kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
with this plan we have struck a good and realistic balance between the conservation and socio economic dimensions through a progressive reduction of the fishing effort to achieve maximum sustainable yield.
this balance is also a factor of the additional measures provided for in the plan chiefly the closure areas that contribute to reducing fishing mortality and improving selectivity of fishing.
going forward the commission services will work closely with the member states towards the implementation of the plan.
must be listened to and heard on the negative side of globalisation and the impact of rising precariousness and i strongly agree with you that the social benefits of eu membership have to be tangible in people's lives and tangible in people's workplaces.
but the influence of our market goes way beyond our borders.
no one will stay in love with globalisation unless there are stronger fairer social and environmental rules internationally and europe can lead the way but is our trade policy really fit for purpose?
corporations have far more rights to justice than the workers and communities that they rely on.
shouldn't we be pushing for eu mandatory business and human rights rules to clean up labour exploitation in our supply chains at home and abroad?
mr president i want to say thank you to my amazing staff peter roberts and chris jones and thank you to the labour party and the people of the east of england for giving me the opportunity to serve.
i'm sorry that my country has chosen a path that will make my nation and yours weaker poorer and more isolated.
brexit britain means fewer opportunities to collaborate and for businesses to thrive reduced capacity to tackle the big issues like climate change and power ebbing away.
for what we have here is precious. cooperation.
unity in diversity.
prosperity.
the greatest peace project ever.
i will always be proud to be british and european too.
and to be a socialist and because i am a socialist i am an optimist.
so to every brit at home who knows in their heart that this brexit is wrong my message is simple do not despair.
we should know;
what does it mean? i as a consumer will pay eur thirty two more.
there should be a decision if there is no case at all after one year and if the rules are insufficient.
and for the same reasons there is also a vested interest for these large airlines to limit price market transparency.
these rules have all helped to facilitate the transition from an aviation market that had minimum competition and high prices to a market today where many consumers can afford to fly thanks to more choice and to more transparency.
and the fair and open competition in the eu's aviation sector has always been to the ultimate benefit of the consumer.
we need to empower consumers through access to choice information and awareness of their own rights.
our debate here this evening has been useful and informative as we try to find a way forward in order to ensure that consumers are treated fairly and continue to benefit from safe and convenient transport.
some well known major accidents like seveso bhopal toulouse and buncefield have taken many lives and cost billions of euros.
rules focus on accident prevention through safety management inspections and land use planning.
water sources are polluted;
secondly the rights of citizens are better guaranteed.
finally in case those rights are not respected as they should be citizens will now have the right to go to court in line with the eu commitment under the aarhus convention.
the commission is satisfied with the compromise text on which parliament is invited to vote which aligns the directive with the new international rules on the classification of chemicals and significantly improves the eu rules on accident prevention and control. let me explain why. firstly the rules on inspections are far more detailed and effective than before
the way the scope of the directive has been defined was a major issue in the negotiations and will now reinforce the level of protection of citizens and the environment as the rules will now also apply to establishments handling substances with inhalation vapour toxicity which were previously not covered. however
that the compromise reached on its proposal implies an improvement of the level of protection of human health and safety and of the environment as compared with that provided by the current seveso ii directive ninety six eighty two
depending on the outcome of the analysis the commission may present a legislative proposal to also include this category within the scope of the directive.
ec. the commission intends to undertake a further analysis of the likelihood risks and potential consequences of major accidents involving dangerous substances classified acute toxic three dermal.
we consider that there is a need to deepen our knowledge regarding substances displaying dermal toxicity. the commission is therefore making the following declaration announcing its intention to further analyse the consequences of accidents involving such substances the commission acknowledges
citizens will have easier access to more information including on inspections and their participation in land use planning projects will be better guaranteed by strict procedures.
i am convinced that this will allow citizens to exert the necessary pressure on operators and competent authorities to implement in the best way the seveso legislation.
industrial accidents often have serious even devastating consequences workers are killed; the public is exposed to chemicals resulting in immediate injury or long term health impacts;
companies may have to close.
when accidents do happen seveso seeks to limit the consequences for man and the environment through appropriate information and emergency planning.
who is today represented by mr seeber as well as the committee on the environment public health and food safety for the excellent work carried out on this proposal;
madam president of course we all actively support the aim of preventing serious accidents involving quantities of dangerous substances. i know this has not been an easy dossier to bring to a satisfactory conclusion and there has been lively discussion on the scope and the legal basis of access to justice and information for citizens. so i am very happy to congratulate the team involved on their patience and tenacity.
the principle of creating a tiered approach for the tightening of rules as quantities increase is very welcome.
i know it has been a real challenge to align this new seveso package with the existing clp regulations.
it is not a straightforward task to ensure that the environment and citizens are protected without being disproportionately restrictive and there was always a chance of double regulation which i believe we have now avoided.
investigation and analysis of real time information is always welcome to facilitate evidence based policy making and legislation.
this package of rules will allow member states to ensure better implementation of their policies to prevent and control the consequences of major accidents involving dangerous substances.
these substances are now defined by reference to the new international chemical classification and are therefore fully in line with this classification.
viewing the great difference between different member states we cannot have a one size fits all pattern; that does not work.
companies should have the possibility to input their employees all over europe so companies are able to compete with other companies in the single market. we would like to give them new opportunities
for growth and companies should be protected against unfair competition through bad employers who escape their responsibilities.
so any rollback of the definition of these rights that people have has profound implications for those who care about human rights about decent work and about fair competition.
so we have to support the right of organised labour and that includes the right to withdraw labour without being sacked black listed beaten up or even worse in many countries of the world.
a move to roll back an agreement that stood for many years and jurisprudence that stands;
for the european union the ilo core conventions are part of gsp increasingly part of our trade agreements and therefore for us they represent a whole set of values and a way of working.
so i really hope the eu employers are recognising they should be leading here in demonstrating what good standards are.
so the ilo has a crucial role to play here and that social partnership has a crucial role to demonstrate the sort of standards the sort of progress that can be made through negotiation and where necessary the right to strike.
so i think that the employers' group needs to seriously consider what message it is sending elsewhere in the world through this action.
we want to end exploitation we want an end to unfair competition undercutting through labour standards.
it almost beggars belief that this is actually going on in the twenty one century.
you commissioner have outlined very clearly the current situation and the willingness of the commission to support all players by supplying information from the eu where the right to strike is fundamental.
with regard to the current situation as the commissioner said there will be a tripartite meeting at the end of february to try to resolve the current impasse.
it now appears that employer groups within the ilo no longer support the interpretation of the committee of experts on this particular convention.
this right has been recognised internationally as a fundamental right of workers and their organisations.
and the thorny issue of the posting of workers may have sown some of the seeds of this dissent and we need to finally sort out that matter.
at a global level it is crucial.
but i am heartened to hear of your commitment to finding a resolution.
the jurisprudence of the ilo has stood for sixty years on this convention and has interpreted the right to strike as an intrinsic corollary to the right to organise.
the freedom to associate to organise to bargain collectively make it possible to ensure decent working conditions.
madam president i would like to express my concern at the continuing disagreement on the interpretation of convention no eighty seven the ilo convention on the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise.
collective bargaining has no proper foundation without the right to strike.
dear commissioner i heard your support for the routes for bringing this case to the international court of justice and i applaud your intentions.
these employers want to take away the only tool workers have in order to stand up for themselves.
because of the right to strike they were able to stand up for safe working conditions and against fraudulent employers.
after the catastrophe in dhaka bangladesh in two thousand and thirteen thousands of workers swamped the streets to demand safer working conditions.
also in europe we have seen workers' rights being weakened by the crisis social dialogue is under pressure and unions are increasingly being set aside.
after decades of jurisprudence they challenged the fact that the right to strike was part of the ilo convention on the freedom of association and social dialogue on the international level has been gridlocked ever since.
without the right to strike collective bargaining is nothing more than collective begging.
at the last session of the ilo governing body also thanks to european union coordination in approximating their positions the eu member states were ready to support the option of asking the international court of justice for a clarification of the matter so that we can move forward
these matters fall within the competence of the member states.
let me remind you that the right to strike is recognised as a fundamental right in the european union.
however as you know the european union is only an observer at the ilo.
the european union promotes the ratification and implementation of ilo conventions and relies on ilo supervision of labour standards in particular core labour standards and in the monitoring of trade association enlargement and development agreements.
and here we have a problem due to the fact that since two thousand and twelve the supervision of labour standards cannot be carried out properly.
as the commissioner in charge of relations with the international labour organisation i am deeply concerned about these developments and that is why i followed the discussion at the ilo very closely.
have a long record of good cooperation.
because employers' and workers' representatives at the ilo disagree on whether or not the right to strike is protected under ilo fundamental convention no eighty seven the convention concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organise convention. secondly employers' and workers' representatives also disagree on the capacity of the ilo supervisory bodies to decide on the scope of the right to strike its limits and the conditions for its legitimate exercise. beyond this there is as well a risk of endangering the tripartite relationships
and weakening the ilo supervisory system.
therefore having a well functioning ilo standard supervisory system is important for us since its conclusions are crucial to assessing compliance with international labour standards.
and resolve this pending disagreement between employers' and workers' representatives.
the commission is ready to support all players and provide information to feed into the discussion notably by retrieving information on the situation regarding the right to strike in the european union.
the commission will therefore not intervene on the substance of the discussion.
i fully agree with your view.
i think we need to find the balance between the interests of employers and employees.
i think we need to focus on the interests of business and i think that the framework that we have to look at has to consider how companies can perform in an equalised market.
this is the responsibility of national governments to be the watchdogs on how the rules are implemented at a national level.
global free trade without effective labour rights including the right to strike effectively means more downward pressure on wages and unsustainable development for the many.
but the commission also has a special responsibility to ensure that the ilo functions properly. the commission has outsourced to the ilo the assessment of whether a country qualifies for trade preferences with respect to labour rights.
the commission chose to rely on the ilo's committee on the application of standards.
we therefore have a duty to guarantee that this committee can function properly and delivers effectively.
the conflict within the ilo must be resolved urgently and it must be resolved if necessary by the icj.
they are giving financial support to groups who blockade political offices and stopping elected representatives from speaking to voters and appearing in public to discuss local and national issues.
of course the last time the eu was involved in strikes it was over the british jobs for british workers the posted workers directive being brought into light for allowing companies to hire workers that undercut the wages of the country they were posted to.
so i would be very wary of sticking your noses in again to what is already a very sensitive subject in the uk. to be discussing here and calling for the unelected eu commission to potentially meddle with the rights and the freedoms that it has taken centuries in the uk to develop is not something the british people voted for.
laws should be decided by our elected and accountable national governments not imposed from bureaucrats from brussels and strasbourg.
people go to their doctors when they are ill not when they are well and maybe that is where the problem is.
no matter how many fine words or how much legislation or whatever if we do not actually encourage people to take responsibility for their own health i am afraid that much of what we are writing and talking about will fail.
if we also got consistent advice on lifestyle choices that would be excellent.
if we went to a doctor in order to stay well and get advice on how to do that we would have better outcomes.
i think that we need to look at medical schools and the medical profession as well as the pharmaceutical profession because there is money in treating the sick.
unlike europe's financial crisis this subject may not be in the news but it certainly affects citizens in their daily lives.
if we push hard enough we can push this issue up the global political agenda.
it is about diseases that are responsible for eighty six of deaths in europe and sixty three globally. i suppose we all now get the picture. these numbers are shocking and they should make us stop to think and then act more so because the majority of chronic ncds can be prevented as the commissioner has already pointed out.
i would like to thank colleagues from across the political spectrum for coming together on this issue.
today this parliament will vote on a motion for a resolution that will show our strong commitment to this cause.
the resolution will send a strong message to the global community but it will also send a strong message to the commission itself that we are fully supporting it in its participation in the un summit next week with an ambitious and coordinated eu position.
that means that if we put our heads together many lives can be saved.
next week's united nations summit on ncds is a great opportunity for the global community to come up with possible solutions for fighting ncds.
we are making sure that there is the highest quality in the impact assessment and that we can provide a convincing evidence base;
we will pursue the challenge with determination and energy and we will continue to be a strong ally and committed international partner in preventing and combating non communicable diseases worldwide.
as you know member states have agreed to decrease the amount of salt in food by sixteen in the coming four years.
the united nations meeting is of course a very important opportunity for stepping up our efforts.
we are working very thoroughly on that.
there is full agreement for a united nations declaration that emphasises prevention as the cornerstone of the global response to non communicable diseases.
these diseases have grown into a global challenge this needs a global response and we need to act now because the burden of non communicable diseases on society will grow bigger as the population grows older.
we are now working closely with member states to ensure a coordinated input into the preparations for the meeting and the political declaration which is expected to be agreed upon.
on tobacco for instance the european union is a signatory to the international framework convention on tobacco control.
the outcome of the meeting will also feed into our own reflection process on chronic diseases here in europe and the commission will be fostering this between now and the end of.
the eu has one of the toughest legislations in the world on tobacco products and marketing and some good national examples of smoke free legislation. on nutrition and physical activity the commission is taking forward work to improve our diets in partnership with member states and civil society. the united nations meeting is an important opportunity for the eu to contribute with its experience to learn and to refresh its commitment together with international partners.
non communicable diseases are the main cause of death and poor quality of life in the european union and in many other countries.
this declaration will provide a step in the right direction towards strengthening worldwide action to prevent and control non communicable diseases.
this fully reflects and supports the strong focus on prevention of our action here in europe. for one and a half years now the commission has been pushing for more determination and commitment to addressing the root causes of these diseases in particular smoking obesity alcohol abuse as well as socio economic factors.
the commission is confident that the meeting on non communicable diseases which will take place in new york next week and where commissioner dalli will be present will send a clear signal of the willingness of governments around the world to step up action to address these diseases.
therefore our primary objective should be the prevention and reduction of risk factors mainly tobacco poor diet alcohol the lack of physical activity and environmental pollution. we know that such a strategy could save lives and could also save money which would also be most beneficial to the sustainability of our national systems that are currently under pressure.
it is therefore essential that we provide people with a healthy environment and opportunities that we inform them about healthy habits and that we enable them to take healthy choices.
the burden of ncds and the scale of the issue in every member state call for the establishment of an eu strategy on chronic and non communicable diseases which will have to be followed by national plans implementing the strategy.
today we are about to vote on a very ambitious joint motion for a resolution which has been tabled with the support of all main political groups.
preventing and controlling ncds needs political commitment and that is what we are asking of the council and the commission in advance of the un summit.
if we really want to be successful in reducing the burden of ncds in europe we need to rethink our public health model and focus not only on managing these diseases once people are diagnosed but also on preventing them.
we should focus on the action that we can take here in the european parliament.
mr president next week when the un meets in new york it is really important that we send a clear message on tackling non communicable diseases.
half of all regular smokers will be killed by the product that they are using.
we could see a decline in tobacco use across europe especially among young people saving thousands of lives.
it really does question our commitment when we hesitate to take action on one of the biggest causes of death and disease amongst our citizens.
the cost of treating the huge host of preventable diseases caused by tobacco is astronomical.
that is why it is so disappointing to hear that there is a delay in the commission bringing this proposal forward.
it just does not make sense.
we need this proposal at the beginning of two thousand and twelve as promised.
in these difficult times of austerity does it not make sense to tackle a problem which is costing european governments up to eur one hundred billion each and every year?
this is an issue of epidemic proportions and needs to be treated as such. if we implement the aims of the framework convention on tobacco control and use measures that have been proven by other countries to be extremely effective such as standardising packaging and restricting the use of additives and flavourings
i think that all of us in this house can agree that the ever increasing rise in cancer heart disease diabetes and stroke amongst many other diseases is devastating lives and families across europe.
over the next year our main weapon against non communicable diseases will be an effective revision of the tobacco products directive.
i hope that we can resume the formal negotiations this year and that we will be in a position to conclude them next year.
on israel the eu has a very clear position on the illegality of israeli settlements.
it is very difficult to suspend something that has not yet started. as with any other prospective trade agreement the commission has commissioned an external consultant to undertake a trade sustainability impact assessment. this will examine the potential economic social and environmental impact of an agreement.
morocco has agreed with its business sector and civil society to take into consideration the results of these studies during the next negotiating rounds.