kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i think economic diplomacy would be one way to also create a better relevance and clear picture for people of why we have trade and other economic policies and what it can mean concretely.
concretely that is for small and medium sized enterprises and concretely in an outreach that should be a two way street on the one hand we should have our diplomats and our representatives looking for opportunities in third countries but we should also be a welcome desk providing information and bringing knowledge back to the european union.
recently i was in boston massachusetts as the vice president of the us delegation of this house where there are incubators bringing life science companies from the eu to relevant partners in the us.
you see a german hub a dutch hub and a swedish hub operating within metres of each other.
why not join forces show what europe has to offer and bring the knowledge and the entrepreneurship the investment and other relevant actors back in touch with actors in the eu?
i think there are many opportunities to avoid duplication as you said commissioner but also to connect the dots in a changing world involve technology and it in a smart way and involve the private sector also in our foreign policy goals which includes them playing a role in advancing human rights corporate social responsibility and basically streamlining our efforts on the global stage.
i would also like to take this opportunity to highlight today's decision by the irish government to split shannon airport from the daa.
the business model is threatened when passengers are limited to one bag as it prevents them from making purchases at the airport.
the spanish ban on this one bag' rule should be adopted across the twenty seven member states.
however the benefit is to the detriment of the airport itself as many regional airports depend on retail and food sales to survive.
i hope the future plans for this airport will focus on the airport's potential to attract investment and to create long term jobs in the mid west region.
the role of regional airports in territorial cohesion and in interconnecting eu regions and countries must remain a guiding principle of the review of the compatibility conditions but we cannot ignore the fact that unlawful public subsidies distort competition at several levels between airlines and between airports.
i will now comment on the main policy areas highlighted in the bradbourn report.
charter airlines are linked with major tourist destinations. business aviation is the centre of our business connectivity in europe.
passengers seem to be confused by varying strictness in the application of such policies by ground staff.
of business to business relations between airlines airports and retailers.
we all come from different regions of europe and we all know how important airports can be for the connectivity of a remote
your report will certainly be taken into account in the ongoing review.
in preparing the legislation the commission has discounted options such as slot confiscation and slot auctioning precisely because of their negative impact on regional air services.
the report calls for regional airports to be taken into account in the future trans european transport network policy.
airports are important as our gates to europe and to the world and they are also important growth engines.
discussions on this proposal are now ongoing in the council and in parliament. intermodality is at the heart of our transport policy.
region. they are essential for european connectivity.
we need to agree on common and simple rules on a matter that affects the sustainability of the eu aviation market.
if there are competition issues these should be addressed but not via legislation designed to protect passengers. the report expresses concerns regarding the proposed revision of the slot regulation. i want to reassure you on behalf of commissioner kallas that the objective is certainly not to price regional air services out of the market but to ensure more efficient use of existing airport capacity.
the commission will shortly publish a study on air ticket price transparency provisions in
point to point carriers have changed the landscape of regional airports.
we have a vibrant aviation sector which provides growth for the whole continent including the regions.
the current practice is particularly harmful at regional airports which often heavily reduce fees to carriers on the basis of passenger throughput making these up in retail sales.
the commission must be bold and take action for the benefit of consumers the travelling public and the many businesses that flourish by having access to airports and air services.
if implemented properly encouraging region to region services could lead to less congestion and greater environmental efficiency.
these programmes will bring environmental and economic savings.
the report also aims to tackle the practices of certain airlines on two main subjects price transparency and onboard baggage.
by bringing regional airports closer into the transport network we can provide more of an incentive for industry to better integrate across modes and develop benefits for our citizens for example via multimodal ticketing as cited in the report.
this again is so that consumers know what to expect when travelling.
this report calls for companies to offer all passengers a method of credit or debit card payment that is free and to include any unavoidable administration fees in the headline price.
they are essential to facilitating the smooth running of the single market by transporting people and goods between key parts of member states. they are essential generators of economic growth by expanding trade beyond traditional partnerships boosting the economies of regions they serve and often connecting inaccessible regions and islands to the broader economy thus allowing their continued viability.
the report acknowledges that regional air services have an integral role in the economic well being of the eu and are vital to the financial and social vibrancy of the regions.
indeed i strongly believe that regional airports need to be seen as an integral part of the trans european network rather than somewhere away on the periphery.
the financial and sovereign debt crisis has substantially changed the conditions for financing regional airports.
aviation however is an industry with small margins and this is especially true at the regional level.
this must be counteracted by the removal of economic barriers and a better definition of their role in the transport network.
it also reflects the tendency of the commission and others to neglect the opportunities that they provide.
with regard to onboard baggage the report calls for the industry to set common upper limits for weight and size restrictions.
it is important that people know what they will be paying and not find the cost of their ticket ratcheted up through the entire process.
it is the practice of some carriers to add charges to the headline price of a ticket.
the report calls on the commission to speed up the development of sesar and the single european sky as a matter of urgency.
similarly when considering the upcoming airports package i call on the commission to pay particular attention to the regions as currently they risk being priced out of the market leaving greater consolidation between major airports and airlines with the result being less choice and higher prices.
as well as this regional airports which are running well below capacity can have a role to play in alleviating the capacity crunch that a number of major airports are suffering.
the report also calls for airside purchases to be treated as separate to the one bag' rule. the strict application of this so called one bag' rule as it stands is used as a tool in some cases to increase profits to the detriment of consumers.
i strongly believe that regional airports and air services have a role to play in reinvigorating our economy as part of a well functioning transport network. therefore i call on the commission to listen to what we are saying in parliament.
we also need to look at the points regarding the one bag rule which is obviously detrimental especially as he said to small airports.
three successfully gathered over one million signatures each.
i would like to personally thank and congratulate mr schpflin for a job very well done in analysing the implementation of the eci reflecting on possible improvements and building consensus across political groups and committees. he is not trying to make party political work with
we are already implementing a number of these measures. let me just mention a few. the commission has established a dedicated point of contact which has already replied to around one two hundred questions in all eu languages on rules and procedures.
going beyond our obligations on the regulation we also provide ad hoc online hosting on commission servers free of charge.
data requirements have sometimes been flagged as an issue.
it. the commission takes very seriously indeed parliament's call for a legislative revision of the eci regulation.
so. we should also be open to do more if that is needed.
all these efforts have succeeded in forging links among likeminded people across the continent.
this is promising for european participatory democracy and the emergence of a european demos.
it has started to show its potential.
it is still a young tool but we already have some experience.
as a member of the european convention when i represented the dutch parliament i was myself involved in the design of the citizens' initiative. today it is part of my responsibilities to ensure that it works properly and thus works better.
last march the commission reported on the initiative's first three years.
in that context i believe the eci can be a valuable contribution.
overall about six million citizens gave their signatures impressive numbers of people.
we are currently in the process of assessing the need scope and objective for such a revision.
i am therefore here today to listen very carefully to members' assessment of how the instrument is working and discuss their ideas on how to improve
we are also providing more specific support directly to organisers once their eci has been registered including on legal requirements and logistical or technical aspects.
here we will continue our efforts to encourage member states to simplify their data requirements so that all citizens can actually exercise the right to sign an eci should they wish to do
some thirty three initiatives were registered and collected signatures.
but at the same time we need to work to make the citizens' initiative more userfriendly. i note that several points put forward in your report mr schpflin converge with our report's conclusions.
since two thousand and twelve we have had this instrument in european politics and the number of successful initiatives demonstrates its success or better to say failure as not one led to a legislative process.
mr commissioner i ask you please to explain to citizens the lack of transparency in this matter.
will the commission finally start sending proper reasons for all ecis which were refused in the past or revise the decisions on those ecis where the commission does not have proper reasons?
i would love for every member state to have a proper democratic right for citizens to get new legislation onto their statute books.
so much for the underlying theory behind the eci;
the eci changes this by adding the citizens to those with the right of launching legislation.
i have every hope that the promised reform of the eci will make it a genuinely effective instrument.
is. one hundred indeed in my consultations with civil society i have detected a clear sense of disappointment with the way in which the commission has handled the ecis that it has received.
over fifty initiatives have been organised and none not one has reached the statute book.
the idea that a given number of citizens can act together on a single issue of concern adds something new to the political palette of europe and let it be noted is already available as a form of political action in some eu member states.
that may have worked in the classical greek city states but is nonsense when five hundred million citizens are involved. what the eci can do is to adopt a single issue and mobilise a sufficient number of individuals in a form of collective action. the mobilisatory element should not be underestimated.
ultimately there will always be some tension between the politics of representation and political involvement from below.
now the underlying idea is both straightforward and subtle.
no the eci enhances european democracy by introducing a form of civic action that communicates in parallel with what we are doing.
i hardly have to note how rare this unanimity is and that is in itself a message an indication that the eci is properly regarded as a key instrument in the framework of the institutional structure of the european union.
the citizens of europe should have the means to launch legislative initiatives on issues of concern at the european level. everyone is aware of the reality of the remoteness between the eu and its citizens and the eci is one way of bridging it. let me add here immediately that the right of legislative initiative by citizens does not undermine the representative democracy that is the core value of any democratic system ourselves in other words.
the process of collecting a million signatures in a year demands organisational skills enthusiasm and commitment to doing something political in europe. from that perspective the eci is a way of bringing citizens into the european political field in an unmediated fashion.
nor is the eci a form of direct democracy where citizens foregather to take legislative action.
by anyone's failure criteria this
what differentiates the european political field from that of a member state is that legislation is initiated by the commission.
so the burden of my report is intended to address these shortcomings and to urge the commission to respond to the voice of the citizens with greater flexibility than hitherto.
there have been complaints of bureaucratic dilatoriness the insolence of office' the law's delay' to quote shakespeare and a general sense that while the commission has dealt with the instrument with complete correctness legally it has rather missed the political point that of civic involvement.
practice to date has not really fulfilled the promise of the instrument.
this shift therefore changes the equation in european politics by adding a new actor.
in spite of this positive view i have to mention a point which should have deserved more courage from all of us.
i am referring to the necessary amelioration of the follow up to any successful eci after its submission.
do you agree that if people in this house can make no dent in terms of having an initiative or things pushed through this parliament how in the name of goodness are ordinary citizens able to do this?
mr president i would like to thank everybody who has taken part in this constructive debate.
connecting the citizens has come up in a fair number of contributions.
treaty change has come up my own take on this is that yes treaty change will happen one day but not in connection with the eci so primary law is not really a part of this.
secondly as i understand it at the moment an eci can call on the commission to act in particular ways but as things stand cannot interdict legislation.
this could well be reconsidered.
i look forward to working closely with parliament to make sure that where we can we will improve the initiative and probably we will have to look at the regulation at some stage.
the commission will certainly not shy away from doing that if it is considered necessary.
at the same time you can turn the initiative into something it is not and then be critical of the fact that it is not what you want it to be but it is in fact quite straightforward it is based on the treaty. the treaty is something all member states agreed on signed and ratified in the national parliaments.
the commission is responsible for applying the rules in the treaty and the rules in the treaty say that the european citizens' initiative is an instrument to involve citizens in dialogue.
it is not an initiative to give citizens the right of initiative in legal matters that is a different animal. if you are not happy with that animal fine but do not accuse the animal of not being what you want it to be.
it was intended to be an addition to representative democracy to make sure that people get involved in the debate in representative democracy not an alternative to representative democracy.
i am quite sure this parliament would not want to put itself in an outside position and leave all that to citizens directly.
i think the deal here is that we involve citizens in a dialogue about policies.
if the commission applies the rules and yes it happens unfortunately quite a lot we have to say that the initiatives taken are not within the existing rules.
we can change the rules and we will look into that.
we can assist people taking initiatives in overcoming bureaucratic hurdles and other problems and we certainly want to try to improve that.
we are trying to be very cooperative with those who take initiatives but you cannot blame the commission for applying the rules.
i will have to be firm on this but i want to reiterate our willingness to work closely with mr schpflin and his colleagues to make sure that we improve the system.
i still see a lot of potential in this instrument.
it is far too easy after a relatively short period of time to dismiss the instrument because it is not what one wants it to be.
we should not forget that the eu external fishing fleet is already subject to sanctions for serious infringements by the control and iuu regulations.
i am talking about the effective closure of the eu market for products coming from third country vessels that do not meet the requirements of this legislation.
the eu should create a level playing field so that eu fishing vessels can compete with vessels from third countries.
most importantly we have to create this level playing field.
five. one i fully agree with the fact that this point implies a double sanction for this sector and could seriously hurt the fishing activities of the longdistance fleet.
we have to remember this because it puts additional and unnecessary strain on our operators.
thirty i think that this measure is proportionate and justified.
there were also some comments on the clawback clause.
clawback clause allows the commission to withdraw a fishing authorisation in cases where member states do not stop fishing vessels flying their flag in the cases provided by the law and where those vessels continue fishing causing harm.
as i have already said we believe that the balance between information requirements and privacy in the proposal is the right one but i am happy to look at proposals that would improve transparency within the limit of our data protection rules.
your vote on this proposal will be a very important step towards improving ocean governance overall.
the european union must be seen to act responsibly outside its own waters if we expect others also to fish sustainably.
it is also a costeffective way to control who can fish outside our waters and who cannot.
this may eventually lead to our reviewing dormant agreements in the context of the negotiation of sustainable fishing partnership agreements.
it will contribute to the sustainable exploitation of global fisheries resources.
i have to say that it is very difficult to quantify the effect of the amendment because we do not have information on high seas fisheries conducted by the eu vessels.
the commission proposal which you will soon discuss in trialogues presents an approach that will achieve these objectives.
the commission would therefore be favourable to these amendments as long as they do not lead to disproportionate administrative burdens for our member states and for our operators.
in relation to the database i am confident we will be able to increase openness and transparency while striking a good balance with respect for sensitive personal and commercial data.
the proposal on the sustainable management of the external fleets is of prime importance to reinforce the role of the european union as a key global actor in fisheries and in ocean governance. with the new rules the commission aims to create a benchmark at international level regarding the management and the control of external fleets.
therefore a clean record from sanctions for serious infringements in the last twelve months should be one of the conditions for a fishing authorisation.
finally as you know the european union is responsible for the activities of its vessels operating outside eu waters and that is why it is particularly important to allow the commission to withdraw the fishing authorisation of a vessel when the flag member state does not take action to stop that vessel from causing damage. the union has now become a strong global actor in shaping international oceans governance and this has to be reflected also in our legislation and in our actions. i therefore trust that together we will manage to improve fisheries governance through better control and monitoring of our extended fleet.
in order to maintain the reputation of the eu's external fleet we need to ensure that only good conduct vessels and operators complying with the rules are allowed to fish outside eu waters.
i am pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of the amendments tabled follow this objective overall and even reinforce the key elements of our proposal.
the efforts deployed so far to simplify the text reduce administrative burdens and improve the consistency and structure of the proposal could be of inspiration during the upcoming trilogues.
otherwise we undermine our own credibility in our work to curb the iuu fishing of other fishing nations.
it is an important principle that only eu vessels with a clean record of compliance should be able to fish outside eu waters.
on several points we have strengthened the commission proposal which i have to say was a very good proposal to start with.
this is exactly what amendment forty eight suggests.
it is actually the most fundamental one because it decides who shall have the right to fish outside eu waters.
that is why the commission first needs to assess the situation and check coherence with other eu policies such as developing and foreign policies.
we have added that fishing on the high seas must be based on a scientific evaluation showing the sustainability of that fishing activity.
this idea was adopted in amendment eighteen in the committee vote.
seventy eight another fundamental principle is the exclusivity clause in the sustainable fisheries partnership agreements.
for many years the eu had a very bad reputation when fishing outside eu waters but for the last ten years things have considerably improved with the control regulation the iuu regulation and the reformed cfp in place.
so please join me and delete amendment forty eight which is in fact not in line with the basic regulation.
but above all we agreed that the new public register on authorisations must also include the name of the owner of the company as well as the beneficial owner.
this would then mean that for the first time we will see who benefits from global fishing through a public register.
we introduced the requirement that vessels returning to the eu fleet register must provide their complete flag history during their period off the register.
i therefore urge you colleagues to vote against amendment thirty and to support amendment.
tomorrow we will vote in plenary and some things are still to be settled.
for instance we have added that eu vessels can only get direct authorisations if there is a surplus of fish available that the coastal state cannot catch.
i agree that there could be situations when the commission should try to reactivate socalled dormant agreements.
this is stipulated in article thirty one of the basic regulation.
the commission needs to ensure a level playing field.
we can be proud of ourselves for we have voted for a very ambitious parliament position in the committee vote.