kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we do not want to run the risk of having to offer results prematurely and thus falling short of expectations.
however until only a few months ago the eu's efforts in this regard were largely ignored or discredited either because the eu was perceived as doing too little or because it was seen as doing too much.
i am happy to be here today to listen to your views.
this should serve to fuel our prospects and indeed give us an impetus to work even more eagerly towards our goals.
so for instance the white paper on globalisation provides perspectives for a debate on trade or on globalisation at the next european council.
one with effective and democratic institutions one in which we pursue our genuine goal of improving the life and prosperity of our citizens not just for the lucky few but across all of our society.
at their informal meeting in bratislava last september leaders set out a concrete roadmap with specific measures to address the most pressing concerns for citizens.
i understand that along with the commission you will be hosting a series of future of europe debates across europe.
this included tackling as a matter of urgency issues relating to migration terrorism and economic and social insecurity.
as for the council and the european council as you know leaders already began an honest reflection exercise after the uk referendum vote to leave the eu.
the title of this debate paints the picture of an eu which appeals to us all one in which our values are placed at centre stage.
looking forward in relation to the white paper process the council is taking careful note of the commission's follow up papers and is ensuring that they provide a valuable contribution to our discussions.
however only with a common vision of the eu's future can we collectively pursue these common goals.
the council and the european council will continue to focus on achieving concrete results demonstrating that added value of the eu in very practical terms. in that spirit the future of europe debates will provide further impetus for the council to deliver on various key policies
i would just like to say one word on the concrete result of this process.
this is indeed a time of deep reflection for all of us on the future of the eu.
it has focused largely on delivering tangible results and delivering on its promises.
it cannot come up with revolutionary designs if it does not have their support and backing.
it requires time and building trust neither of which can be rapidly glossed over.
but in recent months there seems to have been a shift in perception of the eu rather than being considered as the source of many of our woes the eu is seen as part of the solution.
the rome agenda that resulted from this is a clear pledge to pursue our most important objectives over the next ten years.
they need to feel that they are being heard and that their views matter.
this may be because as the world around us changes the alternative options to the eu are slowly losing their shine.
i also commend you the european parliament for your constant efforts to ensure that the views of citizens are safeguarded and upheld.
in exploring avenues for the eu to take in the future we should perhaps bear in mind two things one that the eu cannot swiftly resolve all problems as if by magic; and two that we have to balance our ideas with some practical constraints.
these may sometimes limit us in our ambitions.
we need a social eu based on democracy human rights and national progressive sovereignty;
the last thing we need i believe is more integration with eu funds skewed towards military research.
people do want more participation more solidarity and more democracy not guns and corporate bail outs.
the north of ireland voted against brexit but our democratic vote has been ignored despite an international agreement a good friday agreement that is lodged at the united nations and which must be protected in all of its parts.
sinn fin believe that ireland north and south belongs in europe but we want a europe of equals a europe that will cherish all the children of the nation equally and where no one will be ignored.
you could do yourself a great service if many people here have not already done so by reading and perhaps adopting the irish proclamation.
she also dismissed the solutions offered by nationalists extremists and xenophobes but then the question remains why do so many europeans still feel attracted to these political movements?
i maintain that these political movements have assured quite strong support in the european union and will probably continue to get quite strong support unless we address the reasons why they feel attracted to these movements.
i believe many of our citizens are worried because they fear a loss of position.
they are worried because they see global developments in terms of peace and security where they do not feel empowered enough to stand up for their values and their way of life.
so i think that if we want to rekindle the feeling for our fundamental values we need to do something about these fears and the commission's starting point is that we can only do something about these fears if we stand together as europeans.
so rekindling our values starts with advocating european approaches to european problems european approaches to global problems and with making clear to our citizens that we can only do this if we stick together. this is difficult at a time where identity politics roam across europe.
this is difficult at a time when the other is presented as an adversary and as somebody who is out there to take away what you have.
they start from their values.
this is the tripod upon which our european cooperation is built and modernising that in the fourth industrial revolution to show that we can create a society where diversity creates more ambition with people creates more opportunity for people and recreates the economy in the fourth industrial revolution
is the way forward for europe.
but it will only happen if it is done on the basis of our values.
that is the basis for the white paper the commission has written.
that is the basis for all the analyses we have written and we put them on the table as a starting point for debate with parliament but also with the member states in the hope that the members of the council will use the paper to have a debate in their member states about where europe needs to go in the future.
let me end on this.
we have seen a sort of moment of awakening of a new generation in europe.
we saw it in the british election the other day we have seen it in the french election in many ways and we see it in the women's marches in the united states and across europe.
because we understand now that although our values are clear and eternal and cannot be questioned they can be destroyed.
the fact that we have now discovered is that although our values are clear and are the basis of our cooperation we now see that across the world these values are not unbreakable but need maintenance and that if you want these values to survive you need to stand up for them.
you need to speak out for them. that is what i saw in recent elections.
this is no longer about left or right.
this is about whether you choose an open society with room for everyone where no one is left behind or you fall into the trap of thinking that your brother is your enemy. europe should be for an open society where everybody counts and no one is left behind.
that public broadcasters should be able to use the opportunities offered by digitisation and the diversification of distribution platforms in line with the principle of technological neutrality.
madam president the commission welcomes the european parliament's report entitled public service broadcasting in the digital era the future of the dual system'.
we have some comments on two elements of the report in particular.
public service broadcasters should be at the forefront of innovation driving the development of new formats and quality as regards both the programme itself and technically if they are to keep up with trends and challenges from elsewhere. it seems that we fully agree on these points and i look forward to cooperating with parliament on these issues within the legal framework provided by the treaties.
this is not supported by figures from the commission's recent report on the application of the directive's provisions.
first regarding monitoring the council of europe standards there is no eu responsibility for the political independence of public service media.
second the report suggests that certain member states have failed to take any action in promoting european works in broadcasting.
this was acknowledged in the revised communication from the commission of two thousand and nine on the application of state aid rules to public service broadcasting.
the protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the member states annexed to the eu treaties recognises the member states' freedom to define the public service remit to organise public service broadcasting and its funding as long as such funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the community.
could this sole trader who in today's economic climate is struggling afford to pay this indirect tax and indeed would he and his wife want this extra burden? if they didn't see it as a benefit would they just not pay the contributions after all no one really knows she is helping her husband and is this not what married people do help each other?
this poor guy will be skinned in the courts by his wife for not paying the contributions.
i have studied ms lulling's amendments and feel that she has made a valiant effort to improve what was originally a heavy handed report on self employment.
one reason for this rise is that employment opportunities are fewer these days so people look towards starting their own work.
i believe that this work is best left to national governments who are best geared to evaluate the needs of their citizens as indeed the report says. i support ms lulling's recommendations that the national systems should recognise the importance of protecting self employed workers and we should stand against all forms of discrimination but i am still not convinced that this house is best placed to work on employment matters.
the number of self employed workers in the united kingdom has risen to.
however i am still concerned about legislation in matters of employment being made in brussels.
interesting times and an interesting side effect to our report.
should the state not in these circumstances support their effort?
the aim of the report is admirable and supports the principle of equal treatment for self employed women and men workers and their spouses.
for argument's sake let us say his wife would be helping him in the evenings with the paperwork and answering the phone from home.
would he be expected to pay social contributions to cover his spouse thus enabling her to qualify for maternity leave if needed?
i am looking forward to hearing from commissioner bulc on the subject.
the commission is expected to describe current national law and practices as well as its action in this area and provide some guidance for member states.
for this reason when defining national legislation each member state should not only take into account international and union law but also the essence of eu citizenship and its inherent value.
it invited all member states to act in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation and respect the limits set out by the court of justice when granting or removing nationality.
the european union the european parliament the council and the commission have already expressed their views about these developments. in your resolution of sixteen january two thousand and fourteen on eu citizenship for sale you called on member states to recognise and live up to the responsibilities they hold in safeguarding the values and objectives of the union.
it is also very relevant that the commission announced its intention to produce a report on national schemes granting eu citizenship to investors.
this report could help us to have a better overview and understanding about existing practices. it will also help the council to revert to this issue if necessary.
member states are solely responsible for defining the applicable rules in this area but because of the rights conferred by eu citizenship we all care.
third country nationals who benefit from a citizenship
the golden visa programmes matter because they might offer the possibility of misuse or are sometimes perceived as potentially weakening the fight against corruption in the european union and its neighbouring countries.
the eu must ensure that residency and citizenship by investment schemes do not undermine the eu core values of freedom security and justice nor threaten the principle of sincere cooperation between the member states.
most systems for obtaining golden visas lack transparency and accountability especially in the decisionmaking process. lack of control risks potential money laundering practices and links to criminal financing for such investments.
golden visa programmes are not exclusively a national matter but an eu matter too. we talk about the safety of the schengen area and our citizens.
our governments should treat all applicants equally and fairly.
otherwise we are opening ourselves up to the charge of being accomplices to money laundering slave labour;
in two thousand and seventeen the uk granted three hundred and fifty five of these visas. the majority of them were chinese or russian nationals.
given the present geo political situation we have to look at whether this selling england by the pound is really in the national interest or fairness to other applicants. the absolute minimum any responsible government selling a phrase by the way which just sounds wrong visas is to fully investigate where this money came from. surely it's incumbent upon any nation state to ensure that applicants are people of high moral character?
if one member state does not apply the necessary security and criminality checks then this can affect all of us.
it covers issues that go to the core of eu values of eu citizenship and of the duty of sincere cooperation inside our union.
while it is for each member state to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of its nationality this must be done in full respect of union law.
thanks to the efforts of parliament the new anti money laundering directive includes a specific provision addressing the need for better screening of applicants to national schemes for granting long term residence or citizenship to investors.
the commission now expects all member states to comply with the new rules as soon as possible and will monitor the implementation of the directive.
they do not entitle the holder to reside outside the issuing member state and the short term travel possibilities are limited to up to ninety days in any one hundred and eighty day period in line with schengen rules.
member states are competent to set the procedures and conditions of entry and stay for third country nationals who wish to invest in the country and stay for longer than ninety days.
the results should be made available in the second half of.
all member states are subject to an ongoing assessment of their general anti corruption policy landscape and anti corruption efforts.
in the two thousand and seventeen eu citizenship report the commission announced that it would publish a report on national schemes granting eu citizenship to investors in two thousand and eighteen and we will do so in autumn. as regards golden visas in the absence of harmonisation at eu level the commission has
i know that many of you are concerned about the possible link between citizenship for sale golden visa schemes and money laundering.
the commission has no competence to intervene directly on allegations of fraud or criminal activities except in cases where the eu budget is affected. member states must diligently conduct those investigations including by applying the provisions of eu law on the prevention of the use of the union financial system for the purpose of laundering money.
as i have already set out while the commission has no competence to intervene directly on allegations of fraud or criminal activities we expect national authorities be they law enforcement or judicial bodies to tackle this vigorously.
these schemes indeed may be a factor that facilitates the injection of illicit money into the licit economy of the member state.
two thousand and eighteen where allegations of fraud and criminal activities arise it is for the national competent authorities to investigate be they law enforcement authorities or judicial authorities.
national anti corruption policies are monitored at eu level. in the framework of the european semester the commission is closely following the functioning of the member states' judicial systems their fight against money laundering and their fight against corruption.
the issue is however being analysed in the context of the commission's fitness check of the legal migration legislation.
in march two thousand and eighteen corruption was indeed identified in several countries.
with these points in mind i can assure you that the commission is closely monitoring citizenship investor schemes in the eu and their applicants.
the effects of such residence permits are largely confined in the granting member state.
no competence on the issuing of residence permits or long stay visas for investors.
this specific provision requires all obliged entities including banks members of the professions or wealth managers to pay close attention and perform enhanced due diligence checks when they are dealing with a third country national who applies for residence rights or citizenship in exchange for capital transfer purchase of property or government bonds or investment in corporate entities in that member state.
the commission takes seriously the need to safeguard the essence of eu citizenship.
mr president i would like to thank you for tabling this debate today.
it is for member states to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to counter security risks.
and we do need the european commission to bring forward legislative proposals because i don't want to hear anymore we have no competence'.
and this is a very serious matter because there are people here who buy passports not on the black market but legally from governments.
because while we are very busy building fortress europe' for people who want to come here to work we're actually rolling out the red carpet for certain other people who want to come here get residency permits and citizenship for themselves and for their family.
i don't even need to mention what's going on in moscowonthames where russian oligarchs are bumping each other off apparently but we've also seen that there is a very real risk for people who are investigating this like the journalist daphne caruana galizia and also like whistleblowers who are exposing these practices because let's be honest this is just a big scam.
we need harmonised standards for the screening procedures.
if you're an eu citizen affected by brexit for example because you happen to live in a country that you do not have the citizenship of then you're in big difficulty but if you're a russian oligarch or a chinese oligarch then you're fine if you have money.
so the argument that this is a national competence to cover up criminal activities is simply not good enough anymore.
we also need more transparency from the member states because it's just not acceptable anymore with everything that's going on that member states are saying oh no this is a national matter we're not giving out any information on this'.
our citizens don't care about national competence or eu competence.
i'm very curious to hear from the european commission because you say you are closely monitoring the situation and there will be a report in full but i really would like to hear a little bit more about it because it's become a very very urgent matter since the situation in malta last year.
we need to stop applying double standards.
but if you look at the back door there's one big weak spot and that's the screening of the applicants because we know that we are dealing with countries of origin which are known for their corrupt systems.
we need harmonised rules.
this is about people coming into our european union getting eu citizenship benefiting from all the rights that eu citizens and eu residents have.
this is not just about state facilitated corruption and moneylaundering and i repeat that state facilitated corruption and moneylaundering as that's what we're talking about but we're also talking about importing a security risk.
but finally i also think that we need to stop applying double standards because as i already mentioned people who want to come to the european union to work are treated like criminals and those who want to come here and park their criminal money are received like kings.
they want to know that eu citizenship is for eu citizens and not for criminals.
you know you're legislating in all sorts of areas concluding agreements where there is no legal basis either.
mr president it is not an accident that various golden visa schemes in the eu have been surrounded by corruption scandals.
golden visa schemes in the eu are designed to facilitate money laundering they actually invite it.
they allow dirty money to be entered into a clean economy often through real estate with minimal checks.
the basic fact that explains why the existing due diligence procedures for the ultra rich applicants are failing so badly is because they are not designed to work.
so we urgently need strict and enforceable due diligence procedures to determine the origin of the money flowing into the eu through these schemes.
selling citizenship to the highest bidder when millions of refugees in need are being turned away at the gates of the eu is the scandal of our time.
firstly golden visas should be restricted to granting residence status to foreign investors but they should not automatically offer citizenship.
mr president the golden visa programme is operated in a significant number of european member states and quite frankly shame on them for actually being in a position and even feeling they have got the right to offer that.
a number of my colleagues have kept on about russia and china but what about some of the countries on the european continent that are seeking membership of this european union such as albania?
we have had stories in the united kingdom of individuals there using the golden visa programme who are known criminals already guilty of corruption and other awful crimes against humanity and yet they are making use of this particular system.
it allows these individuals once they are inside the european union with their golden visa to go where the hell they want and export their criminality and other actions of ill repute everywhere and anywhere.
this whole process needs fundamental reform and this report does not include any seemingly reasonable or justifiable ideas or concepts as to how to address the problems.
for a few hundred thousand euros you can become a citizen of an eu member state.
new zealand born billionaire christopher chandler bought eu citizenship from malta while british citizens are losing theirs thanks to the brexit campaign backed by his legatum institute.
when putin's mate oleg deripaska found eu sanctions too hot to handle he found an easy way out.
he paid to become a cypriot and was free to do business as a european citizen. the global kleptocrats disdain national governments.
when those governments sell them the precious rights of citizenship they are undermining the rule of law.
both malta and britain have come to regret inviting such people into their countries.
selling freedom of movement to the wealthy may seem attractive but in terms of social cohesion and public safety the price may be higher than you thought.
however we are going to have to do some work in member states to convince the public to deal with their household waste in a way that separates what can be recycled from other waste streams.