kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
although it is not revolutionary at least we are now talking about a paid paternity leave entitlement at the eu level about two months' nontransferable and paid parental leave and five days of carers' leave.
studies prove that due to the responsibility of caring for a sick or elderly member of their family women are always at the forefront at the expense of their jobs careers financial independence decent pensions and of course social life.
it is a step forward but a very small step.
mr president i welcome this report on improving the safety performance of road infrastructure.
for example how about the use of chains hanging from a gantry just before the bridge which would alert a driver if it hit the top of their vehicles.
britain's most bashed bridge is in ely in my constituency just down the road from my office.
that causes delays for passengers and big costs in repair bills.
the nine foot tall bridge has been hit one hundred and twenty times in the last ten years and it's still getting hit despite the brand new giant warning signs.
we need to learn from others about high tech and low tech solutions.
i am particularly concerned about safety measures to prevent lorries and trucks from hitting low bridges.
mr president you can't just try it for size when you're a professional driver in a heavy vehicle.
reforming the public pension systems in order to make them strong even in an era where the number of aging people in our societies is increasing significantly.
by taking a private pension product and now what we are doing is increasing alternatives.
we are creating regulations and rules for existing european pension products.
is this wrong?
everybody should know that this is not true;
even food is sold in private companies.
so i am sure that even though there are different ideologies and different priorities there is no one in this chamber who would like to spread disinformation to our voters because it's not worth it.
which is flexible and allows great opportunity for member states to make their own laws and implement them themselves according to their own context and customs but which gently raises the floor for everybody.
so even some of the wealthiest and highest level of protection countries like the uk will see people benefit without being told what to do by brussels bureaucrats.
carers in the uk will have paid parental leave under this measure if the uk remains in the european union.
very often big companies and big organisations that can afford to pay lobbyists get through the doors here and are able to influence the legislation that goes through. this is i am afraid another example where the legislation that we are putting through is absolutely fine for large companies that can afford the extra costs but small companies will be unable to afford the extra costs that we are piling onto them and will therefore be at a disadvantage.
and if you create new rules they must be beneficial to all the eu member states not just the western countries.
i am against social dumping and i regret that the report is designed to penalise this huge group of people. the destiny of three million workers is at stake and as a democrat i call for respecting the freedom of services and labour movement and i'm sure that there is a way to guarantee decent work and rest conditions for drivers without undermining the rules of the single market.
new provisions adopted by the committee on fisheries pech will allow for more flexible access to compensation provided by the fund in case of permanent cessation of fishing activities where important restructuring of the fleet is necessary.
my hope is that this will benefit the irish fishing community hugely including our islands for which there were some amendments.
it will also support and encourage investments aiming at improving the safety and working life and living conditions of the crew on board and improving the quality of the fish within the capacity limits for each member state.
but i would like to say to those colleagues who spoke very negatively and who are going to vote against most of whom have actually already left the room because they're clearly not interested in hearing arguments!
but i've heard a lot of fake news in this debate as the commissioner said.
for example saying that if you vote against then you can keep these personal pension savings products off the markets that's rubbish. those who are going to vote against should know that they're actually going to help the cowboys on the market because they are on the market and this is as bas eickhout rightfully said the only way of regulating. secondly i heard that if you vote for' you're going to weaken the public pension systems rubbish!
complete and utter rubbish!
they are completely different systems.
and to those colleagues who are going to vote against you know what you should do?
rather than voting against a good pepp regulation with consumer protection address your national governments and tell them that they should reform and strengthen the public systems because it's completely unrelated to pepp and if the public systems are weak it's because the national governments are not doing anything about it. and then finally to my dutch colleagues i'm going to switch to dutch.
we have to restrict women's rights or we have to impose one single limited view of what families can look like on all of us.
the latest at the world congress of families last weekend in verona it became clear that there is an alliance of right wing extremists christian fundamentalists and conservatives who want to spread these lies in the campaign.
i say the exact opposite is true.
in order to protect families we don't have to follow homophobic and anti choice rhetoric.
we have to stand up for these families.
we have to give them space in society.
we have to embrace all forms and diversity of families and we have to give families time to care for each other.
it is true that we need to prevent illicit practices and lower the administive burden and it is also true that every piece of legislation we pass in this house must be socially fair but the principle of equal pay for equal work in application to cabotage operations raises serious issues of social fairness for me.
mr president this may of course be my very last intervention in this place and so it seems apt that it should be on a measure which under the guise of the single market of course ends up imposing more requirements and regulations on the private sector and is in fact about removing competitiveness by requiring a degree of
we in this chamber with almost no idea of what it's like for a small company operating within tight profit margins like to virtue signal by passing laws of this kind.
if this is indeed our last interchange in this capacity then let's part as friends and let me say thank you for what you've done.
i believe this is great news for european citizens.
this is what the single market and the eu can do for them.
walking is one of the great pleasures for the human race.
and yet all too often in new developments and particularly with road infrastructure the needs of pedestrians are ignored.
i was absolutely delighted to be able to vote for this report not only because it takes into account the needs of pedestrians but also because it recognises that this is an area where the individual member states should be taking a lead.
we should not be making everything the same;
we need to take account of local conditions and local preferences.
so on both those counts i'm delighted to support this and i'm looking forward to our roads and highway infrastructure being a lot more pedestrian friendly than they have been in the past.
the positive conclusion of the scoping exercise is to be saluted but the mandate to the commission for those negotiations has to be approved by parliament too not just by the council.
you do not do that.
my last remark mr president we are now discussing whether or not we should start the negotiations with japan;
by september then probably you would be in time to influence the debate in the council.
the only right political approach is to say ok we have started negotiations those are the promises which you have been making we are going to check this within a year and then we will make our decision on whether or not we continue with the negotiations. a second and very important element which we have very clearly stated is that whenever
there was also a question on mutual recognition of organic produce. recognition of eu organic foods in japan is one of the early deliveries on our ntb list so this problem is being rectified and will be solved in practice before any negotiations start.
the scoping study was a response to that and we have moved forward on it.
this is a package that by any analysis and we have had a comprehensive analysis now on the table for two years will generate very large benefits for the european economy across all sectors. but the key difference between japan and korea is that the japanese market is
frankly we will not move forward unless we follow the commission's line we actually start those negotiations and we will move forward but as he says we will not conclude the agreements until we have got the deal on the table.
i am very pleased that we have had support on the other side of the house and i really hope that you will agree with me that this is the right way forward and we have those safeguards in place.
i can tell you what they are off by heart.
already open to many european companies in whole areas of branded goods and by the way that includes automotive goods. what we are dealing with here is a complex set of non tariff barriers.
we have more experience in dealing with this than any other grouping in this house.
they do not buy on these criteria alone. they are predisposed to buying japanese goods because they japanese goods.
all of this means that the removal of eu tariffs on japanese goods will be as efficacious as the removal of japanese tariffs on european goods will be irrelevant.
my point is that this is a really detailed level set of negotiations.
these are detailed matters which we need to leave the commission and experts to get on with but we will have a say when it comes back to us.
position to move ahead with the next steps and should move to open negotiations.
the ground has been fully prepared.
first we have an upfront agreement with japan on what both sides expect from the negotiations.
this scoping paper which lays out the scope of our potential discussions is the most ambitious that we have agreed in all of our trade negotiations.
therefore we have the comfort that all our priorities will be addressed in future negotiations.
as a result we have negotiated again upfront a dedicated package which addresses the key issues.
we have already found satisfactory solutions for barriers in the car foodstuff and pharmaceutical sectors.
for a number of others i will admit that some uncertainty remains.
clearly a failure by japan to deliver on these barriers would have a very negative impact on any negotiations.
but this political reality should be backed up with legal force and that is why the commission's proposal for the negotiating directives includes a provision clearly stating that if japan has not delivered on its non tariff road maps within a year from the start of the negotiations the negotiations will be stopped. this would oblige us to take stock of the situation one year from the start of the negotiations
and as mentioned if progress were not satisfactory we would simply call off the discussions.
i would also like to highlight another important principle that we have agreed with japan we have accepted that the phasing out of tariffs can only take place strictly in parallel with the elimination of regulatory barriers and according to mutually agreed timetables.
here i am pleased to say we have secured a good compromise.
japan has agreed to take effective measures in the context of the negotiations to open up its railways and urban transport market to eu suppliers.
i want to highlight as i have done before in this house that trade liberalisation remains the cheapest way we have to stimulate our economy.
ninety per cent of world growth will happen in the markets outside the eu in the future.
considering its future weight in the world economy we have a broad strategy for getting better access to asia in particular.
this agreement is a key piece in that puzzle.
i would ask you to bear that in mind.
in the weeks to come the commission intends to submit draft negotiating directives to the council and start discussions on the content of a mandate.
in this regard the commission should consider the existing reporting on corruption and fraud levels before taking a decision on granting budget support.
i would also like to welcome the adoption in june two thousand and eleven of the commission's new anti fraud strategy and its internal action plan for implementation.
moreover i commend the management board's decision of january two thousand and eleven establishing the terms and conditions for internal investigations with regard to the prevention of fraud corruption and illegal activity detrimental to the union's interest.
mr president this relates to the hbner report. i voted against this report because of the particular problems it poses for the uk which was the only one of the twenty seven member states which had no legal obligation to abandon its currency sterling in favour of the euro at any time in the future.
the efsm is described in the report as if it were real tangible money and this is not the case.
the efsm is a notional amount based on borrowing secured against the eu budget to be drawn upon as and when necessary.
the report suggests transferring an outstanding eur ten billion from the discontinued efsm to the balance of payments facility.
moreover given that the european council and the council are two different institutions i believe that their budgets should be separated.
mr president i voted in favour of granting the discharge to the registrar of the court of justice for the financial year two thousand and eleven in order to acknowledge the good performance of the court of justice in terms of budgetary and financial management. the court of justice managed to implement more than ninety eight of its appropriations and no significant weaknesses were found in the institution by the court of auditors.
the adoption of a business continuity plan in two thousand and eleven and the progress on the formalisation of the it security policies should be further continued by including the provisions referring to the powers of the commission's internal auditor as part of the financial rules.
for instance the special report on the control of customs procedure forty two and its impact on the prevention and detection of vat evasion revealed that in two thousand and nine the application of customs procedure forty two alone accounted for extrapolated losses of approximately eur two zero million
two thousand and fourteen therefore i believe we should make full use of this opportunity and relocate the college to the hague where europol and eurojust are located.
nevertheless looking forward to the two thousand and twelve discharge procedure i call on the office to address the shortcomings noted in two thousand and eleven and in particular to present a budget in full compliance with the principle of specification.
i accept that many of these agencies do good work.
indeed they do vital work on behalf of both the commission and parliament. in fact much of our work would not be possible without the agencies' participation.
but that does not mean that they should be given a free ride or a clean sheet.
there are many questions that remain unanswered.
there is a lack of consistency in the control measures that are in place.
in the case of the eea there have been shortcomings in recruitment procedures higher than usual travel costs and questions left open around conflicts of interest.
i believe many improvements could be made including exploring options for amalgamations and joint working which would lead to cost savings for all european taxpayers.
it has confirmed that the four priority areas employment education health and housing continue to be key to roma inclusion.
these include the european semester the racial equality directive and the european structural and investment funds. the framework provided flexibility for member states to adapt their objectives to specific national contexts.
the evaluation found that a specific non discrimination goal and a stronger focus on the suppression of anti gypsyism would make the framework stronger. the report notes that the framework achieved positive eu added value by putting roma inclusion on the eu and national agendas. it facilitated the development of new structures and increased consistency between the eu policy
legal and funding instruments that have been mobilised and aligned in pursuit of roma inclusion.
the evaluation found that this tailored approach also contributed to fragmented implementation reduced effectiveness and limited progress towards eu roma integration goals.
it did not pay sufficient attention to targeting specific groups such as roma women youth children as well as eu mobile roma.
let me now highlight some of the most important results of the evaluation.
we are all allies in this important quest to make equality and the inclusion of roma a reality.
welcome the decision of juan guaid to declare himself interim president and i welcome the recognition that this has received from democratic governments across the globe.
diplomatic efforts and dialogue sadly have clearly failed and the recognition of guaid is the first step in moving to a more assertive set of actions by international actors.
the presidential elections held in may of last year have been wholly discredited marked by a distinct lack of political pluralism democracy transparency and the rule of law as was highlighted by the high representative at that time.
such is the strength of opinion across the region that the secretary general of the oas luis almagro has gone further openly accusing maduro of perpetrating crimes against humanity and the violation of fundamental human rights noting that whilst diplomatic actions should be the first priority we shouldn't rule out any action.
the eu's turn is next.
i now welcome the decision of the bank of england in my country to prevent venezuela from accessing usd.
mr president with venezuelan inflation at a staggering ten million percent with three million people having fled the country and the security forces under maduro's direction employing ever more authoritarian tactics the recent developments can hardly come as a surprise. i strongly
i think that the eu should consider mirroring the actions of the us in sanctioning its oil companies which are being employed by maduro to buy support from the armed forces.
people are literally starving because of food shortages caused by the maduro government.
when forty people are dead eight hundred people seriously injured in protests when the leader of the opposition is banned from leaving the country and has his assets frozen.
is an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in south america and quite frankly all our governments should be working together on this.
that jeremy corbyn who has many times hailed venezuela as a beacon of socialism does nothing and leaves his previous support for that regime unchallenged.
and it is a source of shame for the uk mr president that i see the shadow chancellor in the uk signing a letter speaking out against regime change in venezuela.
hundred zero or ten million percent because frankly you can't even measure it when it gets to the stage that it's got.
left wing right wing centrists i don't care either you believe in democracy or you don't believe in democracy.
millions of people have fled venezuela. dissidents are jailed.
they were creating a group simply to avail of the resources that you get from parliament staff money speaking time to use that but were not acting as a political group within our rules.
the final issue difficult issue we've tried to grapple with is the question of fake groups political groups that have no political affinity as required under our rules. we had this you may remember some people will remember some fifteen years ago when we had a technical group composed of a political party from the far right and one from the far left.
it is more a recommendation.
we should protect ourselves and have a mechanism for making sure that affinity if there is a doubt about it and we are very careful in our wording there to say that parliament normally need not evaluate political affinity but if there is manifest evidence then parliament as a whole by an absolute majority that's a high threshold as a safeguard can decide that a group has not been properly constituted.
it does seem to me a bit bizarre.
sit very well with some of the other aspects of the rules. we've tidied all that up.
so we have very carefully with the help of our legal service rewritten that rule so that the emphasis now is on the use of offensive language not so much on the content but on the intent to offend.
we think we have that balance right and i hope all groups accept what we have done there.
the second interesting subject is that of transparency where we've been quite modest but we've wanted to increase the transparency in our rules where members are dealing with lobbyists.
we have defined that very carefully and we've even got a reference to article twenty one of the charter of fundamental rights so that it covers a wide number of ways in which people may well feel offended by hate speech.
our main task was to look again at our rules two years after the big rules revision that we adopted two years ago. some things needed tidying up some things hadn't worked so well there was the question of this new device of interpellations which i think we adopted by accident in plenary and which didn't
but there are three big issues that have caused some controversy.
perhaps it's not too late for my ppe colleagues to reconsider.
at one level for all members we say that members should' only meet lobbyists who are on the transparency register and they should' publish their meetings online.
shall' but it's only scheduled meetings.
it is not an obligation.
but it is an important recommendation for members.
that may be a situation that repeats itself after the elections.
they had no political affinity.
i am very surprised to learn that mr weber's epp is taking the unprecedented step of imposing secrecy on the vote on lobby transparent tomorrow.
citizens have a right to know how their representatives vote. forcing the whole of parliament to vote in secrecy on a political issue is not only ridiculous it also undermines citizens' confidence in the european parliament.
so i urge you mr weber do the right thing and prevent your group from this blatant misuse of the rules in imposing secrecy on this transparency vote.
do the right thing if not shame on you!
we are very distant geographically but we know that tensions in the far east can only have a negative impact on our own security as well as on our trade and our economies.
against no deal;
telling us how they see that future relationship between the eu and the uk and not using or abusing brexit as happens now to get rid of each other.
then another cooper amendment that was yesterday lost by twenty three votes.
is that the way you do that?
but until today for more than two years the house of commons has not voted one proposal in favour of something in favour of a relationship between the eu and uk never!
i hope that they will decide or that they will discuss content and that it is not just eating biscuits and drinking tea this afternoon because it could be the solution to this problem if they start working together on a cross party approach so that we know what the position of the uk is in the future.
endless debates long lists of amendments amendments going in all directions selected by the speaker and then won and lost with a teeny tiny majority.
again we are ready to go in that direction.
we have seen a vote against a number of things against the deal;
that is every day changing your opinion?
is that the way to do that?