kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
specific initiatives need to be established so that we retain existing research talent and attract young promising talent.
helping out the lowerperforming member states when it comes to research and innovation is a matter of shared responsibility and ownership and it is imperative that the eu take substantive action.
and whether it's foreign or domestic meddling or profit driven we need to be vigilant. of course we see the ad hoc efforts that the tech platforms are promising like youtube facebook google or twitter but without independent oversight over algorithms we outsource our responsibility because without algorithmic accountability and research
no one can say for sure what the impact of technology use is on our democracy and that is unacceptable.
we must act now.
for example the us department of housing has filed a case against facebook because the platform allows for the selling of ads in a way that likely discriminates.
so let us begin by ensuring that what is not allowed offline isn't allowed online either.
but in order to deliver on that promise we need to investigate the collection of data and the practices of micro targeting ads and conduct stress tests on election technology.
we have no time to lose. but lastly and this is an appeal to everyone in this room and in this chamber all political parties of europe we need to take our own responsibility.
so i call on colleagues and fellow candidates for the european parliament elections to all sign the election pledge on electionpledge.
eu because we must all stand for the very principles that are at stake through election meddling and take our own responsibility.
the introduction of more tailored rules for smaller non systemic investment firms will also improve transparency and level the playing field.
of course we have to remember that the flow of investment and saving across the eu is facilitated by investment firms. this is why the adoption of enhanced and tailored supervisory rules to better accommodate the business model of investment firms is important.
the external action service came before our committee recently to talk about those coping strategies and i really want to ask her along with my colleague ms spinelli how we are going to do this now with the extension of operation sophia without the support of naval assets and other issues.
but the risk of thousands of refugees and migrants who remain trapped in detention in the qasr bin ghashir detention centre and the communications we are all receiving having visited libya indicates that this is a crisis which will only get greater during this very politically tense period.
in a mad rush to conclude legislation at any cost we've abandoned our commitment to the parliament text on this directive.
we had clear wording to exclude the selfemployed from the directive but this was watered down to a little recital not legally binding. how can the epp support that?
how can the s d support a text which still allows the abuse of pilots in the paytofly for training? across the political spectrum we agreed that workers' rights and workers' safety should be protected whether you work for a large company or a small company whether you work in the public sector or the private sector.
but the trilogue text exempts civil servants it exempts firefighters emergency services police authorities judges and prosecutors it undermines the political message and it allows member states to exempt themselves.
when i received my portfolio on employment social affairs skills and labour mobility i knew that labour mobility would not be the easiest area.
i am therefore very happy that after the division of the posting of workers directive you are now asked to vote on this regulation which is another milestone for ensuring fair labour mobility in europe.
the millions of citizens for whom labour mobility is a daily reality an opportunity or sometimes a bare necessity merit to benefit from updated rules as soon as possible.
free movement has always been a founding principle for our european union and it has remained so even more today.
the economies and labour markets of our member states have become deeply intertwined.
these guiding principles allowed us to obtain legislative reforms supported by east and west and north and south and these principles also underpin the regulation establishing the european labour authority.
i agree with my colleague kouloglou that indeed this is a political body and we are entitled to make a political judgment and we are doing that saying that there should be no extradition to the us.
also this provisional agreement will increase transparency and will strengthen consumer confidence.
i also want to mention or reply to some of the comments concerning the products sold on our market.
all the products sold on the internal market on the european market have to fulfil the european food safety criteria no matter where they come from.
so once more thank you very much for your engagement on this very important topic.
the risk reduction measures proposed will improve conditions for investment in goods and services and strengthen the resilience of eu banks.
i am supportive of more flexible lending conditions for small and medium enterprises supporting their growth by treating smaller banks in a proportionate way.
i support the focus placed here on risk sensitivity.
i am sure that this is something we have to confront very seriously because this is indeed a practice that undermines the trust of european citizens in the european union.
i would like to tell you commissioner that i think that the exchange of information or exchanging good practices is ok but still this is not sufficient.
i think we all should take it very seriously because otherwise this is going to be a threat to the unity and integrity of the european union.
mr president i am delighted to support this report.
labour meps alongside our socialist and democrat colleagues have fought tooth and nail for these new rules that will improve conditions and give new rights to millions of workers on insecure zerohours contracts and working in the gig economy.
i am sick and tired of hearing from people who work hard but don't know from one week to the next whether they will be able to afford to pay the bills.
an end to work cancelled at the last minute without compensation.
what colleagues are advocating is that the british government intervenes in the judicial process in england.
mr president there comes a moment when you realise you're one of the longest serving members in this chamber.
i'm old enough to remember the tillack affair when a german journalist was arrested had his notebooks his private papers rifled through because he had been exposing fraud in the anti fraud authorities. nobody by the way rifled through the private papers of the alleged fraudsters.
i'm old enough to remember the marta andreasen affair when an accountant was brought in to clean up the commission's accounts discovered that in some cases they weren't even using double entry bookkeeping and the reaction in the commission was to fire her. why does this happen?
well of course all organisations become interested in protecting their own position.
that's human nature;
it's not exclusive to brussels institutions.
but i think it is exacerbated by the intimidating fervour the almost religious belief that people have in the european project that makes them think that the ends justify the means and that critics can be legitimately silenced.
tackle that and you'd solve a great many problems.
mr cameron when you come back from this brussels summit why do you not accept my challenge and let us have a proper full debate on britain and whether it is worth staying a member of this union or not.
and that actually is the very best that he can achieve in these negotiations.
if this was a company the directors in this case the commission would all be in prison.
i think the british public are angry at the fleets of chauffeur driven cars at the extravagant buildings and the never ending travelling circus that is the european parliament.
no i am not making it up.
give performances such as the brilliant smelly foot dance with an acoustic score that includes some spectacular belching'.
no longer do we wish to pay money to hungarian companies involved in projects that improve the lifestyle and living standards of dogs.
mr president prime minister cameron heads to brussels tomorrow i think on mission impossible' but it is a remarkable debate in that the european union is talking about taking another trillion euros from european taxpayers despite the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for eighteen years in a row.
we pay gbp fifty three million a day to be a member of this organisation for no benefit whatsoever.
the last opinion polls over the weekend show that by a majority of two to one the british people now want us to leave this union and not to pay you a penny piece.
two years ago six member states signed the same letter as he did looking for a budget freeze and it is now of course only the socialists the uk socialists who are calling for a budget cut.
mr cameron's position is still for a budget freeze if he can achieve it.
when you cut out the waste when you cut out the fraud when you cut out the irregular payments when you cut out the errors in the budget then come back to us and ask for more money.
this union if it wants to become a real federal union needs own resources;
in two thousand and twelve no attendance.
mff. the draft conclusions do not contain options. this parliament has consistently sought to maintain the level of expenditure originally proposed by the commission.
even if on a personal basis i may regret that this has not proved possible we must all be realistic.
it is not therefore proposed to reduce the flexibility instrument.
we all know how important it is to get the eu's future financial framework right.
the whole day tomorrow will be taken up with bilaterals between the presidents of the european council and of the european commission with all heads of state or government of member states to test out the likely basis on which a compromise can be
we live at a time of severe constraint as a result of the need for fiscal consolidation. the negotiations on the european budget cannot take place in complete isolation from this reality however uncomfortable that is. we need to cement together fiscal consolidation with investment in growth and jobs through an unavoidably tight mff which is our main investment
to reach a compromise we have to go below the commission proposal.
table. last but not least a reform of the system of corrections is proposed in order to make them more transparent and fair within the limits of what seems to be achievable.
europe has been through one of the most severe crises and despite significant efforts at both national and eu level the effects of this crisis will continue to be felt for some
end up. the conclusions put forward by the president of the european council contain cuts across all headings. as regards instruments outside the mff and flexibility the president has been guided by the principle that lower ceilings require greater flexibility in a seven year framework.
certainly we should not lower the level of ambition in a way which would deprive us of the means to move forward together honouring our values quality of life social cohesion a redefinition of the notion of modernity and what kind of competitiveness we want;
what we need is just more persuasion. this is the only
it is a difficult and painful situation. let us credit each other with good intentions.
we will not change.
we will continue to have the same ethical approach assuming fully our responsibility with modesty yet ambition;
please be conscious that when member states contributing more than two thirds of the budget and representing more than half of the eu population are asking for reductions we cannot just ignore them.
i know it is only by working together that we will deliver a good and sustainable budget for the union.
what kind of society we want;
against the background of new devastating research on the effects of climate change no member state is big enough to mitigate climate change on its own.
this is a fight over the european model and the future of europe.
we must do it together and the european union is the major global actor in this field.
mr president this debate is not really about money.
how can we respect our commitment to funding the millennium development goals if not through the eu budget?
who will provide the contribution to the innovative financial instruments including project bonds for funding investments?
the ones who can pay if they feel that the union is worth defending.
so this is not about money;
it has been falling as a proportion of the member states' economies for years and contrary to what mr callanan and mr farage believe the main criticism from the court of auditors is not against the european institutions but on how eu money is handled by member states.
the member states who fight for cuts are the strongest ones;
i mean with all the restrictions on national budgets on banks and financial institutions only the european union can do it.
who will fund the completion of the single market including a modern cross border transport energy and digital infrastructure if not the eu budget? who will start breaking the vicious circle of austerity if we do not do it together?
it is obvious that member states under pressure will not even fulfil their commitments to allocate.
it is about creating a european added value and the basic idea that the growth we are striving for is not just any growth but is based on the principle of economic social and environmental sustainability is about green jobs and smart and inclusive growth.
these are fundamental things which will not be funded without the european union.
we need the european union for that.
the reason why we social democrats together with a huge majority of parliament defend the budget even in times of crisis is that the budget is the most significant expression of our fundamental policies.
even if some of us do not like common agricultural policies we must ask who will finance the greening of agriculture and the greening of fisheries and the more sustainable development of those policies if we do not do it together?
they reflect the tough economic times our constituents are facing on a daily basis and they could be the basis of an agreement.
can i say to them i think you need to be careful who you climb into bed with?
we are introducing the possibility of net corrections so i believe that we should also increase the discipline in how the money is spent.
i had a discussion on this yesterday with my british friends.
the budgets in twenty two member states are actually growing. if we look at budget developments over the longer period from two thousand to two thousand and eleven only two member states have slower growing budgets than the eu budget.
therefore i think we have to keep the figures in proportion.
one department in the uk the department for public works and pensions is three times bigger than the whole commission with ninety eight zero people.
firstly the notion that national budgets are being cut.
instead every year we are asked to top up the same old budget lines.
well we all know where we stand today. budgeting is not a field where the eu can claim success.
no they have not.
we are paying for farmers not to grow food although the market is there.
why are we putting more money into agricultural funding that amounts at present to over forty per cent of the budget?
mr president what has happened with eu budget investment in the last seven years?
the eu budget for the two thousand and fourteen two thousand and twenty period should be reduced drastically to allow member states to decide where they want to put their taxpayers' money.
to meet your demands for more spending virtually every contributing member state is going to have to borrow that extra money.
it just spends the money that it has very very badly.
what is he saying now?
i agree with the proposals put forward by our previous socialist government that cohesion policy should be repatriated to the richer member states and that money only be used to fund the poorer member states who deserve that spending.
instead of demanding yet more money why not take the time to go through the existing budget line by line asking yourself whether this item of expenditure really results in more economic growth in europe?
that is the great socialist hero that you tell us is setting an example for the rest of europe to follow.
let us ask about some of the existing projects.
he fought an election remember that?
it is ridiculous that forty per cent of current structural and cohesion funding goes to the eu's richest countries.
even some of the socialists i am pleased to say are starting to see the light.
i think that enlargement has been one of the eu's great success stories.
what about the new ecb building in frankfurt that cost several hundred million euros?
they voted in the house of commons for a cut.
it is completely unsustainable it is unhelpful and many member states will not stand for it.
nobody seriously believes that it is.
they are going to have to cut their public expenditure in order to send more money to the eu.
i believe that a better budget not just a bigger budget is still achievable in the summit this week.
mr barroso how can you insist and how can the rest of you insist that we need more spending and more money at an eu level?
the uk socialists actually want a cut in the budget not just a freeze which is mr cameron's position.
i think that we have to accept that it will cost more money to support those member states whose infrastructure was neglected in their communist past.
can you seriously in all good conscience ask those member states to borrow that extra money to make cuts at home so that we can all spend more money here in europe?
how is that going to contribute to more growth in greece?
and what about your great latter day socialist hero president hollande?
the way to do that is through budgetary reform so that cohesion policy is limited to helping those countries that need it most.
if that money was accounted for properly if the commission got its expenditure controls in place then that would take up almost all of the increase that you are all asking for.
is that all money well spent? how has doubling the number of eu agencies in the last eight years affected growth across europe?
countries like my own should be freed to support our poor regions ourselves without funnelling the money through the inefficient mechanism of the eu budget.
let us be quite clear about this.
he said last week that we must be ready to do better by spending less'.
we reject the knee jerk response of most of the people in this chamber that the solution to every problem that we have in member states is somehow more europe'.
what about the six per cent of the budget that is for administration costs?
if it was perhaps on this side of the house we might support more bits of it because nobody actually believes that it is an investment budget.
one the european budget is smaller than the budget of smaller member states like belgium or austria.
secondly in the united states the federal budget is twenty four of gdp.
a strong european budget is the only way to overcome the budgetary problems of the member states pooling money at european level instead of wasting money at the national level.
it is a good starting point but it cannot be the endgame for the future if we want to really tackle the problems.
the daily contribution of citizens to the european budget is sixty seven cents a day; that is less than a cup of coffee or for mr callanan less than a cup of tea.
finally cuts in the european budget are seen in many of our member states and certainly in britain as the way to solve their budgetary problems.
we saw it with the irish nationalists in the nineteenth century.
indeed sinn fein run for elections to the uk parliament and the scottish national party sit in the uk parliament. we came here because we felt that the british public were not being told what was happening in europe and how much it was costing.
maybe she can send it to me later.
i noticed you did not address the fundamental point that i made the socialists in the uk are in favour of a cut in the eu budget. incidentally the one green mp that we have in our country a member who used to sit in their group voted for a cut in the european budget as well.
it is hypocritical to talk about growth and at the same time target these guaranteed growth funds.
of course parliament reserves this right provided for in the treaties if governments have abandoned any consideration of the common good fenced behind respective national interests.
as for the government of the united kingdom the question is this.
will they opt out with grace for themselves or take all of us down with them?
it is politically impossible to argue to eu citizens under pressure and losing their jobs that the eu budget should rise.
but there must be more flexibility better targeting of spending for innovation and growth rather than farm subsidies and a mid term review when hopefully economies are doing better.
is it spending money on the right things and the right recipients?
fellow nationals of a member state have a sufficiently shared identity to regard the pooling of resources and support as perfectly justifiable.
it means prioritising spending on areas strengthening innovation jobs and growth and ensuring we tackle the blight of unemployment across europe particularly for our young people.
we have a tragedy unfolding and we must act to give them hope for the future.
all that achieves is frustration and a lack of credibility even amongst our friends undermining our position in europe and ultimately damaging not just those alliances but the british interest too.
is that really what david cameron wants?
does he really want to relegate britain to the second division?
well if that is what he wants he has almost achieved it; and for what?
of course he does not but rather he is fearful of taking on those in his party who would head us to the exit door.
we can only make the changes we want by being at the table playing a full part in decision making and working with others to achieve our aims.
talk about hypocrisy.
mr president what we have seen this morning from the commission and parliament is a passionate defence of high salaries index linked pensions chauffeur driven cars and a lifestyle that none of you would actually enjoy out there in the real competitive world.
it is the status quo convincing itself that it you are doing a good job despite the fact that the public increasingly doubt you. i would remind you that every time taxpayers' money is thrown at common european projects the results are less than a success.
the common fisheries policy and its environmental degradation and now of course the euro are not just an economic but a social disaster which is engulfing the mediterranean and it is all based on flawed thinking that the state if it has power and money can create wealth.
the dead hand of bureaucracy is destroying innovation and destroying jobs in europe.
however if people in various member states are suffering because of those programmes it seems a contradiction that a supranational body of which their country is a member should be asking for an increase in spending.
it seems a contradiction that is if the country is a net contributor.
the uk might achieve a freeze on spending but still increase its net contribution.
the british rebate is not money paid into a begging bowl held by a richer than average and therefore undeserving country;
they don't get a wider choice of products or lower prices through economies of scale that the single market should give them.
these are europeans blocking other europeans;
now we don't need new legislation.
so it is not a nontariff barrier if an action is proportionate nondiscriminatory and serves a legitimate public policy objective.
now i believe in competition and i believe in different economic and regulatory models in eu countries is a good thing as it allows countries to have competitive advantages.
why are british kit cars with type approvals not allowed to be sold in belgium for example?