kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i would remind you that the matter of the location of the seats of the institutions is addressed by protocol no six to treaty which inter alia provides that the european parliament shall have its seat in strasbourg. the issue of determining the seats of the institutions is thus a matter for the member states when they discuss treaty changes at the intergovernmental conference and not for the council.
as you know article three hundred and forty one of the treaty on the functioning of the european union provides that the seat of the institutions shall be determined by common accord of the governments of the member states.
mr president i am shortly to retire and this is i believe the last speech i shall make in this chamber as a member of the european parliament.
it wastes resources;
i say to people are you in business? would you move your business from london to edinburgh for a week and then back again and then to edinburgh for one week every month?
but i have to tell you mr president that i personally rather like it and i'll tell you why i like it because it serves as a perfect metaphor for the hubris and futility of the european project.
the list goes on.
it wastes vast quantities of time including colleagues our time. it wastes money and if you care about it it wastes co two emissions.
it is something that nobody can explain nobody can justify and yet nobody can change and there are many many policies of the european union of which you can say the same. i think of the common fisheries policy i think of the emissions trading scheme.
she is right.
mr president ms lunacek and my old friend ashley fox have explained in considerable detail why the two seat situation for the parliament is totally indefensible. it is hugely wasteful.
i have been able to use this metaphor again and again in speeches up and down britain in order to explain to ordinary people who are not very familiar with the european project the complete absurdity of it and they catch it straight away.
mr president today we are reaching out to france to engage in a constructive and positive dialogue for a better europe closer to citizens.
strasbourg is and should remain a european capital but we do not want a symbol of peace to become a symbol of waste.
it is building consensus around a table for a win win solution providing both economic and political benefits for france recognising its key role in europe.
i have campaigned on this subject for eight years and i shall continue as a full member of this parliament for as long as the united kingdom pays its membership fee.
we should not get emotional about it although the matter is emotional.
the question of the seats of the institutions is one exclusively for the governments of the member states to decide by common accord.
the present arrangements are set out in a protocol to the treaties and this could only be altered using the process for treaty revision which notably requires unanimity among the member states and ratification according to national constitutional requirements.
it is therefore not for the commission as an institution to enter into the debate on the merits of the present arrangements or of any alternative that might be proposed.
the eu is now resorting to the usual fudge and non credible position and proposing re siting two london based agencies here in strasbourg ignoring the fact that strasbourg is a totally inappropriate location for either so there will not be any buildings sold there will not be any operational costs eliminated. in fact the european union will stay here and any cost or efficiency savings will never actually be achieved. it is a real shame isn't it that the european union learns nothing and allows politics to override sensible decision making which would mean closing its presence in one of the two cities for good.
and i would say to a lot of people who keep on citing the war stop living in the past and get real.
i believe that our french colleagues would support me when i call on this chamber to study carefully the works of montesquieu rousseau and others.
that means we must change the treaties and give this parliament more power.
eighteen they have not voted for anyone. they are not responsible for any of the problems or the conflicts of that area.
seven thousand children broke the world record for bouncing basketballs and a similar number of children broke the world record for flying kites. this is all thanks to unrwa and the summer camp programme they have organised there for young children giving them something to do in circumstances which are very dire indeed.
they are just looking for a normal life and for some hopes and aspirations for the future.
across europe radical cuts to public expenditure are being made yet taxpayers are compelled to fund the increased expenditure of the european union itself year after year.
if member states are cutting expenditure by twenty in real terms over the next five years we should demand that the eu do the same.
the salaries of many public sector workers have been frozen or even cut i wonder how much solidarity the commissioner sitting there will show them.
in addition we are asked to financially support greece latvia and hungary which are struggling with economic difficulties.
the eu is asking national governments to cut their public spending and yet perversely the eu budget for the next period is increasing.
as you may be aware british taxpayers will end up contributing some gbp ten billion to prop up the euro as part of the international monetary fund.
i urge the commission and the competition commissioner to tell him as bluntly as possible that the bank should be wound up not in ten years as the irish government wants but in two or three years.
eight two billion and the situation is getting worse.
the reality is that the irish government does not know.
the irish minister of finance is in brussels this week seeking eu permission to continue the bailout.
in my opinion this reform is very important.
calls on the government of india to take effective implementing measures in order to rapidly reduce what is still one of the highest number of working children in the world and to introduce legislation for a full ban on child labour in accordance with the international labour organisation guidelines'.
of. it is our ally but we really need to provide european leadership on this issue and in the energy sector for the developing
our knowledge of renewable technologies today gives a good guarantee that we really could make a change in these countries.
there are still a substantial number of households today that have no access to any type of energy.
fuels. the general policy is very clear to fund climate friendly energy projects based on wind hydraulic or solar
regions. the proposal stresses that the eib's own rules and procedures shall include the necessary provisions to ensure that only projects that are economically financially environmentally and socially sustainable are supported under the
forty of world bank loans to the private sector are transferred through those financial intermediaries and a large part of those loans goes to the energy sector in particular extractives.
when we look at what sort of energy is counted as low carbon we can find large hydropower plants in the strategy.
decentralised power supplies are in the hands of the people. they are democratic.
renewable energy uses resources that will never run out and that many developing countries have in abundance sun and wind mainly.
this is fortune telling and not research and certainly not policy making.
recent increases in lending for renewable and energy sufficiency remain tiny and cannot cover up the obvious preferences.
this is why the green efa group will vote against the resolution unless the low carbon wording is replaced.
we have to assist developing countries to leapfrog our destructive fossil fuel path.
uranium mining produces huge amounts of co two and nobody knows what to do with the waste we are producing.
none of us can say for sure that it will stay there calmly for the next millennia.
there is an under reporting of fossil fuels.
the world bank's energy policy suffers from a lack of transparency.
also carbon capture and storage do not make coal power low carbon.
the right to energy implies that energy supplies achieve universal and reliable access equitable access that bridges the gap between urban and rural areas and is also affordable.
at the same time the climate crisis is doing more damage to those living in extreme poverty.
but energy does not only need to be secure and reliable;
these problems cannot be tackled by fossil fuels.
its production also needs to take into account other issues such as climate change deforestation environmental degradation human health and the poverty it causes.
fossil fuels create pollution that endangers both human health and a healthy environment and they are expensive and their prices increase the more we run out of oil and gas. fossil fuels create centralised hierarchic and inflexible energy distribution.
mr president today. one five billion people are currently without access to electricity but access to energy is a prerequisite for the eradication of the poverty that these people live in.
the bank continues to make significant investment in coal fired power plants locking developing countries into coal based energy for decades to come.
this is not what an energy revolution looks like.
such large hydroplants destroy vast amounts of nature and drive people from their homes. this is not sustainable and this is not in the interests of the people and of society.
fossil fuel investments are also taking place through financial intermediaries which the world bank does not sufficiently monitor.
however we also see some good points in the resolution for example the focus on off grid renewables for rural areas and small scale local production as well as the concern about the dominance of export orientation large scale plants and bio fuels.
only renewables can bring a solution to these problems.
this is not low carbon and this is not sustainable.
the co two is still there and nobody can predict what will happen to it underground.
nevertheless the world bank continues to push fossils in its energy strategy.
in particular technology transfer will not need much if intellectual property rights are left intact. the overriding goal should be to treat intellectual property rights in a manner that allows access to technology at affordable prices.
they can be employed locally on a very small and inexpensive scale which is also in a very literal sense empowering people.
the same goes for nuclear energy.
this problem should be addressed through the definition of clear requirements that financial intermediaries must meet in order to be eligible for multilateral financing.
however unlike direct bank project investments there is no information publicly available on these individual sub project investments making it very difficult to track what ultimately happens to financial intermediaries' funding.
some years ago. investment aid is needed to address deep rooted regional problems such as geographical remoteness poor connectivity and infrastructure.
on the question of large companies this has been and is still one of the issues under discussion.
sized enterprises or investors which are creating new activity and new jobs and not simply transposing activity from one part of the eu to another. this is the reason why i take good note of all your comments on the need to consider the possible extension from five to
i see some improvements but not a single step backwards.
we also expect the commission to take into account the situation in economies which are particularly strongly hit by the crisis.
we are worried about the commission's rag approach to the internal diversity of regions where growth is mostly driven by metropolitan areas with many nuts three areas lagging behind.
in the current legal and political context in which the committee on regional development is involved in this ordinary legislative procedure on the cohesion policy legislative framework it is important that the commission continues its dialogue with us in order to clarify all the relevant points and also to reduce the risk of undesirable effects of the guidelines.
we believe that well balanced transitional arrangements are needed.
worrying about these new rules wondering whether this is really the best moment politically economically and socially for actions leading to lower population coverage reduced state aid and state aid intensity. we worry about the restrictive impact of the new rules on investment and growth in regions which graduate from the less developed category and move to the more developed one.
for them public funding provided by regional policy might be the only source of investment and these are member states where the worsening of the economic situation is not reflected by the data for the period two thousand and eight two thousand and ten which will be used by the commission as the basis for eligibility.
this is where farmers actually own the co op so the co op works for the producers the profits can be shared they can come together to buy equipment etc.
and it works extremely well. i think this is something we should be encouraging more.
this is a great example of integrating people.
over the last years we have taken several measures and our two thousand and eleven social business initiative.
as a result we decided to launch a number of new actions to stimulate the development of the social economy.
this has started a process with citizens social partners and the european institutions and governments to find responses to the challenges our societies and citizens face.
we will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure that the voice of the social economy is heard across the whole of europe.
it would be important for any future initiative after two thousand and eighteen such as a social business initiative ii to be based on the evaluation of the situation after the current start up and scale up initiative has been fully implemented.
we are currently working on finalising all this work so that the remaining measures will be implemented next year at the latest.
it makes sense to invest in it so we want to see the sector succeed.
honourable members once again we fully agree with you on the importance of the social economy for europe.
we want to first deliver what we have promised and then let us see if more needs to be done.
social economy is not another economy;
for instance the social economy and social enterprises are priorities of the european social fund.
the expert group on social entrepreneurship issued some recommendations and we are taking forward a number of them such as increasing visibility making funds more easily available or enforcing and reinforcing the legal environment.
we also recognise that there is untapped potential and barriers which hamper the development of the sector in many countries so we are continuing to develop and implement new measures.
earlier this year we launched a reflection paper on europe's social dimension and the pillar of social rights.
we have carefully analysed the different proposals presented in different eu political documents and intergovernmental declarations.
we have been working with you and other stakeholders to promote the growth of the sector.
we are relying on the support of our informal task force on social economy and social enterprises involving a number of commission services.
given all this work we think that it would be premature to launch an additional action plan for the social economy at this stage.
the commission adopted this week the public procurement package and it will help also to boost social economy and social enterprises.
our actions rest on five pillars access to finance access to markets development of better framework conditions new technologies and social innovation and the international dimension of social economic actors.
we have made good progress but there are still a number of measures that we announced and that need to be implemented.
we have encouraged member states to develop favourable conditions for the social economy and social enterprises to grow.
it combines solidarity with innovative answers to societal challenges. it answers the growing demand among european entrepreneurs and consumers for a new way of doing business responsibly and sustainably.
we want to see more enterprises and more innovations change lives.
we announced these in our startup and scaleup initiative last year.
these challenges require innovative social and economic models to deliver more growth and wellbeing in europe.
let me stress again that we are focusing on five main pillars and actions including access to finance access to markets developing framework conditions and also using and developing new technologies and innovations.
i stressed at the beginning in the opening remarks that we as the commission have fully recognised the importance of the european social model and of our social market economy. we recognise that the social economy is an instrument that brings solidarity and innovative answers to societal challenges that we face
and i also repeat again that the commission has launched a number of new actions for the social economy as part of the two thousand and sixteen communication on europe's next leaders the startup and scaleup initiative'.
we will follow closely the developments of the social economy and social enterprises in europe.
madam president honourable members thank you for your contributions to this important debate and also thank you mr nilsson for this question.
it is actually part of the plan by the government to extend the social model so there would be tax breaks etc.
this is fully justified in the light of the increasing complexity and number of implementing tasks attributed to the commission.
as such it remains a joint undertaking based on a partnership with each acp government. regarding concerns expressed in the report on sectoral concentration let us remember that the choice of programming will stem from dialogue in which we will seek to match partner countries' wishes with our drive to get the highest impact from our cooperation.
we also agree with the rapporteur that budgetisation should on no account be used to reduce expenditure on development aid.
this takes us a giant step closer towards genuine alignment and ownership.
for the first time in the edf as with the dci we propose basing our programming directly on the partner country's national development strategy and synchronising our programming cycles.
in the meantime member states' contributions under the eleventh edf will be further aligned with those used for the eu budget.
the commission will continue to apply the highest possible level of transparency towards the european parliament regarding the preparation of the eleventh edf with due respect for the inter institutional process.
well after an agreement has been reached between member states on the eleventh edf internal agreement mid two thousand and thirteen the text will have to be ratified by all of them.
a differentiated approach depending on contexts and needs is also a fundamental principle of the cotonou agreement.
rest assured that all acp countries will continue to benefit from the edf if they so wish with national regional and intra acp funds.
regarding differentiation we share the views expressed in the report that this is a vital tool for targeting eu resources where they are needed most to address poverty reduction.
therefore we will further focus on the most vulnerable and the poorest countries which may lead to a reduced allocation compared to the tenth edf for the most advanced countries.
in the long term we in the commission believe that edf budgetisation would bring more political accountability to eu cooperation with acp countries more efficiency to eu financial instruments and procedures and more coherence to eu development cooperation as a whole.
this delay until the entry into force of the eleventh edf should not impede the programming process as long as transitional measures are taken to ensure the availability of funds in the meantime.
the european council also set the amount of the eleventh edf at eur.
so mr president what next for the eleventh edf?
this report encompasses a broad range of areas regarding our cooperation with acp countries and gives interesting food for thought.
this is indeed why we cannot earmark funds for specific sectors.
we also take note with interest of your request to maintain the same proportion for intra acp and regional programmes as in the tenth edf to keep flexibility and responsiveness with unallocated reserves and to maintain the figure proposed by the commission for the envelope dedicated to octs and we are grateful for your backing for the commission proposal to use five of edf funding for support expenditure.
the share between the broad financial envelopes of the eleventh edf for acps octs and support expenditure will still have to be decided by the member states.
the ongoing programming exercise for the eleventh edf will be steered by the agenda for change but it also falls under the cotonou agreement.
on twenty four september i met many of you in the libe committee and informed you about the ongoing efforts to follow up on this matter which is of course of great concern.
i therefore this monday met with under secretary cohen in brussels and i appreciate that he came despite the budgetary constraints. we had open and very long discussions and he clarified a number of points. during that meeting under secretary cohen explicitly confirmed that since the entry into force of the tftp agreement the us government has not collected financial messaging from swift in the eu.
the next day i also sent him a letter in which i requested the opening of consultations under article nineteen of the tftp agreement.
concluding the consultations with the us remains on the top of my agenda and also for my staff and we intend to do our best to get all information needed in the very near future.
he also said that the us government has not served any subpoenas on swift in the eu during that period.
at this stage therefore our contacts with swift and the us government have not really given any evidence that the tftp agreement had been violated.
we also discussed in some detail the established channels through which the us does obtain financial information in swift format used by financial institutions worldwide.
some further clarifications are however needed before we can draw full conclusions.
also on this i asked for further explanations in writing in order to be absolutely sure that these mechanisms do not conflict with the tftp agreement.
i insisted to have that very important confirmation statement confirmed in writing.
madam president ladies and gentlemen i am here tonight to inform you about the actions i have decided to take following the press allegations about the possible access of the us national security agency to the data exchange through the eu us terrorist finance tracking programme agreement.
as you know this is the procedure that is regulated in the agreement in case there are questions or things that need to be clarified.
if this parliament wants the powers it claims it is entitled to then it needs to learn to be more responsible.
i will certainly not be supporting any parliamentary action that takes such an unmeasured and irresponsible view of such an incredibly important issue thereby seriously prejudicing our international relations and world security.
the head of mi five in the uk has today called the leaks a gift to terrorists' and yet here we are talking about delivering another gift to those who pose a very real and constant threat to europe's safety.
members of this house often claim to speak for all european citizens but i wish to speak for those who want to live in a europe which is safe and secure for them and their families.
it is absolutely ridiculous.
what a way to run europe!
not a single member state has asked the cyber crime unit of europol the institution that should be investigating to investigate.