that is a disgrace.
well welcome to the european union.
if you want to know why ukip believes these structures are not fit for purpose this behaviour here is not the exception but sadly the rule.
in particular i was very pleased to be able to support the proposal on country by country reporting in order to help ensure full transparency on tax payments.
the call to the commission to instigate country by country reporting will affect all companies who trade across borders in all sectors.
in my opinion this entails a significant change in eu taxation policy.
we outlined our requirements our red lines as it were. i voted against isds but the parliament voted for an alternative to replace it with a better system.
this is a real improvement but it did not go far enough for me.
however the text contained many positive things such as strong statements on workers' rights on maintaining eu standards in the areas of food chemicals labour law etc.
and crucially the exclusion of public services from the deal.
those were all strong messages that i wanted to send to the commission.
that decision will not be taken for some time yet. it may even be years away. in the meantime i said no' to isds but i also sent a clear message to the commission on other crucial areas.
that vote will only come when the negotiations conclude.
this was our chance to show what we really think about ttip and to tell the public who filled our inboxes with their concerns how we will respond to them in ttip.
this is the best tool to influence the negotiations and this week we have sent a clear signal that we want a good ttip which excludes our public services however they are provided organised or financed including the nhs which upholds and strengthens worker rights and our environmental standards and which ensures democratic scrutiny.
for labour meps this can only be guaranteed with full rejection of separate courts and rights for foreign investors to sue governments.
whether the transformation will be for better or for worse will depend on whether the concerns of the citizens and the smes are taken into account.
this report is about setting clear guidelines for the commission on the negotiations and better effort should have been made to explain this to the public.
whilst i welcome the overwhelming engagement shown by many of my constituents many of them thought we were actually voting on the final deal.
it has always been a priority for me to ensure key protections on public services labour and environmental safeguards and clear language that dismisses the use of private courts for investment disputes.
firstly as you have indicated it is a win win deal for korea and for the european union economies. it is good for consumers it is good for jobs and as you rightly say it has a potential to add nineteen billion to our trade flows with korea.
well under this deal environmental trade in goods and services will after three years have virtually duty free access to the korean market and their environmental goods and services duty free access to our market.
and they are not as one of my colleagues indicated insignificant.
is this a perfect deal?
the third reason more parochially but i hope colleagues in the house will bear this in mind is that it is important for parliament because many of the demands we made in my report have been met by the commission and time does not permit me to go through them all but i want to just give you three or four examples.
if two large economies like the european union and korea can agree a free trade agreement it sets an impetus for other partners. japan for example is showing much more interest in economic relations with the european union than it was just a few years ago and partly that is due to the korean deal.
suddenly on the other side the koreans are finding the us is now coming back knocking on their door wanting to get the korus agreement moving again.
secondly though given the debate we have just had in the context of the current global financial crisis it sets a very positive example.
is it a good deal for korea?
scottish whisky sells gbp one hundred and thirty seven million worth a year into the korean market already so with this deal we could see a significant increase.
it would be ludicrous and perverse for us to turn our back on them having achieved them.
we wanted improved trade in environmental goods.
we wanted our geographical indicators protected our whisky our champagnes our wines our hams and so on are going to be protected in korea as a result of this agreement.
we asked as a parliament for improved social and environmental standards. well korea since the negotiations have been initialled has signed four ilo conventions and their trade and sustainable development forum is going to be established as a result of this agreement allowing the civil partners in korea to ensure that greater market opening is accompanied by labour and environmental standards improvements.
firstly we said in my report that we needed much better access to the korean agricultural market.
is it a good deal potentially for the world economy?
it is above all a demonstration of the eu's commitment to actively promoting the two thousand and five unesco convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expression.
by the end of march the commission envisages presenting to the council the decisions to authorise the signature of the fta as well as to conclude the fta.
at the same time strict rules have been maintained for all sensitive sectors.
the fta is currently being translated.
in order to encourage korea to open up its market european union entry prices have been eliminated except in the case of the three most sensitive products tomatoes oranges and korean citrus.
it cannot be ruled out that implementation of the fta may give rise to different views and interpretation between the parties. to address such situations the fta contains an efficient and rapid dispute settlement mechanism.
besides the commission has been careful to ensure that no element in the fta contradicts the eu acquis communautaire.
two thousand and seven many of the issues raised in this resolution have been addressed in the free trade agreement.
obviously potential gains from these duty savings will be even higher as trade between the eu and korea is expected to expand over time. according to one study the fta will create substantial new trade in goods and services of.
while this implies a modest sacrifice in terms of our offensive interests we thought that such an adjustment would be appropriate taking into account the sensitivities of certain sectors.
as regards the regulation on safeguards the commission intends to present its proposal for such a regulation to the council and the european parliament in the coming weeks and hopes that it will be possible to adopt this legislation rapidly so as to ensure that its application takes place as close as possible to the application of the fta.
it is also the most ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement ever negotiated by the european union.
to ensure that these commitments are respected the fta establishes a strong framework for monitoring their implementation involving civil society business trade unions and ngos.
in this case the fta would require the ratification of all member states before formally entering into force.
on rules of origin the negotiations with south korea resulted in a number of changes which are consistent with the ongoing process of reform of such rules.
the provisional application is decided by the council on a proposal by the commission.
to protect our industry against import increases causing or threatening injury the fta contains an effective safeguard mechanism.
the fta would also break new ground in promoting the protection of the environment and respect for labour rights containing comprehensive commitments on a range of social and environmental standards.
as this process may take some time it may be necessary for the commission to propose that the agreement be provisionally applied pending its entry into force.
these changes go in the direction of simplification thus implementing a specific request by the european parliament.
the current economic impact of duty drawback is very small about one eighth of the value of the korean duty concessions.
the commission is sensitive to the desire of parliament to be able to give its views on the fta before it is provisionally applied.
this safeguard clause can be invoked from the entry into force of the fta.
the scope of these commitments is broader than that of any comparable agreement.
i might not be able to give detailed replies to all aspects of the question but i am happy to address them in a possible follow up question. the eu south korea agreement is not only the first fta negotiated by the eu with a country in asia;
existing studies have not identified any sectors that would be negatively affected by the fta but in case of serious injury or threat thereof the commission would not hesitate to activate the safeguard procedures built into the agreement.
the same applies to the special clause on duty drawback which can be invoked based on publicly available trade statistics on imports into and exports from korea. i am aware of certain concerns expressed notably by the eu car industry about the duty drawback provisions in the fta but i have to emphasise that duty drawback is currently allowed and used by koreans as well as by eu exporters.
finally i would like to inform you that korea and the eu have been discussing possible adjustments to the tariff dismantlement schedule.
korea has indicated its readiness to agree to those changes on the basis that the sensitivities of both sides are equally respected.
in this respect the commission welcomes the resolution on korea voted by parliament in december.
these adjustments would imply inter alia that products classified under three years and five years would be subject to four and six year tariff cuts respectively so that duties would be eliminated one year later than originally scheduled.
the economic benefits of the fta are mostly in the eu's favour.
the commission has paid particular attention to creating a new market access opportunity in korea for european fruit and vegetables.
the whole process was also accompanied by a constant dialogue with civil society and a comprehensive trade sustainable impact assessment.
also the european trade unions federation has criticised this free trade agreement. south korea has not ratified any of the fundamental conventions of the international labour organisation.
south korea persists in repressing trade union rights.
have expressed concerns on specific issues such as the duty drawback system and the safeguard clause.
the truth is that the negotiations have been long and protracted and i certainly welcome the commissioner's statement that he is hoping to bring this very shortly to an end.
i know there are concerns and i have listened to those concerns.
we have heard them here tonight about the car industry.
but you know i think if we are going to depend on the car industry and we are going to totally defend it then i think we are picking the wrong particular area in which to do this and certainly general motors would not be the most important in my area as far as i would be concerned.
but i believe the opportunity outweighs that concern and i think that if we are always to be reticent then i do not believe we will achieve anything.
so we must look to the opportunities and take them and not the negatives.
we cannot forget that this deal also has a political content because to the north of south korea there is a very aggressive enemy and i think we send out a message as well as to whom we support.
i have had the opportunity to go there and i know the people in that area are very much inclined to go forward and to be progressive.
there is clear and visible support for each other between the north and the south when you visit an area like kaesong this i believe is a tremendous opportunity for us to move forward.
when the new commissioner in response to my question during the hearings stated that ddb deserved a closer look i felt optimistic. even the usa has shelved its fta with south korea partly because of similar objections from the car industry.
this is the first major fta.
we need to do it right.
there must be a level playing field for both parties.
i am a strong proponent of ftas. i understand their positive impact on gdp and employment but we should also understand that when the competitive advantage is one sided benefits will diminish and in the worst case could even be negative.
employees in the eu deserve better. perhaps we should turn to our transatlantic partner and together demand small adjustments which would at least partially satisfy these giant industries and get new ftas to work as soon as possible.
there will always be some unsatisfied elements but all in all ftas must be beneficial to citizens of both sides.
eu exporters of consumer goods electronics pharmaceuticals chemicals and medical devices are just some of the sectors which will benefit immensely from the removal of non tariff barriers. simplification of certification procedures transparency and price predictability are all things that will benefit the consumer.
the korean consumer market in turn wants access to speciality european agricultural products such as wines spirits meats cheeses all protected by geographical indicators.
any free trade agreement must be based on the principle of reciprocity or mutual benefit but the potential burden on european car manufacturers remains unclear and of great concern to us.
the level of duties that korea can refund under the duty drawback are gradually being reduced.
what evidence does the commission have to support this argument?
if the commission finds itself resorting to repeated or continued use of this safeguard mechanism will it consider reviewing negotiations to extend the transfer period?
commissioner i look forward to working closely with you in the new agreement that is coming up.
year after year we also see that as the year progresses the commission and the council have to resort to a variety of specific measures which are not in tune with regular budgetary methods in order to finance the needs which we all knew were there right from the beginning.
having said that i do note some positive elements.
i also see that the appropriations have been increased for a number of specific policies in favour of democracy and human rights.
i want to conclude by saying that especially for the year two thousand and ten we will need to pay attention to the fact that probably and hopefully the european external action service will start to operate.
do not count on me ever to vote in favour of any increase in the budget. if you want to subsidise projects to fight the crisis you should find areas where the budget can be reduced.
it is all very nice to want to subsidise the special olympics in poland and greece and the european youth olympic winter festival in the czech republic or even xacobeo two thousand and ten but our constituents have other priorities in their lives such as paying their mortgages and giving a reasonable education to their children.
believe me there are many other priorities in the uk to invest this money in and now that the european commission has warned that britain is in danger of going bust due to its high level of national debt this country would be happy to have a significant reduction in its eu contributions and i am sure that other countries would also be happy with a similar reduction.
year after year the court of auditors has been unable to give us satisfaction that the eu budget has been legally and regularly spent and i was really concerned at the lack of control over taxpayers' money when i was the chief accountant of the european commission back in.
the daily cost of the european union for the united kingdom currently amounts to gbp forty five million per day and the proposed increase will bring it to gbp fifty million or more with the reduction of the rebate.
madam president it is unbelievable that in these times of financial and economic crisis the european commission proposes an increase of almost five for the two thousand and ten budget.
is this the way this parliament wants to bring the budget closer to the citizens?
therefore this is a very mixed debate on how we are going to make sure we can make the european union run effectively.
we are in our opening gambits but in our group we will be looking very clearly at the quality of expenditure as the commissioner has said on expenditure where monies can be reasonably executed and not being in any way excessive in this regard because of the general situation we find ourselves in.
for a long term engagement that he was committed to i am asked to present the group's position today.
our deficit levels are at historic highs in several member states as the president of the council has indicated.
not least how we begin to set in train an interinstitutional process that will look at long term trends and that will enable us to get the right budgetary analysis because without that it is really difficult to plan ahead.
we must use this occasion it is the first year of a five year parliament to look ahead.
firstly the general situation is a serious one which has already been indicated in a financial and economic manner.
i understand that this is the third different group that i have presented views for in this house since i have been a member not that i have changed just the groups have.
indeed in some member states the debate is not about where the money is going to be contributed but about the levels of cuts which will be needed to bring the expenditure back into line as it is in my own country.
we should therefore remain open to reacting positively to the request from the european commission to restore the pdb level in this respect.