kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it is a characteristic of shakespeare's work that whatever experiences we carry to them they always illuminate our experiences more than our experiences illuminate the plays. i can do no better today than to quote john of gaunt's dying speech from which not only beautifully describes our budgetary problems in britain but also our situation here in europe. first on the budget this land of such dear souls this dear dear land. is. now leased out i die pronouncing it like to a tenement or pelting farm. ' but then listen to his description of the lisbon treaty or european constitution england bound in with the triumphant sea whose rocky shore beats back the watery siege of envious neptune is now bound in with shame with inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.
that england that was wont to conquer others hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
as i said when we talk about fundamental values it is respect for human dignity freedom democracy equality the rule of law and respect for human rights.
is working in practice in its first months of operation.
i personally can understand that some people might have a philosophical objection to public funding of any sort for the political process.
at the same time as i said at the outset the commission is a strong supporter of having vibrant and dynamic political parties at the european level and is very ready to engage with you and with the council to monitor how the two thousand and fourteen regulation
we stand ready to engage constructively in such an interinstitutional process that can look at the issues in depth and could help pave the way for the formal reviews which as a number of people have noted are slated for two thousand and eighteen and for drawing any necessary conclusions together
when it comes to funding from the eu budget i would just observe that the existing legislation already includes safeguards regarding the respect by parties of fundamental values.
but it exists albeit in different forms in most member states perhaps because the alternatives for funding the political system relying on donations from individuals from business or from interest groups can also have disadvantages.
the issue here is whether meps from a national party which is affiliated to a european party should be able to be members on an individual basis of different european parties.
this would seem to go against the budgetary principles of annuality and sound financial management and would increase risks to the control of eu contributions by making it more difficult to identify and correct possible irregularities.
even good rules can be further improved.
the commission would like to hear the views of parliament and member states on this important but sensitive matter.
turning to the specific suggestions i would like to share some initial comments while stressing again that the commission rules nothing out at this stage.
to review developments assess suggestions from stakeholders and hopefully converge on a common approach.
parliament could also see how far its own implementing rules could be adjusted to help within the framework of the existing regulation.
in two thousand and twelve the commission taking up a request from parliament proposed just such a change.
i am pleased that the regulation includes a very early review clause with first parliament and then the commission being obliged to report on its implementation in the coming months.
the commission's report will be accompanied by proposals for any legislative changes that appear necessary.
could a similar restriction apply to the threshold for registration?
so at this stage we continue to think the existing n two rule strikes the right balance.
as things stand it is not clear that a new proposal on these lines would meet a different fate. second on increasing the level of representation required in this house before applying for eu funding.
of course in line with our better regulation principles our normal practice as you know is to evaluate existing legislation before proposing changes and to assess fully the potential impact of such changes.
on the other hand we are not aware of an objective basis for limiting choices of meps in this regard when their national party is not affiliated to a european one.
it contributes to the democratic foundations of our work together including some of the bases for the election of the commission president and the appointment of the commission.
the new regulation brings into play important innovations.
this clarity is most welcome.
on this last point it is now a condition for registration as a european party or foundation that the entity concerned respects both in its programme and in its activities the values on which the european union is founded respect for human dignity freedom democracy equality the rule of law
this is important in our european union based on democracy as we have just heard.
and respect for human rights including the right of people belonging to minorities.
furthermore at any time after registration parliament the council or the commission may ask the new authority to verify whether a particular party or foundation continues to comply with these requirements.
these include a european level legal personality for parties and foundations and a more robust set of governance arrangements including a new authority for european political parties and foundations and enhanced safeguards to ensure respect for fundamental european values by all parties registered under the scheme.
after consulting a new permanent committee of independent eminent persons the authority can decide to deregister a party or foundation which is found not to comply unless parliament or the council disagrees.
the new regulation already makes clear that in such circumstances the individual membership does not count towards the representation threshold for funding of a european party.
it would make it more likely that should there be irregular spending it would have to be recovered after european elections rather than before which could prove sensitive for reasons we can all imagine.
we need to consider carefully the principles of proportionality and equal treatment since the rules on party funding should not tilt the balance in favour of incumbents compared with new political movements provided of course these new movements also uphold european values.
the commission is fully prepared to assist parliament with well reflected initiatives and proposals.
we can think about it and examine the potential consequences.
unfortunately this met with strong opposition in the council and was not included in the final text adopted by the co legislators.
as president tajani always says quality is often as important as speed.
the commission is more than willing to engage in depth with parliament and the council to monitor closely the early stages of implementing the new regulation and to reflect together on whether early proposals for change might be justified. the commission will be very open if you agree to setting up quickly an interinstitutional process perhaps under the auspices of the new authority
first on reducing the co financing requirement.
this would also help pave the way for the formal reviews that must in any case take place next year.
as concerns several more technical issues such as a financial capacity criterion we are happy to take a closer look.
so the new regulation is a welcome and substantive improvement to the rules governing political parties and a good defence instrument for our european values.
third on cross membership.
finally we see many arguments against allowing reserve building by parties and foundations.
fourth is the question of whether european parties should be able to finance campaigns for national referendums on eu issues.
this parliament has no right to start redrawing a map in terms of funding and resourcing just because it wants to shut down euroscepticism across the european continent.
this is quite blatantly an attempt to block other countries from following the route that the united kingdom took with brexit and it is an attack on free speech and views expressed there. now you can try to shut down what you believe to be the eurosceptic oxygen that this parliament has in terms of the enf group the efdd group and people like myself who stand as
bear in mind where the frustration and the irritation comes from within voters.
that frustration and irritation leads to a eurosceptic voice that seeks representation in this parliament.
every year our books have been closed and approved by all relevant authorities the external auditor dg finance and parliament's bureau as well.
the presidents requested the commission to examine and initiate a review of the regulation on three substantial provisions related to efficiency credibility and legitimacy.
but besides elections referenda are also an important instrument to express the will of the population in a democratic organised and wellinformed way. the current regulation prohibits any funding linked to referendums. it makes it impossible for parties and foundations to take positions in public on issues of fundamental importance for the future of citizens.
we may understand the commission's reluctance to initiate a revision of a regulation whose implementation has just started.
union. we could reflect whether it would not be advisable to allow funding referendum campaigns on issues relating to the european union where political parties can help form european political awareness.
however there are shortcomings that need to be addressed. let us be clear about one thing this oral question is not about asking for more money but for the money to be spent efficiently correctly and with respect for the values of the european union. this is not about banning parties with critical opinions on the union.
in. two thousand and nineteen this regulation falls under the codecision procedure so i would also like to ask the commission whether it could inform parliament on any exchanges it has undertaken with the council in order to evaluate the openness of the other colegislator towards this possible revision.
in the meantime parliament's secretarygeneral also presented the report to the bureau of the parliament. we proposed three amendments but there are many more issues that require reflection for example the possibility of limiting contributions in kind allowing for the possibility to finance referendum campaigns or to provide for an assessment of the financial capacity of the parties before any application for funding to mention just a few.
after intense discussions my committee the committee on constitutional affairs decided to present this oral question in order to raise awareness of this important issue. let me say that we see that the new regulation ensures greater transparency and accountability of european political parties.
however those who do not respect european values as they are stated in article two of the treaty on european union and engage in clear racist undemocratic and discriminatory actions and behaviour should not fund their actions with european funds.
we believe in democracy and in a democratic system every person is entitled to freedom of speech and opinion.
however i would also like to remind the commission that on a number of occasions it stated very clearly that incentives for speculative behaviour should under no circumstances be granted.
the shortcomings that have been signalled in the oral question should be swiftly addressed in our view in order to guarantee that the highest standards of probity are respected. we should indeed reflect whether oneman parties really contribute to forming european political awareness and expressing the political will of citizens of the union.
in the reply the president of the commission though giving preference to first gathering some experience on the implementation of the regulation also stated that the commission was open to discussing the issues raised by the three co signatories representing the main existing european political parties.
i want them to be defeated at the ballot box.
i do not agree with their secessionist mantra but is the right of the people of scotland to decide their own future as they recently did in a referendum.
i just wonder from the uk i am a unionist but could you imagine the uproar if the british government had treated the scottish nationalists in this way?
when we hear communism or fascism expressed in this chamber or frankly anywhere else i want it defeated in public democratic debate.
when we hear things like korwin mikke's views on women and equal rights i do not want to defeat them through suppression and penalties.
finally there is the perplexing situation where the european parliament ends up financing parties or foundations that proclaim values entirely at variance with those of the european union and indeed european integration.
currently such a party can claim support from parliament on the basis of having one elected mep.
i think we can all agree on two things without political parties democracy as we currently understand it is inconceivable. the running of political parties requires ever greater outlays in order to ensure that voters are properly informed of their choices. so if politics is a costly pastime say at the member state level how much more expensive
in the light of experience this fifteen should be reduced and the appropriate regulation be amended accordingly.
what we are focusing on today is the statute and funding of european political parties and european political foundations.
in a democracy the voicing of such views repellent or otherwise can be acceptable but it really is hard to see why the european parliament should be subsidising political forces that are trying to ensure that it is eliminated.
well not exactly but i can see a certain family resemblance.
when it comes to funding the european political parties are currently required to secure fifteen of their financing from their own resources.
is it at the european level? and as far as this parliament is affected it is this european level that matters.
then the definition of a european political party should be looked at again.
but i do not really think that political parties are a kind of endangered species. they are the only man made organisations which are entitled to an endless windfall of public funds.
but it should not be like that because as many colleagues have pointed out it leads to abuse.
instead we should put parties almost semi divine organisations onto an equal footing with other types of human organisations.
i mean that quite clearly.
i would go to the barricades to defend freedom of speech. now who are you to say what is respectable and what is not respectable? when does that become statethink'?
when does that become an orwellian nightmare? i have a great fear.
let me just answer some of the questions you had commissioner.
there have been meps from one member state party who have been supporting two different european parties getting funding for both of them.
we had one against refugees;
european referendums yes but not national.
do you think that limiting the freedom of speech and people in this parliament making decisions about what is correct and what is not correct and what is part of the european project and what is not part of the european project do you not feel that this means the lights of liberty and freedom of speech are going out all over europe and this place cannot call itself the mother of european democracy?
all stakeholders had many opportunities to engage in the process including the largest parties.
now even before the new rules are fully implemented the large parties have decided that they want to change these new rules their way without the mutual engagement of any other stakeholders in the report on the letter that the former oral question refers to.
this debate is an attempt to shut out smaller and new parties which is against the spirit of the treaty and the new regulation.
this political involvement cannot be monopolised and covered by the large parties alone.
so can we please at least have the semblance of democracy in this place for once?
that is a fundamental nonsense and surely mr corbett if you believe and you are i believe a true believer in the institutions and structures of this place then you should be on our side on this one!
you should be standing up against things that are going wrong but you are not.
it would be nice.
because we cannot get our hands up and down in the right place.
it makes this something where you have time pressures which perhaps you should not have and certainly in westminster we would not have a problem like this one. what i would say though is that if we are trying to cram so much into just a couple of days a month in strasbourg and in brussels maybe there is a problem with the scheduling of debates and votes.
we have already heard from mr moraes that there were all sorts of problems and i had exactly the same problem.
now if we are not having a proper debate then the question should surely be that we need to have enough time allocated so that we can have debates and we need to have enough time allocated for the vote.
i would make that point very much independently of my feelings about this place and the institutions because fundamentally things should be done in the right way and they are not being done in the right way at the moment.
first of all a change in the original charges a change from an administrative fine to not less than four years' imprisonment and that two days before an election!
may i take it then that janice atkinson remains a member of the efdd group and has not been expelled by them despite the recent revelations about the misuse of her expenses?
some of daphne's last written words were there are crooks everywhere you look the situation is desperate'.
this is what we are confronted with.
who is still the speaker of the parliament of malta and who has nothing better to do than regularly travel there and applaud them for the brilliant elections that they hold. this is what has rotted malta through the fact that a country like azerbaijan could insinuate itself in the form of a bank called pilatus in the heart of a european democracy and from there reach out its tentacles
the contempt in which the maltese government holds this house by the way has never been more visible than by the fact that mr maasikas has to defend malta in this debate.
have we ever seen the hungarian prime minister and everyone knows that i am not carrying him in my heart refusing or cowing out from defending his country or a potential attack on his country in this house.
we now see mr maasikas who has nothing to do with the corrupt practices of the maltese government having to stand up for something which is indefensible and unjustifiable.
this is why this murder needs to be investigated. and this is why no angle needs to be left untouched in this investigation.
to stifle democratic expression.
the truth is we insinuate that the rule of law collapsed a long time before that murder and that this murder is one of the consequences of the total collapse of the rule of law in malta that it is one of the consequences of the privatisation of state institutions the subjugation of institutions of state to the private interests of the highest actors of the state and of one particular party that created the atmosphere created the circumstances in which such a heinous crime could take place in the twenty first century in the middle of the european union.
well depending on where you looked you always saw the same thing and that is prominent people from azerbaijan very prominent people from azerbaijan in the company of very prominent people from malta virtually half the leadership of the labour party be that the prime minister be that the prime minister and his small party who travelled there unaccompanied and brought back i don't know what or be that mr farrugia
we stand with malta.
winning an election does not mean the victorious party can divide up the country and ignore its obligations as an eu member state.
two thousand and four our people share the same values and joined for the same reasons.
we stand with them.
we poles and maltese act in the name of the eu and want the eu to act.
other members had also a number of questions.
a few member states have it and aside from that other member states have schemes to grant permanent residency to people who invest.
and i want to stress also because that was raised several times the commission insists with malta to really seriously look into the possibility to join the european public prosecutor's office.
we are working on this report right now.
simply because if you become a citizen of one member state that grants you access to all the other member states.
i think every member state deserves that way of acting when we look into issues pertaining to the rule of law and other such subjects.
but again what is not on as far as the commission is concerned is to start with a conclusion and then look for facts to support that conclusion. that is not how we do this.
and no stone left unturned.
what is not on though is already today to draw conclusions about who did it.
my second point is this. many questions were put here today many pertinent questions about many issues relating to the situation in malta in a number of areas.
if it is done in this way i surmise it is not just to silence her but also to send a clear message to anybody else who might want to investigate things.
but i would caution in drawing conclusions today as some appear to be doing here about who is responsible for this.
i think we should be clear that we stress that this investigation should be allowed to run its full course regardless of the consequences for anyone anywhere in malta or elsewhere by the way.
that is why it is good that the maltese authorities also engage in international cooperation with the fbi with scotland yard with the nfi in the netherlands calling also on the european institutions and on interpol to help them.
we first look into the questions that were put on the table and then if we come up with conclusions on those questions it is soon enough to then see what other steps might need to be taken.
we will pursue those questions and then provide them with the answers whenever we can and continue to pursue them if we need to investigate further.
let me conclude very briefly by saying that i do express the hope that given the seriousness of this issue and given the seriousness of the questions that were put on the table we do not turn this into a party political fight. that is not what she deserves.
member states and this i can already say now should use their prerogatives towards citizenship in line with their international and eu law obligations and in a spirit of sincere cooperation with other member states.
this report will describe the commission's actions in this area current national law and practices in all member states and provide some guidance.
i give you the assurance here today that the european commission will pursue all these questions and give you answers when we can especially mr giegold had a number of questions we've taken careful note.
i think mr michel is right when he says that it would be good for all member states to be part of that so that we can have these european investigations into the use of european funds.
i ask all of you stand with us do not let us down now that we need you most.
trample on our rights again without our european partners stepping in to help us.
but all is not well in my country today and to remain silent is to be complicit. too many people have sacrificed too much for me not to speak as our authorities pillage our children's legacy and destroy our reputation.
malta is a great country but we have to have the courage to say that it is unacceptable that journalists are killed with impunity that it is outrageous that the press is under threat and that it is disgraceful that the police refuse to investigate corruption.
we maltese have worked tirelessly for everything we've ever had and battled geography to claim our rightful place as eu members.
he thinks he can intimidate everyone but we will not be silent and neither should the commission it should launch a rule of law dialogue with the maltese authorities and help our country move forward.