kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
however i would point out that in assuring the future of this facility we will be assuring the future of over five hundred jobs for research workers.
these are people who are delivering world leading technology and this is a technical expertise which frankly we cannot afford to lose.
on that industry.
that too must be the case in.
iter like galileo and the eu budget is becoming an absurdity but the taxpayers who are left to foot the bill for these projects are not laughing at all i can assure you.
does he not know how much money he has in the bank at the end of each day? i know this and everybody knows this.
iter's partners are saying they can only build a stripped down version of the device by two thousand and eighteen five years later than the date set in the original agreement.
i am happy that they understood that this was not a desirable outcome.
we were able to reach a final agreement and after that apparently some of the delegations in the council still wanted to go back on the agreement.
at the same time i think the past year has shown that we need to have a better view on how iter is governed because we should not end up in situations where a big project that affects taxpayers' money and also affects other research funds as we have seen with this solution is so badly managed that we have to use solutions like this
was sleeping on this.
this is not a healthy development.
first of all it proved that the council was not living up to all its obligations and even less to its political promises of actually putting emphasis on research.
i think this is an excellent work and i appreciate this possibility to discuss this with you.
i am fully aware of your request to open formal consultations with korea on its commitment to freedom of association and collective bargaining. i believe that as you know there has just been an election in south korea and we should first talk about this with the new minister and the new government as soon as they
this would be a matter of priority with a new government already inviting as soon as there is a government;
there are also a number of items that we would like to address by an amendment to trade agreement direct transport repaired goods truck tractors and korea from their point of view are interested in including an investment protection chapter.
the same applies to the adoption of new geographical indications and the further facilitation of customs procedures.
this leads to more economic activity more employment in the eu as well as in korea. i fully agree with the conclusion of the report saying that the fta has and continues to have a positive impact on the socio economic development of the parties.
to this end we need to use all the available channels that we have to insist on the need of progress.
during the first five years of the implementation eu exports increased by forty seven or eur fifteen billion.
also korea increased its export even if it was a little bit more moderate.
and together with the work you have done this gives a good contribution to analyse the results of the first five years. this is as the rapporteur said an economic success story.
i raised this matter with my korean colleague when he was here just before christmas when we had the eu trade committee with korea and i have followed it up in a recent letter.
at the same time i agree that korea needs to do more on trade and sustainable development particularly labour rights.
as you said it has been five years now since the eu korea free trade agreement entered into force so it is very appropriate to evaluate it. we have done an external evaluation;
but the country has been hesitant when it comes to the investment quota system so this makes rapid progress on an amendment package unlikely.
in many other areas the implementation runs smoothly but as you mention further work needs to be done when it comes to sanitary phytosanitary issues as well as intellectual property rights.
the efforts of civil society mechanisms that are established by the free trade agreement as well as the government to government dialogue have considerably raised awareness and pressure and this is a driver for change but it is not enough.
i hear this will happen in june and then i will go to seoul in september for a trade committee meeting that is already planned.
once we know what the new government thinks we can reflect together on the most appropriate way to ensure better implementation of the trade and sustainable development chapter of this agreement.
thank you very much for the work that has been done here by the rapporteur the shadow rapporteurs and the inta committee.
we are in the sixth year of implementation of this agreement and we can see positive tangible results. our overall trade balance has been substantially increasing since starting implementation of this agreement in.
the assessment of this fta is a good opportunity to draw lessons for the future of eu external trade and investment policies through ftas. i think it should be a strong argument for fostering other free trade deals with developing and developed countries in the region.
i welcome the positive outcomes of implementation of the fta with korea.
it shows that trade liberalisation opening markets and building trade partnerships with similar economies bring benefits for both parties.
i think it has been extremely important.
even further we have spoken to member states and i think there is even more potential for using this trade agreement especially by small or medium sized companies.
we must see how we can help member states to reach out to small and medium sized companies to tell them about the possibilities so that they also dare to invest and to engage in this.
however and i do not think there is any disagreement here in this house or in the commission either there are some problems. there are some problems related to the trade agreement when it comes to phytosanitary matters for instance some technical problems and some customs problems that we are trying to address.
we are also as you are very concerned about labour rights and the way that trade union leaders have been treated in korea.
i have raised this personally many times with the former government. we have written letters and we have addressed it in the different fora. i think it is fair that we at least wait for the new government to come into place so that we can have a dialogue with the new minister who will probably come in a couple of weeks to address this and to see if this government is more open to cooperation and more forthcoming when it comes to labour rights.
there are indications that this is the case and as soon as there is a minister i will liaise with him or her and see how we can move forward on this issue.
our own evaluation of this agreement which the commission is doing of these five years will be published by the summer.
i think this will further broaden the picture of five years' experience and it can help us when we go further in negotiations with south korea but also in learning lessons from others.
firstly that free trade agreements do improve trade and they do create jobs here in europe but secondly free trade agreements that have obligations on social environmental standards are only really going to mean anything if those standards can be enforced separately from the wider trade agreement.
if they are simply the obligatory part of the agreement but have no sanctions attached to them they are not going to be effective so what we have to argue for in future trade agreements is that the sustainable development chapter itself should be subject to sanctions.
in addition i want to join with my colleagues to say that we have some hope that the new president president moon of south korea will actually respond to our request.
i know that commissioner barnier has been solid on this issue from the very outset and it is interesting that our colleagues from the united kingdom have left the chamber. could i remark in good faith that sometimes you need to stay in the meeting to make progress and very often some of us have sat for hours in meetings and in chambers to make a point
could i also say to them that the imf not the eu the imf said in two thousand and ten that the rating agencies had contributed to financial instability in the markets and that it recommended that regulators reduce their reliance on credit rating agencies as much as possible and increase their oversight of them.
to get our point heard and to make progress. so please stay in the room.
this is what europe is doing so let us vote on this and hope that it works.
there seems to be a view that everything that the public sector does is bad and everything that the private sector does is good. of course the public sector has made a lot of mistakes but there are very few people who have done as much as commissioner barnier has done to try to put that right in terms of auditing regulation and credit rating agencies. i welcome that.
but when we look at the private sector let us remind ourselves that when lehman brothers and goldman sachs and merrill lynch were partnerships they had to be concerned about reputation.
i remain very concerned that private credit rating agencies can regulate government that is not right.
mrs lulling you are a very great friend of free markets so it is exactly to members like you that i address my issues.
what i support is a piece of work that is looking at detail at the debate and at the options.
please tomorrow morning when this is launched by a large group of conservative thinkers will you give us the benefit of your many years of wisdom and help us see whether some of these problems can be solved with the uk still staying in the single market but recognising that there are differences and that the rules for the euro cannot be cut and pasted across all twenty seven different member states if you want to keep us in the single market.
i think we need to stop making sweeping statements in out with no discussion of the consequences is exactly what feeds the fire of the ukip voter.
then to control who does the work you insist not only on the rotation of credit rating agencies themselves but also on the individual analysts who work and have experience on particular debt and the assets that back them.
and to limit those dates to three times a year.
much of this is actually an attack on free speech.
lord knows i have castigated them in this chamber enough but since two thousand and eight they have improved. they have been honest with the markets about the worthless government debt of greece ireland portugal spain if not yet the united kingdom and the united states.
can you be trusted?
the world is watching you frankly.
finally to control the purpose of providing credit ratings you seek to remove references to and reliance upon ratings both within the workings of government and in private investment funds.
this is so that you will not suffer the embarrassment of a downgrade or negative outlook just before a critical auction of government paper. then to control where the rating agencies work you insist that some of the work is done in the jurisdiction of government debt so that you can intimidate the analysts in the same way that the offices of credit rating agencies have been raided by government bodies in places such as italy.
i fear that we will find ourselves back exactly in the position where we started.
we have agreed on safeguards that will prevent financial instruments from relying solely or too mechanically on credit ratings when they take investment decisions.
the work on reducing over reliance on credit ratings in the european law will continue. the council considers that this new regulation constitutes a very serious step in that direction and in the development of a wider range of alternatives to credit ratings.
transparency regarding structured finance instruments will increase.
this was not adequately addressed under the existing rules and we have therefore agreed to strengthen the independence of cras.
the size of direct and indirect shareholdings in cras will be limited.
in our view the text agreed towards the end of last year constitutes a very good balance.
i am confident that through good cooperation and indeed a spirit of trust and confidence council and parliament can deliver the results which i think europe's citizens expect from their institutions. this afternoon's debate concerns the agreement reached on the credit ratings agency package as you know
unsolicited sovereign ratings will have to be issued in accordance with a calendar and up to three times a year.
competition will be increased in a market which has to date been dominated by a small number of very large cras.
i would also like to thank sharon bowles as chair of the committee on economic and monetary affairs as well as to particularly pay tribute to my cypriot colleagues who have worked hard to bring this dossier to a successful conclusion in november last year. this legislative package will be another step towards better regulation of the financial services industry.
it is also a logical continuation of the work carried out in two thousand and eleven when the credit ratings regulation was first amended in order to bring the credit ratings agencies under the supervision of the european securities and markets authority.
and let me from the outset express our sincere thanks to the rapporteur from whom we have just heard mr domenici and the shadow rapporteurs for the excellent work which they have put into this file.
credit ratings agencies are a very specific sector and this set of amendments to the existing european legislative framework is an important development especially in the current circumstances.
in order to ensure better investor protection we have agreed on a minimum european standard so that where there have been cases of intentional or negligent infringement of the law by cras investors will be entitled to compensation for damages if investment decisions have been negatively influenced as a result.
the agreement reached towards the end of last year contains a number of very important elements firstly there will be a reduction in the role cras play in sovereign risk ratings.
it is the product of hard work by all concerned and an excellent level of cooperation between our two institutions.
for example issuers will be required to engage at least two different credit rating agencies to rate such instruments. furthermore there will be greater disclosure of information about underlying assets and this should increase the number of unsolicited ratings and so increase
where there is a risk of conflict of interest disclosure rules on shareholdings will be enhanced.
this will require us to test the regime of mandatory rotation of agencies initially only affecting a limited range of instruments but with the possibility of extending these to cover a wider range of instruments in due course.
we all know that the issuer pays' model has some flaws and that relationships between the shareholders of credit rating agencies and the rated entities risk creating conflicts of interest.
we have also reduced excessive reliance on credit ratings in the markets.
it is these details that can drive a wedge between a free market trading nation vision of the eu and a sometimes protectionist often inflexible european union.
the current proposal on rating agencies is just another example of why legislation designed by the eurozone should not be cut and pasted into the uk.
this manifesto describes possible changes to the uk's relationship with the eu whilst staying in the single market.
to my colleagues from other countries i say this if you want to use the single currency to turn the single market into a federation then the uk cannot be part of it but if you want to keep the single market as a free market then you should want to keep the uk in. if you want to do that then you need to listen to the reformists when they ask for some renegotiations.
the uk wants international investment and when our rating is threatened we try to improve the credit worthiness not gag the agency.
instead of sweeping generalisations fresh start looks at details and options and i welcome this.
it is the anniversary now of when the uk said they would not join the euro but our future economically is very important and it is linked.
i do not want to leave the single market but if you force us to leave it because you try to put the rules for the euro on the whole of europe then you end up forcing the uk.
if you want to do protectionist measures and i am afraid i view gagging rating agencies and telling them that there are limitations on how often they can issue warnings to the markets as a gag then that should not happen across all twenty seven different countries. it is a little example but yet another example.
i particularly welcome proposals regarding vested interests reducing reliance on ratings and limiting their ratings of sovereigns to three times a year and also civil liberty proposals.
we have allowed the credit rating agencies to oppress our peoples and our governments for too long.
what makes you think that a public agency of the kind that you are outlining would have the confidence of the markets or for that matter the confidence of anybody?
some of those resources are used to finance public expenditure while an increasing share is devoted to servicing debt and paying interest to financial institutions that would now be dead had the states not increased their deficits to save them.
contrary to its normal strategy of centralising and seizing control as much as possible the eu is now proposing that banks and investment firms assess for themselves the credit risk of entities or instruments in which they invest and is asking them not to rely on external ratings.
the report even proposes to take ratings out of the financial regulation and eliminate risk weighting of assets through external rating or internal models.
how this would contribute to making the evaluation of risk independent or avoid conflicts of interests is really a mystery to me.
whether we like it or not these agencies provide an independent view and the fact that some would find that they have become too powerful is no basis for them being muscled out in such a way.
it is as if the eu wants to remove any analytical road blocks that stand in its way.
this is the third piece of legislation we have discussed on credit rating agencies since the crisis.
i hope it will be the last for some time because the commission is still implementing the first two pieces. i sometimes think we are too ready to pass legislation before we have seen the effect of the legislation we have already passed.
let us be clear credit rating agencies have been guilty of bad practice especially in relation to the us subprime crisis but they were not responsible for the current euro crisis.
that was caused by the poor construction of the euro in the first place and bad and unsound economic policies pursued by greeks and other governments.
i sense in this chamber a certain sense by which they want to pass the blame for overspending by national governments onto the credit rating agencies and in that regard i think a european credit ratings agency would be a disaster.
funded by the taxpayer regulated by the commission who in the market would believe a word that it ever said?
there are some small measures in this legislation which are useful.
the measures to increase competition are good the measures to reduce over reliance on ratings are useful and there are also the measures to prevent and deal with conflicts of interests.
but i am afraid that an awful lot of this legislation is legislating for the sake of it and it will not correct the harm which is that too many governments in europe are spending and borrowing too much.
i strongly believe that european action is necessary and that it will once again contribute to positive developments in the overall investment environment.
i think one of the key challenges for us is to rebuild confidence throughout the european economy not just the eurozone but all of the european economy.
i think that the change which is proposed phase three if you like in a three step process or at least three steps so far is needed in the context of the wider objective of securing stronger economic growth and increased financial stability which irrespective of
i do not propose to go through all of the comments and questions because of time limitations and because commissioner barnier has so eloquently addressed a number of them already but there are a number of issues which have arisen repeatedly.
i would very strongly agree with that.
we have come a long way in terms of regulating the financial markets in the last two or three years and as we introduce new measures we have to assess their value and their positive contribution.
a point that we should always remember is that the commission has a really important role in this and i suppose in a sense this connects to the point which was made by mr mitchell which is the value of public bodies public agencies and indeed the eu institutions in this context.
that is extremely important.
citizens are not there to serve the market and that is an important consideration.
when it comes to freedom of speech we talk about responsibilities in terms of upholding reputation and we accept the need for libel and defamation laws and i think the same applies when we talk about the market.
i simply want to say that i would like to thank all members particularly the rapporteur mr domenici and commissioner barnier for the very important and time consuming work that has gone into these negotiations.
secondly it is good to have a clear calendar on the sovereign ratings of the agencies.
it creates certainty for all the stakeholders. however i am disappointed that the rating agencies are not yet required to spend time physically on the location rated. thirdly i support the idea that the commission will produce a report on a public rating agency
they were released two weeks ago because of international pressure and international pressure after seventy two days on hunger strike that is what brought people to heel in relation to the malaki government.
they are entitled to go to bed at night and get up in the morning safe.
they had no option but to go on hunger strike.
mr president while we sit in this chamber having grand debates the hangmen in iran are working overtime.
so she had actually been excused the death penalty but was subsequently hanged.
only this week we have agreed that we will encourage the russians to enrich the nuclear fuel rods on behalf of ahmadinejad in return for his guarantee that he will stop his own nuclear enrichment programme.
but he has not given that guarantee nor has he given open access for inspectors to look at his nuclear facilities.
we are only bolstering the mullahs when we continue this policy of appeasement.
any regime that fails at this most basic responsibility loses its legitimacy in the international community.
current self isolation is leading to destruction in iran and has a toxic impact on neighbouring countries and on the rest of the world.
we cannot stand by and watch minor offenders being hanged people being raped and arbitrary violence wrought upon citizens by their own regime.
we stand here to restate that there cannot and will not be impunity for those guilty of committing crimes against humanity and we will continue to stand with the iranian people as they exercise their right to free speech and peaceful protest for freedom and democracy.
in many eu countries anti corruption laws are not implemented. political will is often lacking. where national politicians or officials are involved in corruption and fraud one should not be naive and expect them to impose strict anti corruption measures and sanctions.
crime. once again corruption costs money and is more expensive than the instruments to fight
the fight against corruption and organised crime must involve strong support including financial support for investigative journalism.
independent investigative reporting is vital in exposing organised crime and corruption within a country or across the world. look at the websites of the investigative dashboard or the rise project and see what valuable work has been done by independent reporters in exposing cross border organised