kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
in these times of heightened terrorist threat our intelligence and security services need the ability to penetrate the black hole that parts of the internet have become and to identify the patterns of behaviour that might enable terrorists to be identified.
we need pnr but it is just one of many measures that need to be taken.
let us also by the way avoid exploiting yet another crisis in order just to give the eu more powers and competence.
i agree with all those who say we need to deliver whatever is necessary and proportionate to get a higher level of security.
even before the paris attacks it was possible to know who was on which plane.
that is what you need to do in your directive mr avramopoulos because that would be a focused approach on security.
they need to be able to join the dots.
you have to choose where you are shooting.
as a member of this parliament from northern ireland i know all too well how the threat and the out workings of terrorism can have devastating consequences not only for the victims and their families but also for a nation's consciousness.
in northern ireland we are privileged to have committed police and armed forces and today as we assess anti terrorism measures across europe member states must ensure that their forces are given all the necessary resources to succeed in this fight against terror. the charlie hebdo rallies in paris and across france show a resilience of character that says the bullet and bomb will not prevail.
such resilience of character was also evident in my community as the ira waged a campaign of terror.
when the cap was launched in one thousand nine hundred and sixty hunger was a recent memory and people believed that it was necessary to artificially have self sufficiency of food in europe.
but we have moved from a world where hunger was common to a world where malnutrition has become rare exceptional and now almost always caused by human action precisely because countries have stopped trying to be self sufficient and have realised that the route to actual food security is having a diversity of different points of supply whenever there is a localised shortage somewhere there will be abundance somewhere else. the best thing we could do is to remove the protectionist common agricultural policy and integrate with the rest of the world economy.
unfortunately in farming the figures are alarming. according to agriland the number of young farmers declined from one million in two thousand and five to six hundred.
today after a great amount of political capital invested in this file from all sides i am still not convinced.
this is why it is so important to address legitimate concerns and to tackle abuse but this can also be done without falling into the trap of simplistic slogans creating red tape shocking cost competition and jeopardising the single market.
a preservation of stocks based on a quota system that incentivises ownership.
the outlier among developed countries is the european union because of the tragedy of the commons because of a fisheries policy that defines fish stocks as a common resource to which all members have equal access.
after brexit the united kingdom will resume control of its great renewable resource.
and i hope we will have sensible bilateral arrangements with friendly countries but on the basis of ownership so that we can allow the recovery of what used to be a great natural resource.
when i came to this parliament i said that protecting the rights of workers would be one of my top priorities.
i also said i would be honest and pragmatic in talking about some of the challenges the european union faces.
these measures adopted today do both of those things.
in places and at times recently because of the undercutting of local wages and the exploitation of posted workers it has become difficult if not impossible to defend freedom of movement to those who have become sceptical and opposed to it.
the onus is now on member states to adopt these measures and today is a test for theresa may and the tory government in westminster.
adopting these measures will be crucial to protecting workers across the european union and in the uk.
the fight against illegal fishing is a tough one but this regulation puts us firmly on the right road.
article five of the eligibility criteria is central to the whole regulation and it is to be welcomed that for the first time non sensitive information will be made publicly accessible.
as such the union will give effect to internationally agreed obligations while recognising systemic abuses such as reflagging. this legislation does what the fishermen of the region i represent want most. it is clear and it gives guidelines; it closes loopholes;
the overdue changes to the phare regulations a fundamental pillar of the cfp will ensure the sustainable transparent and harmonised regulation of community waters.
but it will also extend the strict rules to those union vessels operating in third party waters or upon the high seas.
i and some others would have liked to go further and apply enhanced transparency requirements but i see this as a clear way forward albeit not as far as i would have liked to have gone.
it thinks it is entitled to impose its thinking on others.
for the european union there is only the eu approach a single set of rules to be imposed on everybody else.
there can be no taking account of the thinking the wishes or the needs of others.
what reasonable person could object to aligning things to harmonising them?
but these words are euphemisms they conceal the authoritarian one size fits all we know best' way that the european union seeks to impose its will upon others.
this is a thinking of colonialism and i am not a bit surprised that these colonial masters have no plans to hand back the uk fishing waters post brexit.
the eu should create a level playing field so that eu fishing vessels can compete with the vessels from these countries. in this context i would like to congratulate the negotiating team on their successful conclusion of the trialogue negotiations.
this is precisely one of the objectives of the capital market union project which aims at fostering the role of capital markets for the european union economy.
finally i should stress that in future bank lending should not remain the only or at least the largely dominant response to the financing gap of eu smes.
the commission is currently assessing the effects of the sme factor in the context of the review of the capital requirement regulation which will be published towards the end of the year.
the problem is especially serious in some member states which has led to the concerns voiced by this european parliament.
european smes have experienced huge difficulties in accessing finance in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
in this spirit the commission has supported the inclusion in the capital requirement regulation of a measure the sme supporting factor aimed at granting loans to smes and giving them more risk sensitive potential treatment and thus reducing the potential impact of the tougher capital charges introduced by the capital requirements regulation on lending to smes.
moreover we will be looking to verify whether according to the available evidence the sme factor remains potentially sound taking into account its features in terms of the definition of an sme and the size of the loan.
in particular we are looking at its impact on the volumes of sme lending since its introduction compared to other factors for example the macroeconomic environment or the sme's credit history.
the commission is fully committed to identifying the most appropriate policies and tools to address their funding needs.
two thousand and fourteen thanks to your and the commission's efforts the importance of the issue has also been acknowledged at global level and the basel committee on banking supervision is now also considering lowering capital charges for exposures to smes.
they have to comply with these rules.
no wonder they want to leave the eu.
whilst this may be true to some extent this question does not address the fundamental issues that smes face in eu regulations that are excessive. statistics have recently revealed some quite extraordinary facts about the amount of rules that businesses within the eu have to comply with.
for example it has been estimated that if you stacked together all of the eu rules and regulations it would be higher than nelson's column that is over fifty two m of rules that affect british businesses british employers and british employees.
it really is no wonder that british businesses feel inundated by the tides of eu regulations that companies both large and small have to comply with.
two thousand and thirteen fourteen bank lending to larger corporates on the other hand has already recovered to its pre crisis volumes. the eba analysis questions the effectiveness of the entire sme supporting factor.
madam president europe's smes including in my own constituency of wales have shown remarkable resilience in times of recent financial troubles but now need capital to fuel their expansion and growth.
both anecdotal evidence in my own constituency and data analysed by the bank of england suggests that nearly seventy seven of smes in the last year that have applied for bank loans have received them;
however we sought in this house where possible to minimise the impact that this would have on lending to the real economy.
part of these measures included the sme supporting factor which was intended to provide an incentive to banks to lend to smes as they would receive a slightly lower capital charge for this type of lending.
however i do not think it is fair to look at this factor in isolation as other factors affecting lending such as reduced demand and confidence among the smes themselves have also got to be taken into account.
in much of the regulation that was negotiated during the aftermath of the financial crisis there was emphasis placed on higher capital requirements for credit institutions across the board.
it is also less burdensome retaining the use of slaughterhouse staff under the supervision of a veterinarian or auxiliary for meat inspections and it retains flexibility in member states in terms of the fees charged in relation to controls such as in the slaughterhouses and dairy products
this is crucial as companies must be able to act quickly rectify the situation and get back to trading or production.
i am pleased that we have a provision for penalties against fraud and i welcome its inclusion.
this agreement is important to ensure comprehensive scope and it encompasses the whole agri food chain which is vital for the safety of the food consumed by all eu citizens.
therefore we need improvements in the controls along the food chain and i was pleased to see the commission coming forward with proposals in this regard.
we know only too well the potential damage that can be caused for the entire agri food industry of a member state in the even of unwanted ingredients ending up in the final product as a result of lax controls with the ensuing controversy upon their discovery.
the official controls proposal was part of the review of the plant and animal health package announced by the commission in two thousand and thirteen with the intention to simplify and modernise existing rules while strengthening the enforcement of health and safety standards across the agrifood chain.
it is absolutely critical that we have a dynamic and streamlined legal framework to deal with this.
this should help to detect fraud more effectively by concentrating resources on areas where they are most needed.
before i finish i must just mention the issue of mandatory fees which became a very difficult point in our discussions and negotiations.
if someone is intent on committing a criminal offence it will not be easy to legislate to stop them and indeed such intentional action should be met with dissuasive and proportionate financial penalties. by giving member states' competent authorities strengthened instruments at their disposal we can help tackle compliance in line with the level of risk thereby avoiding unnecessary controls and administrative burdens for smes in particular.
a more uniform enforcement of controls across a number of sectors and increased transparency as well as taking a more risk based and thus less burdensome approach to controls is a very positive outcome.
i was very happy we were able to reach an agreement with the member states under the dutch presidency in june last year. the agrifood industry is worth approximately eur seven hundred and fifty billion a year and employs over forty eight million people making it the second largest economic sector in the eu.
this includes more controls on the use of products processes materials feed additives or substances that may have an impact on food safety and animal welfare.
in addition the report asks for further financial support from member states in order to perform official controls on the aforementioned products.
we in ukip want to guarantee a high level of human animal and plant health and we support the aim of informing consumers whilst guaranteeing fair commercial practices in the trade of agri food products. however we do not believe that the best way to achieve this objective would be through further eu legislative harmonisation.
we oppose the financial impact of this project and believe that national parliaments are perfectly capable of making the best decisions with regard to all those processes products and activities which relate to food its production and handling and the rules which ensure that it is safe and fit for human consumption.
the proposed new rules on efficient hygiene control seek to deliver improved controls and enforcement along the agrifood chain.
european citizens want us to secure high safety standards and these new rules are or will be delivering on that point.
this legislation will update and harmonise our framework to better adapt to the more than globalised market and increasingly complex agrifood chain which today requires flexibility while maintaining high safety standards.
this is a very important piece of legislation.
it is as you know the result of the joint and dedicated efforts of the parliament the council and the commission.
the regulation is a major step forward to provide national enforcers with the powers and tools to effectively deliver on their control tasks.
mr president firstly i would like to give my thanks to the rapporteur for this lengthy piece of work and i am happy to welcome a more balanced text. mr president i can welcome any report which aims to simplify and streamline european regulation but especially a report around these important issues.
however i do feel that the commission should do more to tackle the challenges facing farmers and in particular the mandatory labelling changes for freerange egg producers affected by outbreaks of avian influenza.
these producers have through no fault of their own been placed at a financial disadvantage given the need to house birds in high risk areas.
these farmers are worried that such labelling moves may affect the importance of freerange status devaluing not only their product in the long term but also their business.
the commission must do more to protect this important industry in exceptional times.
i would also like to raise the concerns of arable farmers in my constituency who are horrified at the potential outright ban of the active substance glyphosate.
such a ban would increase costs for growers and limit the efficiency of their businesses in what are already difficult times.
of the recipient or if there is a risk that the arms will have an adverse effect on regional stability.
we have a responsibility to ensure that these arms do not contribute to further regional instability or intensify internal conflicts.
we should however be proud of what we have achieved and of the example we have set for other countries outside the union.
at the same time any assessment of its implementation by the eu member states has to take into account what the common position prescribes and what it does not prescribe.
the treaty also has the potential to create a level playing field where all arms exporters and not only new member states play by the same strict and transparent rules and this will ultimately have an impact in terms of improved and fair competition in this very sensitive
the att agreed last april in new york is a strong and credible international instrument that will make a difference to the security of people affected by armed conflict and armed violence in various corners of the world.
what the common position establishes is a unique framework at european level consisting inter alia of substantial and sensitive information sharing among eu member states.
however i think the president in office opening the debate should reflect on his words in relation to the review of the common position.
i hope those pistols will not be used in a way today or in the forthcoming days that will cause them or us to regret it.
i urge him to pursue the development of an online searchable database which has been proposed but i believe much more can be done to enhance oversight.
only north korea syria and iran were against this treaty which shows i think that europe is on the right side of the argument.
i take equal pride in the role of the former uk government of my own party in championing the eu export code of conduct.
spain is the only country to commit to applying the human rights criteria from the date of signature and we should call on all eu countries to follow their example.
eight how can the presidency justify no guidance on the human rights criteria despite the specific commitments in the human rights action plan of baroness ashton to emphasise this in the review? for the presidency to say tonight that there are solid transparency provisions' is disappointing.
for him to say civil society has been fully informed about the review through only private six monthly meetings with selected ngos is i think far fetched and i call for full external consultation as the review unfolds.
by establishing a set of common export criteria and a specific consultation mechanism the common position also contributes to the gradual harmonisation of eu member states' national arms export policies and to the avoidance of any undercutting among them.
our common position is one of the most developed instruments in the world to regulate and harmonise arms exports.
this also implies that the fact that a certain arms export is denied to a certain country does not mean that a particular country is or should be under an eu arms embargo. the eu has developed specific sanction tools that are very distinct from the scope of application of the common position
this objective is being attained in particular through the export and denials exchange mechanism which requires that every member state before taking a decision on an export application similar to one denied by another member state in the past shall consult the other member state in question.
for all citizens in the
the european parliament and civil society have been and continue to be kept fully involved and informed along the different stages of the review including through six monthly dedicated coarm ngo meetings and regular hearings of the coarm chair in the subcommittee on security and defence.
consequently the risk assessments conducted by single member states for similar export applications can be different and lead to a different result.
in mind when assessing its functioning.
in a way one could claim that the common position establishes an obligation of process but not of result for members states conducting risk assessments on export applications.
notwithstanding the common framework provided by it for our twenty eight member states actual decisions on each and every arms export continue to be taken at national level by the relevant state authorities in our member states.
the treaty sets for the first time common transfer parameters and significant transparency provisions that will be applicable to all state parties to the treaty. the att has the full potential to make trade in arms more responsible and transparent thus contributing to international peace and security and to the reduction of human suffering and arms violence
the coarm council working party continues to work on the improvement of several implementation aspects of the common position including information sharing on sensitive destinations and the development of denial notification exchanges.
these improvements should eventually be reflected inter alia in a fully updated version of the user's guide a politically binding document developed by coarm that provides guidance in the application and interpretation of the common position.
member states also regularly exchange views on arms export policies towards specific destinations in the council working party responsible for the implementation of the common position that is to say the coarm working party. the common position certainly represents a very advanced instrument in the field of arms export control. it also contains specific provisions concerning its implementation that should be fully borne
it does so by requiring that arms exports from eu member states be duly controlled and authorised before weapons are shipped abroad. it has served and continues to serve as a reference also for third countries in the eu neighbourhood and beyond which are willing to improve their regulations on arms exports.
at the same time the common position stipulates that each export application should be assessed on a case by case basis. this means that issues such as the specific end users the quantity and type of weapons and the circumstances under which the export takes place are all factors to be taken into account.
this is a positive trend.
we need more transparency more commitment and more progressive policy in this area.
there are two resolutions ready to be voted on.
one is drafted by the s d greens and gue ngl groups this resolution aims to improve the eu's common position on issues such as corruption transparency and consistency of appliance of the common criteria by member states. the other resolution by the alde epp and ecr groups considers the common position good enough and is not driving it anywhere forward.
i would like to underline especially that the epp alde resolution is shameful on human rights.
respect for human rights is the key added value of the common position and also the new dimension of the att.
it is particularly important given the situation in the middle east and north africa where the eu's arms exports are directed.
the human rights aspects are totally absent in the epp alde resolution. i can only conclude that the european parliament is today ideologically divided between defensive human rights and the concerns of the military industry.
pilots themselves would be the first to acknowledge that and the first to confirm that a tired cabin crew will not be able to respond properly in an emergency.
the commission proposals have been badly thought out with very little apparent consideration given to the serious detrimental safety implications they would have for the pilots working in this industry and for passengers.
indeed an exhausted pilot is a dangerous pilot.
it is clear that flight time regulations have a strong impact on air transport safety.
we need to make sure that passengers are safe.
so i was disappointed that we did not include adverse impacts on property values resulting from deterioration of the environment in our report today but i am pleased that we have decided to send it to the council for negotiation.
mr president at a time when we need to look at the supply of housing and at the same time also look at infrastructure projects at a time when we need to deal with many of these important issues it is quite right that we get the right balance between development and the environment.
we have the instruments the new asylum package the asylum support office frontex border operations but we need to implement them consistently throughout the european union.
it concerns us all but more member states need to share more responsibility.
there are well grounded concerns that we are destroying the earth from under our feet.