kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
an early focus has been the constitution the foundation of our political system.
no affront is felt more deeply than the israeli occupation.
global crises in finance food and energy seriously hurt our economies. arab families who sacrificed to educate their children have seen their sons and daughters leave school prepared for jobs that simply are not there.
i am confident that two thousand and twelve will be a year of key political reform in jordan.
to seek agreement and to offer acceptance.
i hope you can bring all this to bear in the days ahead.
other milestones include new laws on political parties and municipal and national elections as well as legislation for the new constitutional court and independent elections commission and our next tests will be municipal
if we cross the line where the two state solution is no longer possible israel will be further than ever from real security and it would take decades even generations for peace to regain the initiative.
there are outside actors that seek to take advantage of discord.
this path demands consensus based reform based on structural comprehensive change political legal economic and social respecting the rights and freedoms of all our citizens.
we cannot afford one more generation in waiting for a palestinian state.
indeed over the past two years the european union has been an invaluable friend to those on both sides working for peace in the middle east.
my friends a long spring is unfolding in the arab world.
it is our shared belief in the kind of neighbourhood it should be the kind of neighbourhood our people deserve rich in human dignity and freedom powered by opportunity and progress and secured by peace.
our societies are facing the challenge of moving from protests to programmes from criticism to national strategies.
thank you all for your warm welcome.
in some countries debate and consensus are in the air.
i approve of this interim agreement as it sends a signal on the importance of the trade relationship with the central african region. this epa has the potential to become a powerful catalyst for deeper integration within central africa with longer term benefits for the countries involved.
it is clear that the current efforts towards integration are insufficient and need to be intensified.
my group welcomes the vision of cameroon as an emerging economy by.
central african cross border trade volumes remain relatively small.
central african states must show a renewed political commitment to concluding negotiations because the lack of regional integration remains a major obstacle to trade driven development.
this is not and i want to emphasise this cameroon's fault because the other central african countries are ldcs and see little incentive at the moment for signing up for an epa.
but because it is not a cameroon problem i am recommending to the house today that we accept this stepping stone epa.
we have ensured that cameroon becomes wto compatible. on the second objective cameroon is not a least developed country but forty of its population remain below the poverty line and the country remains food insecure. this stepping stone epa does not do a lot to address that concern but
in isolation this stepping stone epa perhaps gets one and a half out of three in terms of meeting these three objectives.
we in the european union have not as yet sold the potential benefits of epas properly.
cameroon does become wto compatible by signing up for the stepping stone epa and that is vital for them in terms of continued market access after the amendment to the market access regulation because their preferences will end on one october two thousand and fourteen if no action is taken. i welcome the fact that in relation to the first objective
it is not the end product.
so there is much work to be done if we wish to get the other seven regions to sign up;
they already benefit from duty free and quota free access to the european union market and do not see the epa delivering any additional benefits.
clearly the stepping stone epa does not do this because cameroon is the only country in the region signing up for it with seven countries deciding to stay out.
we do have some responsibility for that because the reason the african countries prefer to trade with europe rather than with each other is because of historical colonial ties.
so it is not just about liberalisation but it is a new development package.
the aim is to move from the stepping stone to a full epa so i do not believe it breaks regional integration at the moment. we had the cameroon ambassador in the trade committee who emphasised the importance of this epa for his country and i have had contact with the cameroon trade minister who has also emphasised the importance of this epa for his country. you cannot in my opinion punish cameroon for being the only non ldc in a regional grouping where every other country is an ldc.
so we have a responsibility to try to encourage inter regional trade within the african countries.
what i would say to the commission though is that while i am very strongly supporting this and while i hope we can move forward in terms of regional epas i still believe that the way we are presenting epas and some of the offers on the table we make in terms of epas are not sufficient.
but we seem to be stuck on this idea that it has to be a fixed eighty so we need to show a bit more flexibility in our negotiations and we must as i said at the beginning also emphasise more the accompanying measures.
that is of course what has pushed them to sign up now and the others to hold out for more.
i was pleased to hear the commissioner say that in the eleventh edf we are putting more money into encouraging regional integration.
we aim for significant progress in the coming months.
it is a process.
i also deeply regret the absence of a clause on human rights despite repeated calls from this house to include such clauses in all international agreements.
cameroon remains the country which prosecutes lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people the most under their penal code.
this witch hunt must end. despite these strong reserves i will support the reasoned recommendation from the rapporteur to give consent as i recognise that it is an interim agreement and that it is necessary to continue sustained negotiations.
but i insist that such an interim agreement should be a stepping stone towards reinforced negotiations which will engage all countries of central africa and also cover important issues such as human rights and development and not only trade.
it gives greater access to the european union market for countries which sign and ratify twenty seven core ilo conventions.
if it is real we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our colleagues and make sure that we help them develop their human rights labour standards and environmental standards.
one example of this is pakistan which is for the first time in its history successfully seeing the conclusion of a full term of a civilian government followed by the election of another civilian government. pakistan sees gsp status as key to the long term goal of stabilising their economy accelerating growth and
the first ten countries to apply for the new gsp scheme are choosing not only to strengthen their economy through cooperation with europe but also demonstrating their commitment to improving their human rights environmental and labour standards.
eradicating poverty.
that is what the commission scorecard will allow us to judge whether progress is real.
so the commissioner has to define what is a serious failure to implement because otherwise on what basis is this a starting point?
that is the purpose of the question from the committee to find out how that is going to happen.
but if at this starting point we have scorecards that are full of lack of compliance with reporting requirements on multiple conventions and if we have repeated references in the scorecards to serious abuses of human rights of labour rights and so on how is that a starting point?
it is simply fundamentally undemocratic and that is the purpose of it to be undemocratic and to restrict the rights of this parliament to properly scrutinise what the commission is doing in terms of gsp.
if that is the case we have to redefine the word incentive'. secondly given that the scorecards are secret that they are not public how can this be a transparent process?
how can you have an input from civil society in the gsp applicant countries?
finally it is just intolerable and a number of members have spoken about it that the commission thinks it is an appropriate approach to come along with ten countries in one delegated act.
that only works if there is effective monitoring to ensure that there actually is implementation.
i think too that we need to hear more from the commission about how actually this process of monitoring is going to take place.
is that the only basis on which a country will be refused access to gsp or will be thrown out of gsp?
both the council and the commission are in favour of the delegated act as it is a good piece of legislation.
the commission is legally allowed to do so.
any effort to amend the act only complicates a process that already has strong support.
the committee does not need to make a show of strength against legislation the commission is legally allowed to introduce.
the committee members who are against the act are not in favour of all countries on the beneficial list being in a single piece of legislation and they believe that the commission is not legally allowed to include all the countries in the single act.
that is why i urge my colleagues to come to the voting chamber tomorrow to come in large numbers and to support that young girl in delivering her vision for her country.
provide us with the tools to educate our youth provide us with the means to ensure that once they are educated they can have jobs' i find it incredibly difficult to then turn that message away from the floor of this house.
progressively improve their implementation record.
without prejudice to other sources this could include information from civil society social partners the european parliament and the council.
these initial scorecards will constitute the starting point for each country in monitoring the effective implementation of the twenty seven international conventions linked to gsp tariff preferences.
it will also assess information received from other sources including the european parliament.
scorecards will be updated and drafted shared with both member states and the european parliament before they are communicated to the beneficiary countries.
as the scheme is implemented we would expect more opportunities for further work together.
it is not meant to create new or additional commitments or targets.
as foreseen in the gsp regulation reports from relevant monitoring bodies are core documents for the purposes of monitoring the continued gsp eligibility. however other sources of information may now also be considered provided that they are accurate and reliable.
the countries which are to benefit from the gsp scheme should hear it loud and clear they will be monitored.
i am not in any way trying to take away from some of the very valid points that have been made by colleagues from right across this house.
in committee many of our colleagues raised issues of human rights.
it delivers for us a meaningful and constructive relationship with each of these ten countries.
there are of course interinstitutional issues that have been raised here.
this house stands for principles and our flagship human rights policies ask for those to be upheld today.
are we going to stand by those principles or are we going to allow prejudices to determine our decision?
whilst we make the point that the commission should also hear loud and clear that this house cannot be taken for granted the way to send that message and deal with that issue is not by supporting this particular resolution that has been put forward.
colleagues' concerns have been met and i am sure that the majority of meps in this house tomorrow will decide to stand by our principles and not to support prejudices.
the reason we have it is in order to encourage countries with a less than perfect record to raise their standards.
it is up to us now to work with the commission to ensure that it is adequately applied.
but from our perspective what does that deliver for us?
the issue surrounding the single delegated act is a serious one as others have mentioned and i cannot understand why the commission decided to tie its hands in this way.
as liberals we have strongly supported the progress made particularly in pakistan particularly through their successful election and their efforts to improve their human rights record as well as their economy but the daily press is now reporting on gsp in many of these countries and is expecting it to happen.
so my question now is how does the commission plan to safeguard the role of the european union in promoting human and labour rights and environment and good governance through trade and development?
does the commission have a plan to monitor how the gsp countries meet the conditions required to keep this status and does the commission have the means to react if there are cases of serious violations of human rights in the gsp countries?
trading at a global level as relationships depends on building strong links to bind the partners together.
the conversation needs to work two ways of course and europe's markets are the strong attraction for sales but at the same time there must be a chance for the extension of standards when parties can show a complementary influence on each other.
core labour standards and commitments to the environment and human rights are expected outcomes and indeed as has been mentioned already pakistan is one country where it is believed real progress can and is being made. the carrot can work and not just the stick.
let me reiterate that applicant countries have committed to taking bold steps to implement core human social and labour rights sometimes even before applying for preferences.
they have met the entry requirements and this can be economically costly and politically difficult.
the eu is proud that these countries are taking such steps but we are not lenient we have been tough in assisting them and assessing them.
in terms of the analysis of the gsp entry criteria the commission considers that a single delegated act better ensures that similarly situated gsp beneficiaries get identical treatment instead of individual delegated acts per country.
as for the monitoring mechanism the application will be ensured on a country by country basis in order to take into account the individual degree of progress that beneficiary countries will ensure. we are now completing the first technical phase for the first ten applicants.
now a second phase will begin focusing on compliance with the obligations taken on by the applicants under international conventions.
the scrutiny and follow up mechanisms provided in our legislation and which foresee an important role for the european parliament will require gsp beneficiary countries to prove that they are making genuine verifiable progress.
in applying this scheme the eu institutions share the same objective promoting development and eu values concurrently.
through gsp and in particular gsp the commission considers it has lived up to parliament's call in a resolution passed in april this year on advancing development through trade.
in particular i want to say that i welcome the efforts of colleagues on the committee because we have worked together to find savings and i definitely think that this report is headed in the right direction.
policy not just here in brussels but policy in luxembourg policy in strasbourg.
surely at a time when we are looking for savings that has to be the most obvious saving of all and now is the time to address that if we are to retain credibility with the electorate.
at a time when national governments throughout europe are striving to cut budgets to deliver better value for money and to keep budgets under tight control it is absolutely essential that we in this house visibly are seen to be doing the same thing.
here i mention in particular administrative staffing costs and building policy;
the very minimum we should have been seeking is an absolute freeze on expenditure.
this is a good initiative and we support it as another way to tackle the issue of our own costs.
we put forward amendments to make sure that we can find savings and greater efficiency.
we should also do so.
our group is very satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations between the groups.
we are convinced that we can find more savings.
the second thing it should do is take the lead in avoiding condemning and sanctioning all wasteful and irregular use of taxpayers' funds.
this parliament does not need more taxpayers' money to fund a european history house or other narcissistic projects.
what this parliament needs is to behave responsibly and act genuinely in the interests of the citizens of the member states.
this parliament does not need more taxpayers' money to fund synthetic european political parties.
this parliament does not need more taxpayers' money to fund communication and advertising campaigns to make itself known to the public.
i will vote against this budget proposal and urge the british prime minister to call for a ten reduction in the eu budget for the european parliament for.
in this sense the first thing it should do is to stop burdening europe's people with heavy and useless regulation that frequently drives them out of business.
mr president this parliament should not be asking for more money from taxpayers but less.
have you considered that this is absolutely meaningless in relation to the eur fourteen billion of aid budgeted between two thousand and fourteen and two thousand and twenty for candidate countries and potential candidate countries?
as far as i am concerned it is the start of the process and i like other colleagues will want to make even more savings later this year.
some colleagues will want a much bigger cut.
other colleagues have mentioned the building policy savings on delegations and savings on interpretation and translation.
but i say to everyone even those who want a bigger cut in parliament's budget please at least recognise that we are making efforts to save and are doing our best to keep the increase as low as possible.
yes work is being done on that at the moment but when the work is concluded i am sure that every member will want to ensure that the rights of members are also protected.
some colleagues will want a bigger budget;
but let me make it clear once again that the.
i also support calls to look at all our budget lines particularly the budget lines which are normally under spent each year.
i support greater interinstitutional cooperation.
and also in the project reserve.
i will return to that in a few minutes.
it would be easy to listen to populist voices and make cuts in areas which damage the european parliament's effectiveness and indeed the effectiveness of individual members of this house.
we need to clarify with the commission how much they will put into the building costs and the running costs of that particular project.
i believe the majority of members will take the middle sensible course. therefore in addition to the suggested savings i also support the call for no new unforeseen building projects for the rest of this term.
there must be opportunities for savings if we work jointly with other institutions on translation on interpretation on buildings and on human resources. i am pleased to say that work has already started on that.
colleagues will note that when we have sought to make savings we have also attempted to protect the effectiveness of the european parliament and to respect our legal responsibilities.
to achieve the.
there must be the potential for further savings.
mr president i have listened carefully to the comments of members this evening and in the context of real cuts in real front line services back in our member states in health education and other areas i cannot believe that members think it is enough just to talk about freezing this budget in real terms.
i completely agree that members must have the right to speak and listen in their own languages but i have also seen many members fail to turn up for meetings where they have asked for interpretation and that does not seem responsible.
but more fundamentally we need to consider in the future how we run this parliament and especially the costs of our monthly commute to strasbourg because in order to have our citizens' satisfaction in our work we need to look again at the costs that they are bearing in the wider economy.
the report on the readability of the package information requested by parliament in two thousand and ten and the outcome of the study on the drug fact box is expected to be ready by mid.
health is in my view a fundamental right of all our citizens.
with regard to the black box referred to by mrs mcavan there is an ongoing project to analyse the feasibility and value added of certain information that will be summarised in what is now being called the drug fact box. the studies will involve collaboration with the european medicines agency and national competent authorities as well as consultations with organisations at eu level representing patients consumers doctors and pharmacists social health
two thousand and thirteen i agree with ms matias that we cannot allow the financial crisis to punch holes in our healthcare system.
my big priority in the course of negotiations over the last few weeks has been to strengthen the hand of regulators in the pharmaceutical system and by doing so to improve patient safety.
finished until almost a decade later.
secondly whenever there is any concern about safety there will now be an automatic trigger which will lead to an investigation at european level. there will not be national discretion over that decision.
the second is the issue of the black box of essential information on the patient information leaflet.
thirdly when a post authorisation safety study is requested that study will have to be carried out.
i hope you will make a comment on this.
the company withdrew the medicine from markets in some countries for commercial reasons. the second issue which struck me was that the french and italian authorities had requested a safety study from servier back in two thousand because of these concerns but that study was not
we had not expected to be back here tonight updating that legislation before it took effect but that was before the mediator case in france which highlighted potential weaknesses in what we had already agreed.
all the european institutions and stakeholders are demonstrating today that when patient safety is at stake actions can be taken swiftly and effectively.
i understood that the commission is already working on this issue and i hope it will come up with the relevant proposal without undue delay.
i particularly welcome two key elements of the future provisions to be implemented the obligation for companies to communicate the reasons for withdrawing a product from the market and the automatic trigger of the emergency procedure when this decision is taken due to safety concerns.
as decision makers we have a public health responsibility which we are taking today in ensuring the efficiency of our system and adapting it when necessary.
the alde group welcomes the agreement which will be put to the vote tomorrow upgrading our new framework adopted in two thousand and ten with a clear focus on transparency efficiency follow up mechanisms and the reinforcement of the monitoring of drugs placed on the market but subject to post authorisation studies.
we must indeed keep in mind that in addition to guaranteeing the highest level of patient safety the good functioning of our pharmacovigilance system is also a tool to reinforce european citizens' confidence and understanding of the medicines they are taking.
to conclude i would like to mention the need to provide sufficient resources for the european medicines agency to assume effectively its new missions.