kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
secondly this ad hoc system inevitably creates fragmentation of the interpretation of core elements of investment protection standards and that leads to uncertainty for governments and investors alike.
mr president commissioner i am happy to see that the commission is finally ready to move forward from the old style investor state dispute settlement isds system and has decided to replace it with the permanent multilateral investment court.
already two years ago the commission stated that it would provide a full replacement of the old isds mechanism with a modern efficient transparent and impartial system for international dispute resolution'.
in order to gain public trust however the commission must be able to answer the questions that this parliament and european citizens have posed.
the key question for public trust is what improvements will this multilateral investment court bring in terms of access to dispute settlement for states investors and especially affected third parties who are often completely denied access to justice?
i see the multilateral investment court improving on the technical and procedural problems of the investment court system.
but reforming only the institutional and procedural aspects of the system will not solve its fundamental flaws.
some key points that we have expressed concerns about are the need for more transparency the need for an appeals mechanism and also the risk of conflicts of interest for adjudicators or arbitration judges.
and it seems from your presentation that the multilateral investment court system would actually address these main concerns and could replace the controversial isds mechanism.
so our group is very encouraged by these proposed reforms which are far reaching. besides the updates that you gave it would be good to hear a little more about the specific needs of smes which have always been a priority for our group and also what would happen to existing intra eu bilateral investment treaties
that are still in place.
that has been perhaps a parallel concern but it would be good to know a little bit more about where that is going.
and i am sure we will hear more details of the proposed organisational nature the set up and operation in order to have a better sense of how that would go. so thank you for these first steps they are going in the right direction according to our group.
we look forward to continuing the discussion about these important reforms.
any assessment by the commission must take this disparity into consideration.
this proposal is in clear conflict with the principle of equal treatment of member states regarding internal market agreements across the eu.
there must also be assurances to those wishing to invest in alternative fuels such as liquid natural gas that the investment will be made in the infrastructure.
i would like to agree with my finnish colleague and while i agree with the main concerns of this proposed directive and believe that it is important to improve and protect the maritime environment through reductions in the sulphur content of marine fuels there are still a number of areas that need close attention.
to conclude it is also important to ensure that the technology required by the maritime sector to meet conditions of this directive within the timeframe is widely and affordably available. my information at the moment is that there is insufficient cleaning equipment available.
the different sulphur limits set between the sulphur emission control areas in northern europe including the english channel north sea and baltic sea and the rest of the eu will create disadvantages across the maritime sector leading to increased costs for ship owners and operators and causing modal back shifting which will lead to increased congestion and an increase in co two emissions.
to support compliance with the legislation in a staff working paper entitled the sustainable waterborne transport toolbox. this work has now culminated in the proposal on which you will vote today.
two thousand and twenty five we support the choice made by the co legislators as it brings certainty for investors and operators as well as fairness across the european union.
two thousand and eight this was a major breakthrough.
the european union legislation will introduce the global.
these alternative compliance methods allow operators to choose the most cost efficient compliance option and also promote development of clean technologies.
we have been waiting for it for a number of years. it was already clear in two thousand and five that with business as usual sulphur emissions from shipping would exceed those from all land based sources in the european union by.
i am convinced that this directive will contribute significantly to reducing air pollution and thus will have a positive impact on people's health.
the commission is satisfied with the compromise text which aligns the directive with the international rules of annex six of the marpol convention in respect of sulphur standards and strengthens provisions on enforcement and monitoring.
secondly the directive will allow the use of emissions abatement technologies such as scrubbers or lng as alternatives to the use of low sulphur fuels.
finally the provisions on enforcement of the standards and guidelines on monitoring and reporting of fuel used by ships should result in a more effective control of compliance with the new standards.
firstly the stricter sulphur standards agreed at the imo will now be introduced into european union legislation and hence will benefit from the european union enforcement regime.
the use of the non opinion' clause for the adoption of implementing acts;
the request to the commission to develop new measures supporting the implementation of the directive by the end of;
the new standards will bring very significant health and environmental benefits and will contribute to resolving problems faced by member states in complying with air quality limits. although they are highly cost effective for the economy as a whole the commission is aware of the potential economic impact on the shipping industry. that is why we have brought forward a set of measures
two thousand and twenty in order to reverse this trend the commission supported the international maritime organisation in developing internationally binding standards for the quality of marine fuels which were agreed in.
mr president the eu is obliged to comply with international obligations in this important matter and we have a timetable to meet.
within the opinions prepared some mention has been made of the possibility of what might be described as the unintended consequences of this proposal.
these include the potential of diverting ships to ports in those countries that choose to circumvent international obligations as well as diverting the carriage of goods from sea transportation to roads which counters policy elsewhere.
as well as issues about ocean going ships being able to comply with the timetable there is a related issue as to where the lower sulphur content fuel will come from.
refining capacity for these fuels is not infinite and there is no doubt that the obligations the eu wishes to meet in a little over two years time will increase demand.
consequently there is a danger that demand will outstrip supply with the result that fuel prices for those marine sectors that already use low sulphur content fuels such as our fishing industry will be further squeezed thus adding to the pressures faced by that sector. we should be wary of unintended consequences.
you are mixing up what is happening in the baltic sea area and the mediterranean.
i do not think there is much competition when you look at transport from the northern and southern parts of europe.
in the short term it is foreseen to use the existing eu financial instruments and programmes trans european transport network and marco polo and possible national state aid funds to support the deployment of new infrastructure and superstructure in support of green ship technology lng scrubbers and short side electricity.
the compromise proposal also contains a provision on financial assistance allowing member states to grant state aid that is compatible with the eu rules and guidelines.
however any extension of secas would require in particular that the member states themselves introduce such a request to the
year our focus will be on air pollution and we will come with a review of the air policy including a review of the nec directive.
i think that the proposal which is in front of you is the best example of how to approach in this context the idea that prevention is much better than
who came briefly in their little gang and did their carefully choreographed cynical performance and then left very quickly clapping each other on the back in self congratulation.
then we will all
we do not need closed borders.
that would give companies the confidence they need to hire people. it is all about confidence. will we all create a confident europe with a single market where people can travel from lithuania to the uk and get a job maybe?
it sounds as though we could guarantee a job to everybody. we cannot. we need reforms and i think the commissioner should know that.
need. so i want you to open up join and together create a europe that is going to be efficient and competitive.
it needs to be easier to hire people and there needs to be some ease in terms of letting them go when times are tough.
we need very serious reforms in europe.
without employers' input we are not providing young people with the skills that they need to gain meaningful employment.
that is essential in ensuring the success of the youth guarantee scheme.
i think we also have to recognise that causes differ across the eu and there is no one size fits all solution.
i am also very pleased that to use another example from the uk the uk government is abolishing employers' national insurance contributions for the under twenty one s thus encouraging businesses and especially small businesses where the burden falls heavily to take on young people because
so it is those companies that need to be helped and encouraged to take on young people.
i am very pleased that in my own country the uk youth unemployment fell by two hundred and six zero in the last year.
i think we also need to have programmes and encouragement for young people to become entrepreneurs to use their great energy and enthusiasm and to provide mentors to help them to create their own businesses become entrepreneurs and in turn employ people themselves.
there is still a lot to do but i think that we are heading in the right direction.
that is the largest fall since records began over thirty years ago so i am pleased that we are going in the right direction.
some member states have already stated that they are making use of the early eligibility date i.
however we should not forget that in the absence of overall economic growth it would be impossible for any labour market reform to solve and economic crisis of such a magnitude as we have experienced in europe.
in other words the member states have at this stage approximately eur ten billion to support young people.
as president schulz highlighted a few day ago at the cohesion forum significant eu funding dedicated to implementing the youth guarantee has been made available to the member states including through the frontloading of the eu budget.
six four billion of the youth employment initiative will be committed in two thousand.
twenty six out of thirty four will be adopted in two thousand and fourteen covering about eighty five of the total amount of the youth employment initiative.
i have asked national authorities to provide us with concrete information on the estimated number of young people who benefit from these measures and on the types of measures financed by the member states in.
the level of unemployment has been decreasing in europe in the last year but it is still very high and there are still more than five million young people among the unemployed.
a few months ago all member states submitted comprehensive implementation plans to the commission.
the concept of the youth guarantee has been endorsed by the g twenty employment ministers meeting last week in melbourne.
it is a key structural reform that requires in depth changes to education training and job search systems in order to facilitate and accelerate the transition from education to employment.
the youth guarantee is one of the most important and ambitious reforms proposed by this commission.
since then they have passed new laws established innovative working methods and upgraded the support provided by the public employment services.
two thousand and fourteen i expect to receive this information from the member states by the end of this month.
i believe the youth guarantee will help to make an economic recovery job rich and it will make a systematic and decisive improvement to school to work transitions.
as regards financial allocations we can therefore ensure on the basis of the submitted operational programmes that all the eur.
let me inform you of the state of play of the dedicated youth employment initiative resources with the latest data. the commission has received all thirty four operational programmes which include resources from the initiative.
what about the actual action on the ground?
one september two thousand and thirteen and they are funding measures on the ground that can be reimbursed from the initiative and esf resources.
we have a complete open door to five hundred million people in the eu to compete for jobs claim benefits and settle in the uk.
but the elephant in the room is immigration.
how can we say to our young people that this is going to help them find work?
that just highlights how important the macroeconomic background is in making progress.
one of them is the quality of the new jobs and the new employment. the second one is outreach to their needs because it is not enough just to reduce the number of registered unemployed;
i agree with those who stress the importance of a serious fact based evaluation of progress or in some cases the lack of it and this evaluation has to be inclusive.
a very good starting point for this would be to agree on the third amending budget for two thousand and fourteen and the draft budget for two thousand and fifteen without any cuts to the commission proposal. we need to reduce the accumulated backlog of payment claims and not to increase it further.
finally my fifth point is about the evaluation.
nevertheless in those countries where there has been progress in reducing the youth unemployment rate i would like to underline three important criteria which also need to be observed at the same time.
colleagues we now have a list of speakers for catch the eye. we have over twenty five colleagues who want to take the floor and clearly i cannot accommodate everyone because time is running out for our debate. i would ask for your patience.
i am going to stop blue cards from this point on in the debate because we have twenty five colleagues who wish to catch the eye at the end of the debate so no more blue cards.
i think my main concern is that we need to be developing skills.
finally i want to wish commissioner andor well in his retirement.
six billion plus for a youth guarantee over twenty eight member states is not enough not nearly enough;
they are dealing with three hundred and sixteen young jobseekers eighty of whom at this point have accepted an offer of work experience employment or further education and training.
but at least we are encouraging member states to frontload and to spend that money in two thousand. and fourteen and two thousand and fifteen so i suppose the question is are we making progress?
these programmes are providing short term relief in many cases and core to the approach is the partnership approach where the schools the ngos the employers the government services and the young people themselves are included.
the ilo has said we need twenty one billion.
we have a document from the commission a first findings report which looks at a number of pilot projects that have the potential to make positive changes particularly in the way school to work transition is managed and how youth employment services are delivered to young people.
indeed we have one of these pilot programmes in ireland in ballymun in dublin where a local partnership has been set up under the umbrella of a national partnership.
it is a start it is a small start by the eu and member states now have to step up to the plate.
those who do manage to find some work the so called lucky ones are increasingly forced to accept unpaid internships or precarious work such as zero hour contracts. another supposed option offered to our youth in ireland is emigration which of course is not a choice.
those who did not cause the crisis the young are certainly having to pay for it.
by failing to allocate the funds recommended by the ilo the youth guarantee scheme is a guarantee only on paper.
six months from its roll out in january even angela merkel had to admit that it had been a failure in truly tackling the problem.
it has provided little more than nice sound bites for certain politicians who want to appear to be acting on the issue while in reality doing very little.
i would like to see a full review of the guarantee.
countries such as my own ireland are using it merely as a box ticking exercise instead of a genuine solution to a very real problem.
i wonder if she agrees with me that when i hear these kind of debates i am always reminded of what president reagan said that the most frightening words in the english language are i am from the government and i am here to help.
also would she agree with me that the best way to help west midlands youngsters get jobs is to stop the flow of unskilled mass immigration into our area allowing them to get a foothold on the employment ladder?
i would agree that we need to put something in place whereby we can actually activate more apprentice schemes in our own region where we seem to be falling behind with our younger unemployed.
but why do so many bulgarians want to leave their country? bulgaria is a desperately poor country under the control of criminals. let me quote from the new york times politics is played to the death in bulgaria where the lives of politicians can be as cheap as spent bullets and murky business groups wage a murderous struggle for their cut of everything from real estate deals to millions in european aid'.
britain is already overwhelmed and swamped with immigration because as a member of the european union we have surrendered our right to control it.
the british political establishment is dedicated or seems dedicated to turning britain into a third world country.
mr president in january two thousand and fourteen the final restrictions will be lifted on immigration into britain from romania and bulgaria.
it is not right to send millions in aid for their criminals to plunder and make them richer.
how can democracy prosper under these conditions? there is a lack of a free media and press a corrupt judiciary and legal system widespread electoral fraud and criminal control of business.
a further twenty nine million people will be given the automatic right of entry and it is estimated that this will result in at least fifty zero extra immigrants per year over the next five years.
i feel desperately sorry for decent bulgarians but i feel even sorrier for my own country which is being destroyed by membership of the european union.
the british have nothing against bulgarians or anyone else we do not blame them for wanting to better their lives.
britain cannot solve bulgaria's problems by importing bulgarians.
would you agree with me that it is time that governments from the member states who are represented here in this parliament caught up with the international community notably the united kingdom and the united states in classifying hezbollah as a terrorist organisation given the fact that last night an investigation concluded that it was behind the bombing attack in bulgaria in july two thousand and twelve which killed five israeli tourists?
i hope they will also clarify the situation from the point of view of the council.
you will however appreciate that the presidency cannot take a view on issues where the council has neither discussed nor adopted any position.
i hope you will understand that i am not in a position to offer a more detailed contribution to this afternoon's debate. i speak as presidency of the council and therefore in the name of all twenty seven member states.
but the rule of law and democratic values have not only to be enshrined in texts they also have to be put into practice.
if there are any concerns or doubts that this is not the case this is first and foremost a matter for the commission.
i know that this house fully shares that view.
two thousand and seven this mechanism is designed to assist it in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption and organised crime.
these values and principles which include freedom democracy and the rule of law are also enshrined in the constitutional traditions of each of the member states.
the council attaches particular importance to ensuring that these values and principles are fully respected.
of any one member state where these potentially touch on issues relating to the basic values and principles which underpin the european union.
as far as bulgaria is concerned it is one of two member states which are the subject of a cooperation and verification mechanism established when it entered the eu in.
all member states are required to ensure that their legislation respects the basic values on which the eu is founded.
the commission reports regularly under the cvm most recently in the case of bulgaria last july.
that means that legislation has to be respected and enforced.
i will therefore limit myself to a few remarks which are of a more general nature but which are nevertheless important in the wider context.
the very serious political attack that has just been referred to and the concerns expressed in a number of member states about the possibility of an influx of poor migrants that may become a burden on social services in those countries.
they are at the root of so many of the difficulties that we see today.
it is time for those politicians of real integrity to offer the bulgarian people genuine change that is necessary and that they can believe in.
some of these matters need to be addressed by the member states concerned and by the eu but mr president bulgaria itself needs to address its long standing problems with greater urgency.
most recently we have seen the very serious criticisms of senior judicial appointments the continuing accusations of linkage of politicians and state officials with organised crime and the old state security apparatus bulgarian criminal gangs active in fifteen member states according to europol
while we can see many areas of progress and positive development in bulgaria these problems have not been adequately addressed and some of them are reflected in the commission's continuing reports under the cooperation and verification mechanism.
criminal investigations in cases of violent crimes.
that is the whole idea but there are a lot of specific reasons why it was right to bring bulgaria in at that particular time.
for all of us. that is the whole point of the single market of five hundred million people.
for all of those reasons it was right for bulgaria to join the european union.
but the reasons why it was right for bulgaria to accede at that time were absolutely correct and remain correct.
my disappointment is that they have not addressed those concerns with sufficient urgency.
i am very happy to answer that.
but at that time we made it very clear that there was a need for continuing reform and in particular reform in those areas which i have now indicated.
this was at a time when bulgaria needed to have the confidence of being very much part of a western club. it was at a time of growing russian influence in that part of the world when they needed economic confidence and when investors in bulgaria needed to have the prospect of stability and at a time when there were extremist forces on the rise in bulgaria that needed to be allayed.
what did the commission do?