kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
madam president as the economic crisis deepens major issues leading to industrial action are emerging in the united kingdom flowing from the compulsion for unrestricted free movement of labour within the eu and the procurement requirements in regard to major public contracts
in this i believe many will come to see the price being paid by the united kingdom for eu membership.
we are being compelled to subject ourselves to labour market laws and to the supremacy of eu law and the rulings of the european court of justice.
madam president as you know there have been widespread protests in my country about an italian company which has won a contract in an oil refinery in my constituency and has only used italian labour for the contract.
the outcry is understandable if indeed the company in question has reserved the right to its own nationals and not allowed british nationals to work.
that would be a violation of european union law discrimination on grounds of nationality as it would be if the company were undermining british legal requirements which it must observe under the posted workers directive.
if however the protesters are saying that only british companies should have had the right to tender for that work and only employ british labour then of course the protesters would be making an argument that would not be correct.
it cannot mean reserving things solely to the nationality of the country concerned either in britain or in any other member state of the european union.
from a scottish perspective lfa reform being parked for two years until we have adequate data to reform is hugely positive with many other steps as well.
we have a broken food supply chain within the european union. we export our bad decisions to the developing world.
the americans have already made this mistake.
we think this is a poor use of public money and it really is a deal breaker for our group on what is otherwise a very positive dossier.
we think that this could see vast amounts of rural development money essentially soaked up in commodity speculation without actually doing anything productive.
we have much to do in remedying what is wrong with the far too long far too complex far too opaque food supply chain and these reforms go part of the way but we do still have much to do on this.
agri environment schemes and organic schemes guaranteed a twenty five ring fence of funding; support crucially from our perspective for advisory services to encourage local processing short supply chains better practices quality schemes even community ownership better practices in the round to assist our farmers to modernise how they do things.
articles thirty seven thirty eight and forty on crop insurance and the income stabilisation tool we think is wrong in principle dubious in law and potentially disastrous in its financial implications.
if you grasp this proposal presuming that it is implemented the number of people whose payment would increase is higher than the number of people who would lose.
instead the ifa have brought up arguments such as food security achieving the harvest two thousand and twenty targets and supporting productive agriculture. these are straw men' arguments designed to hide their real ambition which is to keep the rich farmers rich and leave the average farm family struggling.
i would like to extend my support to the irish presidency's compromise amendments which and i quote take account of the greater labour intensity on smaller farms and the economies of scale of larger farms'.
rather than standing up for small and medium sized farms which constitute the largest segment of irish farms the ifa has attempted to suppress the truth about the current round of reforms namely that the majority of farmers' direct payments would increase as a result of the initial commission proposals and subsequent compromises tabled by the presidency.
mr president flexibility for member states is key to a successful policy one which will work for active productive farmers and which will protect public goods in the face of pressures on resources and the environment. workable flexible solutions can be found if the council takes the options presented by parliament on board and works with us to deliver a policy which will ensure the continued viability of farming.
regarding the specifics the key issues i wish to highlight are ensuring equality and fairness in the distribution of pillar one payments.
secondly we will see an end to the historic based payment system still used in several member states but the change will be gradual and measured as it has already been in those countries which have moved towards a flat rate payment.
if organic farmers are green by definition then agri environment farmers should also be given the same consideration and commissioner you have always given me an indication that this is your view please clarify.
we have worked for results not news headlines and i believe that a phasing in of this proposal combined with the european innovation partnerships for agriculture under pillar two will result in the proper integration of environmental practices into normal farming activity and that is what we should be trying to achieve in this house rather than a piecemeal forced adoption by farmers of measures that they have not bought into.
so on direct payments we have attempted to target greening measures to where they will have a real effect.
nevertheless those of us in the negotiating teams have worked diligently to reflect the issues of concern.
we have decided on a more realistic introduction of ecological focus areas to reflect farming realities.
i have a real concern as an economist that this will embed the payments into land ownership and increase land rental values.
we are deepening the environmental delivery and linking thirty of direct payments to environmental measures which is a major reorientation.
my own view commissoner is that attempting to do both in this round of reforms is highly ambitious and extremely difficult.
especially on greening where we have requirements for farmers that are more workable and realistic.
quite simply the money is no longer there to support it.
they deserve an adequate transition period so that farmers and industry can make the necessary adjustments for the future.
i also believe the concerns and other elements in the report which will give producer organisations the ability to regulate the supply for certain products and the extension of the sugar regime.
as we are all aware the budget for pillar two took a tremendous hit during the mff negotiations and this is very unfortunate.
however i still maintain my position and i believe i am right that greening is best delivered through the pillar two schemes which can be easily targeted at local specific needs and represent more of a carrot and stick approach than we see at present.
can i just say about double funding because this is the in word that it is to some extent a distraction away from supporting in my opinion existing agri environmental schemes and this we must resolve during the trilogues.
we have come to solid agreements on rural development and the horizontal proposals and i will just take the opportunity to register once more that i will be voting against the risk management measures in pillar two as i do not believe that this is the best use of rural development money.
as for greening i am all for well funded agri environment schemes but the kindergarten approach put forward by the commission in its original report and then tinkered with by parliament will not deliver.
the direction of travel established in the last set of reforms is being heavily reversed here particularly in the cmo report which takes us backwards to a world of overproduction and guaranteed pricing.
in my own member state particularly in england i can confidently predict that the new system will deliver a nightmare scenario of administrative changes new mapping requirements confusion and resentment.
we have an opportunity to improve food production efficiency and protect and enhance our environment.
instead we have seen naked self interest manifested in issues such as supporting a lack of transparency of recipients of payments exemption of farmers from basic european competition regulation the reintroduction of subsidy for tobacco and many more unpalatable elements.
this surely cannot be in anyone's interest not the farmer not the taxpayer and above all not the consumer.
in a europe in financial crisis every penny of public money we spend is under severe scrutiny. how can we justify the continuation of devoting nearly forty of the eu budget to agricultural subsidy without a clear plan to tie public money to public goods?
it was unambitious micro managing when it was first proposed and it has not been improved by the committee.
i do welcome some elements those on cross compliance proportionality and sheep eid to name two but i shall be working my way through this voting list with a heavy heart reflecting on a lost opportunity.
as a british mep i object to british farmers being told by the green lobby that they do not rotate crops properly when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this.
british taxpayers deserve a better return on their investment.
despite a strong demand for sugar the reform proposals have the potential to make life difficult for both the sugar cane and the sugar beet sectors in the uk.
between them these two factors are bound to reduce decision making to a series of shambolic compromises that make a nonsense of the word simplification'.
that says it all.
this is particularly apparent when decisions on capping and the definitions of eligible farmers' are concerned.
the eu is simply too big and diverse to adopt a common agricultural policy.
madam president since the last reform process two major dynamics have changed. twenty seven countries are now involved and the concept of co decision with the council has been introduced.
this concern may well be relevant to other parts of europe where maize is grown continuously. the irony does not escape me that this is largely happening because of the green lobby's obsession with biofuels.
payments must be linked to environmentally sound practices.
ninety two percent of rivers lakes and aquifers in the eu are affected by pollution or habitat change.
it is vital therefore that income for small and medium sized farmers is protected by the cap.
mr president the reform of the cap takes place in the context of two crises an environmental crisis and an economic crisis for small farmers and rural communities. unfortunately what will emerge from this process will not assist in resolving either.
two thousand and nine this situation must end with payments being focused on small and medium farmers.
however across europe eighty of direct payments go to just twenty of farmers with big agri business ranch farmers and landlords benefiting including the queen of england who received eur.
industrialised capitalist farming is threatening our environment.
thirty four percent of farming households in ireland are now classified as economically vulnerable.
i therefore oppose the amendments that water down the already limited greening proposals.
we are supposed to be going into trialogues at the end of this month so i feel this is a bit unacceptable for me as someone in the committee which has put so much work time and effort over months to get this report.
as a group we will support the compromises both in the horizontal regulations and the direct payments.
that is why we support the idea of equivalence and we want the commission to be judge and jury in ensuring that any flexibility used by member states delivers the same environmental impact.
we believe that the commission has been completely intractable on eid and we want to keep that as a negotiating point in the discussions.
finally we will also support the transparency measures so that the public can see quite clearly what their money is being spent on and who the recipients are.
i hope that parliament in its vote tomorrow will back these changes and deliver a strong mandate for the negotiators to ensure that we do deliver a more sustainable agriculture one that can produce the food we need while at the same time tackling climate change and preserving precious resources.
mr president commissioner i am disappointed by these proposals.
if they are accepted in their current form they will firstly reverse the direction of travel of the industry over the past two reforms.
thirdly they do nothing to help with the simplification of the common agricultural policy.
no one doubts the importance of an environmentally sound biodiverse countryside.
but what we cannot accept is that it should be achieved at the expense of not in support of a sound competitive and productive agriculture sector.
by returning to coupling and intervention it reinvents all the old bad habits of the common agricultural policy.
we shall go back to supporting inefficiency and we shall not be meeting the challenges of the future.
mr alves you talked about quotas. the real problem is that mr davies got it completely wrong when he said people want greening.
you must answer this question because i think you are wrong in putting in place quotas which limit the efficiency of farmers.
we are acting decisively to improve the cfp but in not endorsing the commission's proposals for the cap i think we are dragging our feet dangerously.
if farmers are to be subsidised then people expect greening to be applied for there to be full cross compliance as a minimum for those subsidies. and of course they want full transparency;
they want to know where their money is going;
they want to know who is receiving it.
there are some members of this parliament who are beneficiaries of the common agricultural policy.
it is very important that those members declare their interests and abstain from voting.
it is important for this parliament's reputation that we are not seen to have a vested interest in the way we shape the policies of this union.
madam president i have consistently expressed my dissatisfaction with the original commission proposal and the lack of importance given to food security.
the farming and agri foods sectors are vital to the economy of northern ireland.
a visionary cap reform which recognised the importance of these sectors in global food security would have boosted this in member states.
this proposal is extremely complex may restrict farmers' ability to produce food and in many cases will not deliver for the environment.
flexibility allows member states and regions to implement the policy in a way which best suits the needs of farmers wildlife and the environment.
it also maximises the benefit of cap for farm incomes and food production.
in northern ireland given the link to historic payments it is important that internal convergence is carried out in a manner which allows farm businesses to adjust to income variations.
additional allocations in the budgets to individual member states without explanation run contrary to this very important principle.
i support the measures for young farmers as a small attempt at energising and sustaining the sector.
i do wish everyone well.
this system is still not functioning right.
madam president first of all i too would like to thank julie girling who stepped in later in the process and did a great job in delivering this result.
that doesn't help you at home but still the thanks are there and we as greens can also support the reform because it's an improvement on what we have.
though let's be honest it is not very difficult to get an improvement on what we have right?
i think that wonderful work has been done here.
i welcome the compromise that we reached on this but we did not settle the matter.
this is always open and we are always discussing it but it remains a system operating in thirty one countries.
we have the recent agreement with switzerland we have president trump to thank for the call to action in the united states which has meant some ambitious plans in california and their tieup with ontario and indeed even movement in china where i know the commission has been very active in terms of helping with their own putative system.
there are challenging internal politics around the relationship between the eu fifteen and more recent accession states with a lively discussion on the absolute amounts and on the conditions that would be appropriate to impose in providing the flow of funds to assist these member states.
we also had the difficult issue of indirect cost compensation warmly embraced by some member states and not by others leading to a fundamental question as to whether if some member state governments are prepared to support their industry financially and others are not eu funds should be used to iron out the differences.
we await further developments on state aid rules to illuminate this question.
secondly there is the substantial withdrawal of excess allowances from the system.
so we are making this agreement in the context of a world that is moving forward.
we were working against the background of the two thousand and fourteen council conclusions which was not always helpful.
we have changes to benchmarks and carbon leakage lists offering a fine balance between carbon leakage protection and ambition.
there is a clear stamp of the european parliament on this agreement new thinking and new mechanisms which have been taken on board and i thank my colleagues for this.
the discussions will continue.
we tackled many problems from a carbon price that was clearly too low to make the market function to the extremely difficult issue of striking the balance between our environmental ambition and the protection of energy intensive european industry.
that is still something that is not too good.
let's move forward!
let us please stop referring to those pre pre pre paris conclusions from council and that applies to both the commission and the council.
first of all carbon leakage. we are still handing out ninety five of all allowances for free to industry even for sectors that have no real trade or carbon intensity.
paris is beyond.
so we have to bring ourselves back to basics and remember that the cap and trade system gives us the opportunity for an increased carbon price which creates the incentive for industry to invest.
i think we need to call on all those member states as we conclude these negotiations and put this into law. we need to call on all of those member states to remember that this does not constitute drawing a line which they do not have to pass.
there is so much that they could do and here we really need to hold their feet to the fire to make sure they take advantage of the flexibilities that we have given them and that we have built in in order to achieve and invest wisely for the future.
finally i expect that those who will take part in world cup matches in moscow will not become a shameful part of putin's team.
immediately at home and in good health.
state and their homeland.
we raise our voices because in this case the geneva convention on the persecution of civilian populations during war time has been brutally violated.
madam president four years after the illegal occupation of crimea we raise our voice in the european parliament in solidarity with political prisoners of russia civilians who are persecuted because of their loyalty and love for this
it means fair trials an end to torture and confessions extracted under torture access to lawyers and doctors etcetera.
let's not forget that this is the reality of russia as people watch the world cup.
this worrying trend of repression is underlined by the fact that russia loses most cases before the european court of human rights.
sentsov is one of one hundred and fifty eight political prisoners a number that has been rising sharply.
it is steps like these in which putin's regime reveals itself most clearly.
we call for the unconditional release of all political prisoners and human rights defenders and urge russian authorities to respect people's rights including when they're in detention.
it is first and foremost in the interests of the russian people that civil society organisations and media can do their work without intimidation and in freedom.
well because he publicly opposed president putin.
i urge the russian federation to do the only thing possible to immediately release mr sentsov and to respect its international commitments.
we cannot watch this idly and we have to notice that today president putin is celebrating the opening of the world cup.
we have to now pay all of our attention to the people who are suffering in the prisons for politically motivated charges and i would like to particularly mention oyub titiev the director of memorial' in chechnya.
and we have to remember what happened after the sochi olympics in two thousand and fourteen just some moments after these celebrations closing the sochi olympics the illegal occupation of crimea started.
they further demand the release of as many as seventy other ukrainians and crimean tatars who have been arrested by moscow on political grounds.
the country will be in the global spotlight for the next month or so but my group today demands the immediate and unconditional release of sentsov and his fellow prisoners sentenced by a country that has no legitimate jurisdiction over them on political grounds.
these brave men are protesting against russia's persecution and arbitrary imprisonment of opposition voices including especially those within annexed crimea.
today is also the kick off of the two thousand and eighteen fifa world cup in russia.
i also urge european political leaders to refrain from attending the two thousand and eighteen world cup in condemnation of russia's continued disrespecting of the multilateral rules based world order be it in crimea eastern ukraine the european union or us political processes not to mention the poisoning within my country the united kingdom of its own citizens.
madam president it is about time that we in the eu and the international community raised our voice and supported economically and morally the courage of russian human rights defenders who work tirelessly for democracy and justice in the shadow of putin's propaganda machine.
we must support including financially the democratic work in russia.
it is only through free and democratic societies that stand firm on the fulfilment of human rights that we will build long term security in europe and in the world.
i hope that this topic is also raised.
mr president crimea's illegal annexation was a disaster for international law and still this illegal occupation continues to undermine the pre eminence of the rule of law and international relations.
the situation has concrete consequences on the lives of those who live in crimea.
cultural heritage continues to be destroyed and crimea is set to lose invaluable historical sites. as a cultural activist this perspective worries me.
the destruction of cultural heritage is a form of ethnogenocide and a crime against humanity.
i am extremely worried about the more urgent situation of oleg sentsov.
as the days go by his hunger strike becomes more and more alarming.
i am increasingly worried as are many.
the european union should do everything in its power to call for his immediate and unconditional release and provide for humanitarian assistance to him and all the other political prisoners held in custody in russia and the occupied territories.
let my people go.
this package would focus primarily on finance resilience adaptation and energy.
minorities and migrants are among the most frequent targets.
i encourage you to live up to the standards you have set for yourselves and for the world.
europe is experiencing low population growth and demographic transition to an aging population.
europe's success has become a powerful draw for migration.
world. i thank the european union for being among the first to issue a climate target in march of this year and for the generous contributions of many eu member states to the green climate
you are a locomotive with a most powerful
i remain fully committed to working with the european institutions to address this challenge.
our approach must be comprehensive looking at countries of destination transit and above all origin.