kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we have to put all our emphasis and when i say we i mean the european union we have to put all our efforts into resolving the conflict otherwise we will only leave yet another generation which does not know anything other than hatred violence and desperation.
i think that it is absolutely disgraceful how those negotiations were conducted yesterday and i can tell you as someone who was sitting there that the views of the millions who are protesting were totally disregarded.
do you not recognise that israel suffered five days of rocket attacks before she retaliated?
that hamas instructed the people in gaza not to leave their houses and that during the time that israel suspended her attacks during that time fifty rocket attacks were launched from gaza against israel?
mr goldstone in the end resiled from his own report if you remember the facts correctly.
i obviously cannot say categorically i can only say what i have read and what i believe to be the case that hamas has used civilian protected areas to hide its weapons including in hospitals schools and mosques.
i share mr botinaru's horror about the increase in levels of violence in israel and palestine but i am aware of the fact that during the negotiations over which resolution was going to be taken tomorrow he was not prepared to support a much stronger green resolution which specifically identified the failings of the quartet process and the failings of its envoy tony blair.
can i ask mr botinaru whether he thinks the quartet process is working well and does he think that tony blair is a successful and effective peace envoy?
this is why i welcome very much the contribution of all groups including the four i mentioned before.
yes you are absolutely right.
about a group of communists complaining about occupation and military aggression in any context.
ms anderson you are a well known apologist for hamas but would you not accept that israel has the right to defend itself militarily against rocket attacks even by military means if necessary?
the compromise text agreed fully respects the basic elements and underlying principles of our initial proposal to ensure legal clarity to remove inconsistencies with the landing obligation from existing legal instruments and to enable proper implementation of the landing obligation.
we have also been in discussion with the pelagic advisory council to set up a committee with a hands on assignment to closely monitor the introduction of the landing obligation.
in conclusion let me say that we are very appreciative of the responsible attitude shown by the member states and the industry so far.
discarding casts a negative image on the industry has a harmful impact on sustainable stock exploitation and marine ecosystems and affects the financial viability of fisheries.
we have received and replied to a few requests for clarification from member states and the advisory councils but these have all been relatively minor issues.
i am delighted that we have in the end reached an agreement that is acceptable to all parties.
interaction between the commission and member states is also smooth and we are well on track to having plans in place before the start of next year.
the omnibus proposal you are discussing today and voting for on monday is an important step and will bring legal clarity and create a level playing field for the industry in implementing the landing obligation.
cooperation seems to be good between the inspectors of the different member states regionally and by and large our information suggests that fishermen are complying with the rules.
we hope that this will continue to be the case in the future.
member states' cooperation has evolved learning from the first experiences with the pelagic discard plans for the two thousand and fifteen landing obligation.
this is a very important element and here i have to say that we are in close contact with industry and national authorities and stand ready to assist with the policy instruments already available in our toolbox.
it aims to end the wasteful practice of discarding fish back into the sea.
promotes this idea.
i do not know whether i should even come back on this but allow me one comment.
as many have mentioned the omnibus is a temporary reform of technical measures.
other multiannual plans will follow and the review of control regulations will follow as well.
this was indeed one of the points of discussion in the council but i am happy that the council approved the full general approach and did not exclude the point relating to the legal basis.
as was mentioned the transition is from discarding to landing bycatch but the ultimate aim is to reduce and to try and eliminate bycatch as much as possible. one way of doing this is by going for more selective gear while the landing obligation also
we have also to keep in mind that when protecting the industry we are doing this in the best interest and in the interest of the long term sustainability of fishermen themselves.
it is the challenge of doing more for less and we need to create a more sustainable and prosperous fishing industry that protects our fish stocks.
yes it may have taken a long time but then sometimes to get things right does take time.
the last parliament sought so called reform but at best they are making a catastrophe slightly less catastrophic.
rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic is the maritime metaphor that seems to come to mind. yes stopping discards is vital but they are one of the worst aspects of a flawed system.
frankly a landing obligation which is partial and limited simply does not solve the problem.
what is needed is to de collectivise the policy in a manner which stops the vast french and spanish fleets hoovering the seas at taxpayers' expense.
and does the uk's lib lab con seek to do anything about this?
no they do not. on fishing as in so much else the british people need to know that they are being betrayed once again by the british political class and mr cadec's tinkering at the edges does nothing to affect this fundamental truth.
it will be very difficult to implement particularly in the mixed species white fish sector which is crucially important in scotland and elsewhere.
there must be flexibility to allow quota uplift to prevent the industry being paralysed by so called choke species'.
i do regret the delay in coming forward because it certainly would have been useful if we had had these regulations in place for the beginning of the ban at the beginning of this year.
so we are entitled to ask questions in the next ministerial summit on whether this has been done as regards european citizens.
one of them is that we should clarify things with the united states and make it clear that whenever a european citizen's information is concerned european rules should apply and that we are not happy with the level of protection of data information from the united states in particular.
but that no one should use this special relationship not to abide by the law and not to abide by international standards.
this is why i appreciate the comments of those including mr weber and others who have said that we have a special relationship with our us partners and we have solved important investigations regarding the prevention of terrorism through shared information with our special partnership
this is the fine balancing act of retaining this partnership but because there is a partnership it entails not only rights but deeper obligations because if the relationship is special then the obligations should be special as well and no one should be taken for granted. i also appreciate
world it giants like apple facebook google microsoft skype youtube and aol trusted major companies have caused shock to our european citizens.
we are particularly concerned that generalised access to and mass processing of eu citizens' data for law enforcement or other purposes may have taken place under the responsibility of the above mentioned companies in the framework of this programme in a way that is non compliant with the eu data protection legislation in force.
secondly we wish to reaffirm our commitment to a high level agreement on the proposed data protection reform package along the lines originally defined in our proposals and reinforced by amendments tabled by the ep rapporteurs and shadows on improving protection requirements.
in my own member state the united kingdom there is serious concern about what has happened. trust has clearly been breached.
in this context we deem it quite clear that an eu legal framework for data protection law enforcement and security purposes by public and private actors remains extremely relevant and cannot in any way be delayed.
data flows but it is extremely important in the light of the prism and nsa issue that eu citizens are given assurances as to what can happen.
today we get a handful of dedicated meps to address five hundred million citizens.
we need political leadership in europe to defend the rights of our citizens and the time is now.
on the special relationship i have heard nearly all colleagues here refer to the special relationship with our best friends and closest ally the united states.
as for the member states because there is national debate about the same issue everywhere now ms merkel will ask the americans for an explanation but in all our member states including the uk mr moraes and in my member state we are doing the same thing.
first of all with all due respect to the commissioner we get the commissioner for public health to deal with this issue but no president barroso who should have got in his helicopter and flown to strasbourg to answer to five hundred million citizens.
how can we tell the governments of say egypt or iran or any other country that they should not spy on their citizens because that has no place in a democracy if we are doing the same to our citizens?
actually you can say that the citizens do not trust their governments anymore but the governments seem to trust their citizens even less.
we should be ashamed of ourselves.
so what kind of a special relationship is that? over the last twelve years europe has bent over backwards to be the closest ally of the americans in the fight against terrorism and i am sure we will continue to be their ally.
we also need to look at ourselves colleagues.
first of all we cannot have been very surprised to find that the americans are spying on us because we knew about it.
we are failing the european citizens at a time when trust in the european union is at an all time low.
well i do not know if members listened to the statement by president obama when he was addressing the american audience who were worried.
we get no answers from the european commission.
do we have at least the responsible commissioner for counter terrorism in the house?
but then we need to see eye to eye and we expect the commission and with all due respect and i am grateful you are here commissioner borg to make this chefsache as this is a matter for political leadership.
we have been asking questions again again and again but asking questions to the commission is like talking to a wall.
were concerned that their personal data held by companies could be used for a purpose other than the one for which it was collected. the prism case as reported in the media also highlights the difference between the european union's and the united states' approaches to data protection.
the commission therefore counts on this parliament to support the objectives and principles of the eu data protection reform and work on the swift adoption of the package.
this is the aim of the proposed general data protection regulation. the reform proposed by vice president reding maintains the current high level of data protection in the eu by updating citizens' rights guaranteeing they know when their privacy has been violated
to give a single example the commission has already raised the matter of law enforcement access to personal data of european citizens in the framework of the ongoing negotiations with the united states for a general data protection agreement in the field of police and judicial cooperation.
held on the servers of us companies should be done via established legal channels such as the eu us mutual legal assistance agreements.
as far as the prism programme is concerned the commission will raise this matter with the united states authorities at the earliest possible opportunity.
vice president reding will raise this issue with force and determination at the upcoming eu us ministerial meeting on friday in dublin.
it will request clarification as to whether access to personal data within the framework of the prism programme is limited to individual cases and based on concrete suspicions or whether it allows bulk transfers of data.
whereas in the us legal system only us citizens and residents benefit from constitutional safeguards in the european union everyone's personal data and the confidentiality of their communications are recognised and protected as fundamental rights irrespective of their nationality.
the european parliament has submitted amendments to further clarify in the provisions of the regulation the conditions under which the judgment of a court or a tribunal of a third country is enforceable under eu law.
it has been tackled by the commission in the past.
recital ninety of the proposed general data protection regulation reflects our view that in order to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction access by third country law enforcement authorities to the personal data of eu citizens
down data protection rules with a clear provision on territorial scope.
and making sure that when their consent is required the consent is real. more specifically the eu data protection reform should ensure that the european union is able to tackle situations such as the prism programme by laying
the european commission is concerned about recent media reports that the united states authorities are accessing and processing on a large scale the data of european union citizens using major us online service providers.
be they national european or international. the commission believes that these concerns need to be further addressed.
we need them as a precondition for democracy for the rule of law and also for security and trust in the digital market or in the market as a whole.
madam president commissioner the debate here today is about increasing the trust and faith of citizens in holding to account governments and agencies that serve and protect them.
governments and the european commission have expressed concern we have heard this morning but rightly acknowledge that it is currently too early to draw final conclusions.
yet here we are already pointing the finger with some of you already expressing strong anti american or anti commission rhetoric which is all too familiar as is the opportunism and grandstanding without pausing to gather facts or proof.
this plenary is no stranger to the practice of convicting a defendant before the trial.
this parliament is currently working hard on reforming its data protection rules and is still pursuing agreement on data exchange with the united states something which i and my group support.
key to the success of being able to protect our citizens beyond our own borders is our relationship with other countries.
yet i would caution that often the way in which some members of this house articulate themselves does little to bring us together on values but instead pushes us further apart.
intelligence agencies are often lambasted for not acting soon enough and then equally condemned for going too far.
increasingly as we know terrorists and organised criminal groups use information and technology against innocent citizens.
therefore there must be an expectation that the same technology will be used in our response. but that information must be used and respected within the confines of democratic principles and legal oversight.
we must understand that we do not gain more freedoms by taking others away and that our greatest asset will always be the rule of law.
that is why sometimes it is necessary for us politicians to remind those with less visible power that ensuring freedom and the safety of our citizens must not come at the ultimate price of sacrificing democracy.
but it might also be worth some people in this room remembering who the real enemy is and where it is and that when we deal with allies and when we want answers and the truth friends listen most when you talk and not when you shout.
let me first emphasise that we have made at this stage only an initial comparison of both agreements with the eu swiss agreement.
first the level of the rates.
in this case the commission would have to follow the procedure for amending a directive. that requires a much more detailed political and technical assessment than the recast.
as to your second question the proposed amendments to the directive are still being discussed in the council.
in this specific case the commission has not been associated with the negotiations.
unilateral action taken by member states in this field should not affect future action on the part of the european union that could comprise the amendment of one of these instruments.
your third question refers to the respective competence of the union and the member states in the area concerned. member states are free to enter into international agreements with non eu countries but they must respect eu law and its principles governing exclusive eu competence.
germany and the united kingdom are part of these discussions and are among strong supporters of the enhancement of the directive.
in general member states must ensure that any bilateral negotiations they foresee or conduct do not cover aspects which are a matter of exclusive eu competence.
i demand that the commission heed caution when seeking to harmonise corporate taxation and when taking such bold legislative leaps as to criminalise tax avoidance by enshrining it as tax evasion within eu law.
raising this issue now will only deter corporations from establishing headquarters in the eu and they will instead look to asia or south america.
it would be foolhardy for any member state outside the common currency to sign up to such corporate fiscal union.
taxation must remain the prerogative of member states better placed to manage and enforce their own systems allowing for increased flexibility while also promoting the sort of competition that helps catalyse recovery.
in the uk for example management of offshore banking in british crown dependencies is intrinsically tied with reciprocal contributions to the liquidity of the domestic market.
however both over regulated and mismanaged tax systems are often the product of sprawling tax bases too large to effectively manage or allow necessary economic elasticity. many multilateral conglomerates are turning their backs on the european market due to the euro zone crisis and the burden of eu law.
in a global marketplace there will always be tax havens offshore banking and questionable yet astute financial handling by the most profitable multilaterals.
these countries tend to be small and affluent with the most successful well governed and regulated.
this is what we are trying to do.
i want to use this clean energy to power our clean cars and to give them the ability to store that energy in green batteries.
we are reconciling the mobility needs of europeans with the protection of our planet.
after the first wave of our mobility package presented in may we put forward a second set of measures to accelerate the transition to low emission mobility.
for passengers our goal is to support the development of longdistance bus and coach connections throughout europe.
so we want to make it easier for cities and local authorities to purchase rent and lease those vehicles for their provision of public transport services or for other public use.
that brings me to the third area alternative energy.
two thousand and twenty vicepresident efovi has already presented this but i would like to underline now that besides the supply manufacturer side of this problem in this package we are also addressing the demand side.
for most after a home their car remains the second biggest item of expenditure so it must work in all conditions and everywhere. charging an electric car along european motorways has to be as easy as filling up at the petrol station.
investment in clean transport is crucial for this to work. as part of this plan we are now investing another eur eight hundred million from the eu budget to roll out additional alternative fuels infrastructure.
the second area is cleaner vehicles.
public authorities can and are ready to make a strong contribution to the market uptake of low and zero emission vehicles.
we are therefore proposing an action plan to speed up deployment of charging points.
to provide more certainty in their visibility to the market we propose to set minimum public procurement targets at national level which will also generate predictable demand for european industry.
consumers must have confidence that they will be able to use alternatively powered vehicles throughout europe.
we are delivering on all three pillars in our low emission mobility strategy first improving the organisation of our transport systems;
it employs more than eleven million europeans and generates five percent of europe's gdp.
that is why we are taking unprecedented actions in response to this evergrowing challenge.
because they do not update or upgrade by ten or twenty they want a real change they want a revolution.
it has to be a very complex policy approach getting the right balance but also getting the right ambition.
we need to do it on the european level we need to do it on the national level.
i would hardly find a single policy on the european or national level which would not be affected if we are to meet the objectives that we are setting in this package.
and that is my final remark why are the americans at least in silicon valley and the chinese successful?
i am particularly happy to hear that there is a broad consensus on the need to take a comprehensive approach to reach the necessary level of ambition. let me really quickly summarise the package and i hope you will recognise this in our proposal as well.
because all modes of transport have a role to play in achieving low emission mobility.
this is essential for the environment but also for territorial and social cohesion for our entire union.
we do address demand and also the supply side at the same time.
decarbonisation i believe is good for all of us;
it is good for citizens it is good for businesses and it is good for all member states.
first we do address vehicles infrastructure and necessary changes in the use of fuel or energies' as we are probably going to call them in the future.
we do address passengers and freight at the same time.
public transport must be a real alternative on the european transport market.
finally we gave a strong push for the development of advanced battery technologies here in europe.
last month i launched the eu battery alliance with industry and interested member states in order to develop strong manufacturing capacity here in europe and regain competitiveness throughout the value chain.
two thousand and twenty five so this is our chance to capture this market in a sustainable way.
together with these key measures the commission proposes improving the organisation of transport systems and to support the roll out of both alternative fuel infrastructure and clean vehicles.
this roll out must be inclusive across the continent no region no consumer should be left behind.
as i have often said in the past the leading economy of the twenty first century will be the one that leads the transition to clean energy. right now when it comes to clean mobility we have to admit we are lagging behind.
today's proposal is an opportunity for europe's industry to achieve just that. how?
these targets are highly ambitious but not disruptive.
there is sufficient time for the industry to invest in cleaner technologies and for the employees to transition their skills.
the clean mobility package is about europe's political leadership in climate action and industrial leadership in clean and smart mobility.