kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
mr president there can be no doubt that since the two thousand and eight global credit crunch and the collapse of many banks internationally which is still a problem as evidenced by the most recent crisis in cyprus and possibly now in slovenia all is not well with the capital adequacy of our banks hence the need to tighten requirements under the basel iii agreements.
the proposal allows the uk to go further in capital adequacy if it so chooses.
polluting industries should be nationalised under democratic public control and run as part of a sustainable and democratically planned economy.
mr president it is as clear as day for all those not blinded by neo liberal ideology that the emissions trading scheme is an absolute failure in terms of tackling greenhouse gas emissions.
it is however a success in creating a profitable market for big business. the massive amount of free emission rights can be sold off for a profit and perceived rising costs are then directly added to the bills of consumers.
corruption is also rife in this market with faulty projects generating credits through the clean development mechanism which can then be sold off for profit.
the energy sector has in this way made an extra profit in the last phase of between eur twenty three and eur seventy one billion.
as a result the un was even forced to disqualify its main cdm verification agency in. two thousand and nine the free market approach to tackling climate change has failed.
even the most conservative estimates suggest that between one third and two thirds of all carbon credits bought under the scheme do not represent real carbon reductions.
we need planning for the environment not production for profit of the rich.
mr president the european union and its member states are the largest providers of aid for trade in the world.
i believe eu trade should differentiate and give special attention to the least developed countries.
for example the forty nine least developed countries account for only.
many developing countries are still not fully benefiting from trade.
of course she is not popular here in the councils of europe.
we felt as if we were finished as a country and by force of will she turned it round.
now in the aftermath of her death there is division and argument which is in a way a tribute to her.
mr president it is worth remembering that long before it became popular one of the first people to talk about the connection between greenhouse gases and climate change was the then prime minister of the united kingdom margaret thatcher and i hope that you of all people will allow me in the circumstances to say a word or two about her.
she took a country that was ruined bankrupt and dishonoured and left it prosperous comfortable and free.
the rage of her enemies will never be appeased because it is the rage of caliban.
it is almost impossible to appreciate the magnitude of her achievement without considering the calamity which preceded her the three day week the prices and incomes policies and the double digit inflation.
she was eventually brought down by a group of conservative mps who thought that she was wrong about opposing the single currency but with retrospect can anyone doubt that she got that one right?
she refused to accept that a great people would decline for ever.
for instance treating women and men the same in matters of insurance ignores a range of gender specific factors such as physical strength longevity or risk aversion which i think are important.
in addition i support the aim to achieve an increase in north south and south south competitiveness and productivity which will ultimately contribute to greater social cohesion and a reduction in inequalities.
the ecr has amended the report to underline support for development of the private sector and its greater participation in trade and investment at different levels such as the local regional bilateral and multilateral levels.
i think it is also regrettable that this report makes no mention of stopping the awarding of bonuses where a bank or financial institution is operating at a loss or is in financial difficulty.
mr president i agree with the premise that opening up trade is one of the most effective ways to advance development.
it is self evident that if developing states can ensure that appropriate internal conditions are put into place such as fighting corruption and pursuing inclusive economic development trade can arguably boost developing economies more effectively than any other development measure.
strictly applying these criteria could limit the success of other measures that are included in the report.
when applying social and or environmental standards these must respect two points.
it is therefore with regret that i vote against this report whilst welcoming some of the conclusions made within it.
mr president the eu started life as a trading bloc and its most fundamental and appealing quality remains that it is a bastion of free trade in which the wide exchange of goods and services builds prosperity for those who participate in its networks.
it is therefore regrettable that the report has been stymied by a series of over prescriptive paragraphs which detract from the essence of a market driven approach to development and place far too many restrictions on developing countries and the businesses which might wish to locate there. few doubt the importance of corporate social responsibility and labour standards but subjecting poorer countries to unrealistic standards and goals will choke them economically rather than liberate their development.
there must always be compromises between enterprise and responsibility but this report sadly seems to have missed these.
mr president i am very honoured thank you. everybody in this house should be in favour of boosting trade for the benefit of developing countries and the least developed nations of this planet and this report has much to recommend it. several passages rightly address the need to boost access to major markets by improving for
i also welcome the paragraphs on investing in ldc infrastructure in order to enable local and regional trade integration amongst the poorest countries. however like the svensson report there are far too many strings attached to make this a fully viable contribution to trade and development.
i am uneasy in particular about the extension of already strong social labour and environmental provisions.
however i look forward to seeing future inter reports which promote prosperity for the world's poorest people without imposing excessive red tape regulation or protectionism.
but then the uk has a special interest in this issue because not only do we endorse that european policy we have gone further the coalition government in the uk has introduced a carbon floor price to maintain a minimum price for carbon so as to encourage those low carbon investments.
but british conservatives today have stabbed their own coalition government in the back;
they have stabbed european climate change policy in the front; and they have dealt a major blow to the reputation of their own party.
today british conservatives have not only killed that husky.
that means that investment in renewable energy ccs and indeed nuclear power becomes more expensive across the european union.
i think this is a very black day for eu climate policy. it is a particularly bad day for my country.
mr president with every month that passes we hand away more and more powers from eu institutions to these agencies these quangos these unelected executive bodies with only the faintest idea of what they are supposed to do.
i looked up the website of enisa the european network and information security agency and there is a helpful section that says what does enisa do?
the agency's mission is essential to achieve a high and effective level of network and information security within the european union.
together with the eu institutions and member states enisa seeks to develop a culture of network and information security for the benefit of citizens consumers business and public sector organisations in the european union.
enisa is helping the european commission the member states and the business community to address respond and especially to prevent network and information security problems. ' well that's clear isn't it?
it is wonderful that we are handing over this enormous budget to this organisation whose employees based in crete will no doubt be the only people in that country who are immune from what is happening in greece.
i do not want to be rude about the birthplace of el greco your countryman by adoption mr president but if we were serious about this organisation it would not be on the margins of the european union.
this is all about creating a class of well remunerated eurocrats who have a vested interest in the system.
mr president if you look at the situation of many acp countries and developing countries around the world one of the things that entrepreneurs in these countries are calling out for is more open markets.
they want more open access to our markets but at the same time they want to see more liberalisation and competition in their own markets.
if you are a supplier of goods or services you do not want to be constrained to a monopoly provider or a government backed entity in that country.
but at the same time we should recognise that there should not be a one size fits all approach.
and it is absolutely right that we are giving some individual countries extra time but at the end of the day they will have to negotiate their own agreements if they do not want to face the high tariffs.
but let us help entrepreneurs in developing countries by reducing tariffs and giving them access to our markets.
mr president the acp countries by and large are former colonies of individual eu countries and we have replaced a system of individual colonialism with a kind of collective economic colonialism where we have made the acp as a unit dependent economically on the eu.
what these countries desperately need is the openness of our markets the ability to sell the products which above all they depend on which are agrarian surpluses.
we instead compensate them with aid which draws them into a position of dependency and vassalage and which benefits a small number of people in acp countries over the general population.
you cannot help noticing if you go to acp meetings that the leaders from the acp countries are much more permanent than those in the democratic eu countries. they have learnt how to make the system work because foreign aid gives them a revenue stream independent of their tax base and so cuts the link between taxation representation and expenditure.
the one thing we could really do to help those countries is to open our markets.
mr president in a world where cybersecurity is a real concern where companies across the world are facing problems from cyber attacks only recently in the news there were stories of american companies being attacked by what they felt were chinese cyber attackers it is quite clear that it is important that we tackle these issues in a cooperative manner.
it should be done in a manner of cooperation but it should not only be for the eu companies institutions and organisations to do so.
it should be done on a global basis.
i am very happy for the eu to have an agency if it works in a cooperative manner but also if it makes sure that it cooperates with organisations outside the eu to make sure that we are truly tackling this problem at a global level.
we do need to move to a lower carbon economy and especially to investment in new nuclear.
long term investment like this does need a long term strategy but right now today high energy prices are also causing real problems for many millions of households and the eu's energy policies have caused many businesses to relocate to other parts of the globe. we therefore need a global approach and it is good to know that other parts of the world are now also setting up their own emissions trading schemes.
this back loading vote has been difficult but fundamentally we know that the back loading was a poor sticking plaster which did not solve the problems with the ets.
i hope the commission will look rapidly at proposals for a significant long term structural and affordable reform.
mr president although the aim of the proposed new regulations on ground handling services at european union airports has good intentions such as attempting to open the market and increase airport efficiency there is severe doubt that it would actually add much value to the existing directive.
recent amendments such as the guarantee that existing collective agreements with trade unions must be honoured by any new ground handling company have actually fallen short of mollifying union and wider stakeholder concerns.
crucially there has been a distinct lack of evidence that the legislation would increase overall airport efficiency a topic of crucial importance to my london constituents as they begin to look forward to their summer holidays departing from busy london hub airports such as heathrow.
if we have too few controlling this chain we will have less choice as consumers and that is really bad for us.
but it is not just because it would have a negative effect on small retailers and producers it also has a negative effect on consumers.
i gather that the high level forum for the better functioning of the food supply chain is making some slow progress.
i know we are living in exceptional times but we look forward to you making progress on this issue.
although competition policy has made great progress in many areas failures still remain with regard to price transparency the food supply change and energy prices.
competition policy within the single market is a key area in which europe can deliver for its citizens.
this will help lower prices for all our constituents;
mr almunia i agree with you and with mr schwab's comments about controlling state aid.
it has brought many benefits for consumers reducing costs making the single market more efficient and removing unjustified obstacles to the free movement of goods services and capital.
an example would be the g twenty agreement to better regulate the world's derivative markets.
one area where we must move cautiously is in the development of an increasingly complex regulatory environment especially for global financial services where reducing risk needs to be balanced with damaging our global competitiveness.
with increased competition comes natural fragmentation of the market which is then often followed by a wave of consolidation.
madam president good competition policy should ensure the right environment for an innovative business culture which in turn will yield sustainable economic growth.
we need to ensure effective competition policy at all times so we can encourage new entrants and innovation.
we are seeing this trend in the plethora of training venues which emerged post mifid and are now witnessing market consolidation amongst exchanges and multilateral trading facilities. legislation needs to be able to withstand these market trends and where it cannot adequately do so dg competition will need to protect europe's competitive landscape.
we need to ensure that the eu single market becomes a competitive and dynamic place to do business again.
however when we mandate the use of post trade activities such as central clearing we need to ensure that we are not now mandating a new eu monopoly of service.
we should only regulate where there has been a proven need and with proportionate measures.
on the competition dialogue i am very pleased with the proposals.
as you know liberals attach great importance to competition policies not only as a means of protecting consumer interests as was rightly pointed out but also to foster innovative dynamic and competitive european markets. we need to realise that we are not just competing with each other but that europe should also be a strong economic actor in the global markets.
if we had had a european solution then maybe the whole problem of banks that were too big to fail would have had a completely different dimension because banks are only too big to fail in relation to the authority that bails them out.
mr almunia is absolutely right when he says that in these times state aid rules should not be relaxed but they should actually be much tighter and much stricter than normal because we have to keep in mind that state aid distorts competition.
they reflect the reality of the development of a political union in which economic policies and economic coordination become ever more important.
we need strong competition policies and controls in particular in times of economic crisis.
in contrast i am not very happy about an earlier report by this house that calls for relaxing the state aid rules for services of general interest.
in the two thousand and ten competition policy report i appreciate very much the emphasis on the need to discontinue as soon as possible the temporary state aid rules adopted in the context of the financial and economic crisis.
ultimately competition is about economics.
the ecr group cannot support his approach of a horizontal instrument.
public enforcement is essential to fully achieve the goals of the single market and to ensure the enforcement of eu competition law by the commission and by the national competition authorities.
however private actions also help to pursue the public interest of deterrence.
i hope that we can continue to work together in the same constructive spirit.
a balanced approach to competition policy combines elements of both public and private enforcement.
private enforcement is compensatory in nature in the sense that it promotes a personal interest in the private actor initiating it.
madam president the cornerstone of eu competition policy has always been the elimination of obstacles to the free movement of goods services persons and capital. i am pleased to know that the european commission increasingly uses economic analyses when shaping competition policy and i hope that it will continue to follow this course in the future;
furthermore i strongly support the suggestion to the commission that it should take into account the impact in terms of distortion of competition of ecb liquidity support provided to banks during the rescue stage.
we would like to see a system of access to national collective redress systems for those in other member states based on a non binding framework and specific sectoral measures.
we have made positive progress in key areas.
we have looked at sector specific issues such as state aid and sectors of general economic interest for example.
in this report as the rapporteur has just indicated we have targeted certain specific aspects of interest.
first fining policy where we have called for greater transparency in the procedures in determining fines adopted for cartels.
i agree with the commissioner and the rapporteur on the need to balance the protection of the consumer with a fair clear procedure proportionate to the effects.
on state aid and the financial sector much mentioned just now member states either at municipal or federal level have been forced to stabilise the financial situations in their countries.
the commission is right not to pull the carpet from under the feet of this stability.
however we do need to establish the correct controls to ensure that the level playing field is not ignored.
we have to determine what the real need is instead of what is just for advantage and could be proved to be advantageous.
i would like to say that the s d group supports this report and supports the rapporteur's work.
he has done much to bring together many of the aspects that we have agreed and perhaps even disagreed on in the past.
the answer to that lies at the heart of this useless eu which has demolished national frontiers.
they outlaw using the small print of any document to hide the true cost of a service. so the office of fair trading can now take action against uk companies but there is a serious drawback.
in the uk in may two thousand and eight the misleading marketing regulations came into force.
the free movement of people goods and services provides perfect cover for the people traffickers the terrorists and for threatening traumatising scams aimed at fleecing the unwary.
the oft does not have jurisdiction to tackle any scams from elsewhere including from other member states so the problem continues and i continue to receive my share of complaints. more to the point while they may operate elsewhere due to lax policing why can my own government not prevent what comes from mainland europe?
two and a half years later unfortunately we are back here in plenary to discuss the same subject because there has been a serious lack of action to combat the problem of misleading business directories.
the message that this parliament gave was clear that there is a serious problem with fraudulent practices by misleading business directories that tens of thousands of our small businesses voluntary organisations and even charities are falling victim to these fraudulent practices and that we need a concerted approach
at first glance one does not notice any cost any payment that might result from filling in this form.
basically what this involves is that a misleading business directory sends out a form which appears to simply request people to update their own personal details or their business details in return for what appears to be a free entry a free listing in the business directory.
to stop once and for all such deceptive practices.
the difficulties involved in tracking down activities of this nature undermine the very functioning of the internal market.
more emphasis should be placed on effective and dissuasive sanctions against such fraudulent practices in all member states which would put such directory companies out of business and enable those who run them to be punished. it should be envisaged to extend the scope for the unfair commercial practices directive
in that way most if not all unfair business to business commercial practices in the retail sector would be covered and governed by the same set of rules as unfair business to consumer commercial practices with which they generally overlap. it is also important to help businesses combat the scam by improving access to information
the answer of the dutch authorities clearly shows that member states are mostly concerned about what happens in their own territory. i believe that given the cross border nature of the problem more cooperation between member states on enforcement would also be absolutely crucial to stop the fraudulent practices.
and awareness raising by improving redress mechanisms.
the commission could itself take a more active role in working together with the member states on cross border enforcement using existing eu wide networks to facilitate cooperation between the member states.
to encompass all commercial practices in a business to consumer relationship whether aiming at the protection of consumers or competitors.
misleading practices are illegal under the misleading and comparative advertising directive and the unfair commercial practices directive.
it is my understanding for example that one of these companies was convicted in one region of spain and yet all it did was simply move to another region and continue its work. one of the matters that concerns citizens is that they are not sure of how legal systems operate in other countries.
they may feel that within their own member state they will be protected but they are not sure what happens in another member state.
she thought nobody could be so stupid as to do what she had done not realising of course that this happens to people all the time.
the truth is that citizens expect to be protected by european legislation and they cannot understand why european legislation does not protect them in this respect. there is an ambiguity here. as i said i tell citizens that i believe that they are protected but i cannot guarantee it.
citizens see many areas where eu legislation impacts on their lives and so they cannot understand why they are not protected from fraudulent companies.