kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
madam president please pass on my thanks to the rapporteur for his work. i know that mr skinner would like to see a coherent cross border framework for consumer protection insurance and i thank him for balancing this with much member state discretion and respecting subsidiarity.
however i will not vote for his report.
the cost of insurance is rising in many countries and in many sectors.
we do risk insurance becoming simply unaffordable especially for those on lower incomes and too often the commission will bring forward legislation that adds costs but has little real benefit.
i want to wait and see what the commission's proposals are in this area before making a judgement.
fundamentally what is the benefit of offering additional consumer protection for insurance products if we leave behind a raft of consumers who cannot afford to buy insurance products in the first place?
the european union and new zealand are like minded partners and consequently we coordinate closely on a number of international issues.
in parallel political dialogue with new zealand has been intensifying and there has been an ever increasing number of political contacts over the past years.
i believe this report gives an excellent overview of the relationships and relations between the european union and new zealand and is a very good background to inform today's vote in this parliament on consent to the conclusion of the agreement.
we already have dynamic economic relationships and we look forward to expanding our trade links further.
we also have shared interests in tackling key global challenges such as climate change sustainable development and preserving the environment in addition to humanitarian aid and the fight against terrorism to name just these.
we share the same views on many global issues and approach these issues in a similar way.
these sensitivities are fully reflected in the european union's trade negotiation strategy for the free trade agreement. the draft directives for negotiating the fta were published by the commission in september this year and the discussions in the council are ongoing.
our partnership and cooperation agreement with new zealand upgrades our relationship to make it fit for the twenty first century.
we support democracy the rule of law and human rights and are active players in multilateral organisations such as the united nations and the world trade organization.
as regards the economy we have a shared interest in launching our free trade agreement and these negotiations should be launched as soon as possible.
we also have very good development cooperation especially in the pacific which focuses mostly on clean energy and climate change related projects.
ii and that the united kingdom has been held back in freely trading and cooperating with its old commonwealth partners such as canada australia and new zealand.
this is a great pity for my country and certainly can illustrate the increasing success that the european union is achieving now in negotiating and signing ambitious political and free trade agreements with democratic countries and economic blocs in the asia pacific region and in the wider globe.
the report's passage through the committee stage and the parliament has also been very smooth and whilst this is largely due to the widespread support that exists for greater cooperation with new zealand in everything from fighting terrorism to mitigating climate change clearly it shows that new zealand really is close to us in many ways.
mr president as we wind up the debate i would first like to thank the commissioner and the shadow rapporteurs across parliament who have all been very supportive throughout the process.
as i set out in my earlier speech and has been echoed throughout the house this agreement is welcome and therefore something we can be proud of. as a brit however i have to admit that this is a bittersweet moment given my country's impending exit from the european union. there are those in britain and in this house sadly that still believe in a british empire mk.
the truth is that britain will now have to renegotiate from scratch on a bilateral basis political agreements such as this and future ftas which by the time of brexit in two thousand and nineteen will have already been concluded for the eu.
new zealand has recognised this at ministerial level and the scoping paper reflects the high level of ambition that we can pursue on geographical indications which is providing a good starting point for the actual negotiations.
in relation to specific issues of trade and agriculture and trade generally the broader geopolitical considerations are important for a like minded partner in the oceania pacific region.
i hope that we will be able to continue the high standards for food that we have become accustomed to in free trade agreements in the european union and we will not lower our standards to what has been advocated in the marketplace in the context of any free trade agreement by secretary fox.
new zealand together with australia is among the fastest growing developed economies.
i greatly appreciate the discussion and your interest in the european union new zealand partnership agreement on relations and cooperation.
new zealand is one of the eu's closest partners a country with which we share common values and interests.
this emphasis on combating climate change supporting sustainable development and protecting biodiversity is very clear throughout the parc and i strongly support this.
indeed it was at the sidelines of a brussels meeting concerning afghanistan that the parc agreement was signed back in october of last year.
to conclude i believe that the signing of parc is not only a positive development in ties between the new zealand authorities and government and the european union but it is part of a wider development and success story of the eu itself where we see it working effectively to secure agreements with third countries both in terms of political cooperation but also for trade.
its contribution following the fpa to the eu's highly successful eu navfor atlanta which was commanded from my own constituency in london has been well received and we look forward to setting and seeing more cooperation of this kind in future.
it is also doing so with australia and japan in the next year or so.
i am pleased as rapporteur that we have been able to include a resolution alongside our consent motion which allows us the opportunity to reaffirm our support for the agreement and to express our strong solidarity with new zealand as a country.
this morning's debate is a chance for this parliament to demonstrate the strong support for new zealand that exists across the entire political spectrum as was illustrated only too clearly by the overwhelming vote in favour of these motions in the committee on foreign affairs.
therefore i look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
these areas include fighting terrorism and organised crime aiding global development working together at the multilateral level and combating climate change and supporting sustainable development.
parc builds on the existing joint declaration signed in two thousand and seven developing and cementing those links allowing for closer cooperation and more regular ministerial dialogue.
i believe that this will send a strong signal to all of those that doubt and seek to undermine the achievements and benefits of european union membership.
parc covers many of the areas that we would expect to see and is similar in scope to the recently signed strategic partnership agreement with canada for which i am pleased to say i was also the rapporteur.
new zealand as our resolution notes plays an important role in contributing towards peace and international security a role that is all the more impressive when considering its relatively small size and geographical location.
i should also mention again highlighted in the resolution the role that new zealand has played in the european union's policing mission in afghanistan.
article fifteen for instance which focuses on working together to further the wto agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures gives a sense of the level of commitment by all parties pledged to the specific regard here.
two thousand and sixteen looking at the resolution itself i believe that i am speaking for the majority of this house when i say that the positive tone taken reflects the extremely good will towards new zealand felt by this parliament and the belief that the relationship between the european union its member states and new zealand is a force for good in the world.
new zealand is a leader in the renewable energy sector and has set itself ambitious targets for renewable energy production.
we already enjoy strong relations and share many common goals on international issues.
if indeed the prospect of brexit is serving as a catalyst for the eu to reduce its tariff walls against the sunrise' parts of the global economy then that is yet another benefit of the united kingdom's magnificent decision to rejoin the global family of independent sovereign nations.
new zealand is a magnificent country a bedrock of democratic values in its region and a key part of the anglosphere so it is good to see the eu strengthening political relationships with new zealand as well.
as regards the agricultural sector new zealand farmers are renowned the world over for their enterprising attitudes and ability to get by without any subsidies let alone expensive and extensive networks such as those contained in the eu common agricultural policy.
that is a wrong which is soon to be righted as the united kingdom broadens its economic and diplomatic relationships across the world raising the priority we give to commonwealth nations as well as seeking to sustain links with member states of the european union.
mr president it seems to me that the prospect of brexit is spurring eu interest in warming up relations and indeed trading ties with many of the countries eager to reach trade deals with the united kingdom after its departure.
we believe that this partnership agreement can provide for a framework that promotes and further develops the relationship with a country with which we can work together for a better advanced and future oriented governance. we also hope that this instrument can bring about more people to people ties the ties that make countries and regions really come closer and that it will also be useful to
thus we would have preferred that the resolution simply took note of instead of openly supporting the launch of the free trade agreement negotiations.
mr president we support closer relations between the european union and new zealand and therefore we welcome the conclusion of the partnership agreement with a country that although far away from us geographically speaking is very close and like minded when it comes to standards of democracy human rights fundamental freedoms international law and so on.
the eu and new zealand are like minded partners with common values and interests.
the partnership agreement will foster an even more effective bilateral engagement by strengthening political dialogue and improving cooperation in a wide range of areas. new zealand is one of the eu's closest friends and valued allies. at a time of high international volatility where mistrust and populists risk undermining multilateralism and the interest of the international community at large the eu is proud to forge and foster even closer alliances with like minded nations and long standing partners like new zealand.
the partnership agreement will provide a forward looking political framework within which eu new zealand relations and cooperation on sustainable development and a comprehensive range of issues will be developed even further for years to come in order to match new ambitions and aspirations.
i am confident that today's vote will confirm with a large consensus a strong and substantive text and will reiterate and underline once again the energy and ambition of this longstanding relationship of which the partnership agreement will now be the most eloquent pillar.
clearly the eu and new zealand are already finding an important common cause and we are making progress on trade negotiations on which this house adopted recommendations last month. aside from trade i hope this partnership will help us to focus our attention on a region of important mutual strategic benefit the asia pacific region.
whether it concerns the stability in the south china sea that harbours vital shipping routes combating climate change or addressing terrorist threats this region is of key strategic importance to the european union and i call upon the high representative the council and the commission to ensure that this agreement is a stepping stone to advancing our partnerships in the asia pacific region where new zealand is an important
eu member states and new zealand enjoy a strong partnership sharing many common goals with strong political economic and cultural ties including in multilateral organisations such as the united nations and the world trade organisation.
this is a parallel but separate agreement covering non trade aspects very similar to canada's strategic partnership agreement and australia's framework agreement.
it aims to facilitate more effective bilateral engagement by strengthening political dialogue on a wide range of issues from customs to innovation education and culture to migration judicial affairs and the fight against global terrorism and cybercrime.
mr president my point of order regards the first two votes we have today on the calendar for next year and the year after.
i therefore ask you to put to the house the proposal to modify the agenda that all votes today take place before mr schmitt's speech and we start on the basis of the calendar votes.
there is no justification for changing this again.
it is ridiculous and disrespectful to the president of one of our member states and currently in the presidency to call the members back to the house back to the chamber after he has spoken.
mr president i am sorry to prolong this but as it happens the voting lists have been circulated to all the groups.
if this was an error it needs to be corrected.
both yesterday and today we were given a time to vote and we have abused it yet again.
so we have to be vigilant.
yet the practicalities of an agreement with a state the size of congo create all sorts of daunting problems.
the size of the state alone is something akin to that of europe; the governance for much of that state is non existent;
corruption levels are quite extraordinary transparency international puts the republic of congo almost bottom of its league table.
the profits of illegal logging are absolutely vast and perhaps greater than anything we can offer by way of compensation;
all these problems suggest that voluntary partnerships however good our intentions will have difficulty delivering the goals.
so what assurances can the commission give us that every possible step will be taken to ensure that our high ambitions here will truly be realised and that we can all have confidence that these voluntary partnership agreements as we make them in future will deliver on the goals we have set?
in line with the circular economy principle we need to find an affordable way for our farmers to switch to more organic alternatives.
cadmium is a class one carcinogen according to the world health organisation and exposure can lead to pulmonary disorders kidney disease cancer fertility problems and osteoporosis.
we have been talking since two thousand and three of reducing cadmium in fertilisers and it has taken us fourteen years to get us to the stage we are at today.
please don't ask me to go back to my home country and tell those people who are going to lose their european jobs that we are doing this to help them out because it is not true.
we should not propose such a law because it does not make any sense.
it is not based on good science it is not based on good economy and it is just crazy.
don't make any mistakes this proposal will not lead to lowering our dependence on imports of phosphate or phosphorus rock.
those products have enormous potential to make european agriculture more efficient and sustainable and to create jobs and opportunities for innovative businesses in europe.
so the industry should work with us not against us. it is in their interest.
it is a very ambitious contribution to that.
it will help them to get a competitive advantage by developing clean technologies in innovative
together we will raise environmental standards in an area in which europeans are lagging behind the rest of the world.
it will further burden eu agriculture with no identifiable benefit.
so how can it possibly make sense to add to the cost enrich the russians handicap eu production and reduce our competitiveness?
i am a farmer and i can tell you that no sensible farmer applies any fertiliser he does not regard as essential and he selects the most cost effective option.
all actions are hazardous and if that were the criterion we would all do nothing.
it also means looking at the realworld impact of this legislation.
there is no clear evidence that we need to crack down hard on cadmium and lots of economic consequences which are real and damaging. fertilisers are a cost but they allow modern agricultural productivity essential for the size of the world's growing population.
regulation must not been made for regulation's sake and the rule is made for people and not the other way around. restrictions and prohibitions must be justified.
can the damage of the restriction be mitigated?
are substitutes available?
this means a real risk to human health not just a hazard.
we would still be living in caves with much shorter lifespans.
limits in the united states canada and australia are over one hundred and twenty mg but their people are not suffering.
regarding the latter topic i think that the proposed commission timeline could be more ambitious and i would be glad to introduce even lower levels in the eu.
we have to state that these substances are crucial for agricultural production but as in many cases their overuse can be dangerous.
placing heavy limits on cadmium despite the lack of scientific evidence to show this is necessary will reduce supply and hike prices for farmers across the european union. eighty mg per kilo with provisions to review would still allow risks to public health and the environment to be managed safely. studies suggest that eighty mg per kilo on average is enough to stop cadmium accumulating in soil.
this is for three reasons.
it is one of the things that we do repeatedly in europe.
frankly for a lot a farmers they try to operate a circular economy on their farm where they have animals and cropping and it can work really well.
i would say here that the cereal sector in europe is under huge pressure.
in this case what we are talking about is extending what can be used as a fertiliser ingredient.
what is very important is that fertilisers in the past account for sixty of the registered yield increase in the last fifty years so we absolutely need fertilisers to grow crops.
we do it in a whole range of products.
i fear though that in this case we will be so far ahead that we are behind and will cause problems on the single market for our farmers and indeed for our consumers.
if we can encourage the rest of the world to move with us then i think we could all do that in a very coherent and supportive way.
i want us to be leaders in this field but i do not want us to be so far ahead that we are behind.
it can also work at the local level amongst farmers who trade in livestock manure and i think that is something we should encourage and promote.
what we need from that is that it is effective in other words that it works at farm level and that it is safe and that we do not over regulate.
mr president the whole idea of the circular economy is just catching on so it is appropriate that we try and implement it in the agriculture sector with fertilisers.
i have listened carefully to the robust debate about cadmium and i think we have to make sure that what we aspire to is achievable and does not have unintended consequences.
we import a large volume of cereals that will be produced without our control on the cadmium levels used in the fertilisers in third countries and we need to be very mindful of the consequences of that on our production here.
if we are going to make a european regulation and we know that there are many national applications in place we have to take into consideration that the proposals by the commission entail for some countries a dilution of the current cadmium limits.
and if we find out there is more and more cadmium in our soils and who will be getting the blame?
so if you are really concerned about the farmers you have to make sure that the producers get the limits that they need to get.
and that is at stake and all the other arguments are just fake.
when we are doing that then one of the key issues is going to be the level of cadmium that is allowed because we all know it is a fact cadmium is a heavy metal and carcinogenic to people.
so if this report goes through our farmers will face massive cost increases which will make our food even more expensive.
up until now only mineral fertilisers have benefited from the ce marking and free access to the single market. today they are still the most widely used in europe but alongside the traditional products more and more companies are looking for new solutions.
companies around the world realise that they need to find ways to do more with less.
in europe a lot of effort has been put into innovation.
there is a strong drive in the fertiliser sector to find new sources of raw materials and make products that are more targeted and less wasteful.
often the solutions that are found are at the very forefront of science.
by extending the scope of this regulation to such products we will put in place the necessary framework to maximise the innovative potential of the fertiliser industry.
removing national barriers from the market will give them access to enough customers to make their investments pay off. moreover by asking the commission to keep looking for new component materials that could be added to the regulation we recognise that a lot of the potential of this sector is still untapped.
we should not only reward existing animation by granting better access to the single market we should also encourage further research by ensuring the possibility of updating the regulation in the future.
by allowing the commission to revise the regulation we are telling producers to think outside the box and to keep looking for new solutions.
if we follow these principles we can create legislation that is truly supportive of innovation.
mr president i do not want to take more of your time but this is just a correction to make sure that the odihr mission for election observations would not mistakenly be put in a bad light so it would simply remove the last sentence of paragraph.
i want to remind members that twenty of the citizens of israel are arab israeli citizens.
it talks about two states for two peoples.
secondly the ppe was part of the shadow negotiations so it would have been possible to take things out there are split votes on several issues so postponing it now is not possible.
on the face of it this looks like a very technical issue.
that study which came out two months ago shows something that other studies have already shown i.
we want to work with you to deliver your low carbon roadmap to actually cut emissions from transport by sixty as you announced last week so i hope that tonight you are going to come here with some good news for us and tell us that in the next few weeks we will have that implementing standard and we will have a higher value for tar sands and oil shale.
you are known for your commitment to tackling climate change and are respected for it in this house.
in other words it shows that these fuels are dirtier than conventional oil.
i said at the beginning that this is not just a technical issue.
but we have the facts on tar sands now so i do not see any reason to delay.