kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
but under no circumstances should fishing vessels be allowed to engage in direct authorisations just like that if there has not been any protocol in force for three years.
the report that we are going to vote on tomorrow is a regulation that is part of the eu control system on fisheries.
it suggests that fishing could start again without any prior assessment of the situation yet there can be many reasons why there is no protocol in force for example that the fish stocks situation does not allow for more fishing or the coastal state wants to keep the resource to itself for political reasons.
so it is crucial to reinstate article.
this is already a provision in the current regulation that we need to keep.
i think this is crucial as a provision to guarantee the level playing field among fleets.
they could negotiate weaker terms despite the existence of a bilateral agreement and that is not maintaining the high standards of the eu.
i urge you to vote in favour of amendment thirty two all parts.
my last point let me come back to amendment.
i hope that this will be confirmed in tomorrow's vote.
the second point is that some colleagues claim that prohibiting vessels that have committed a serious infringement from fishing abroad would be a double penalty and this is definitely not the case as commissioner vella also stressed. it is an eligibility criterion designed to ensure that only vessels with a clean record are allowed to fish outside eu waters.
it is serving to undermine them.
forty eight if vessels are allowed after three years of a dormant agreement to set up their own terms with a third country they will be able to ignore those very provisions in the cfp that have served to improve eu standards.
secondly simplification and modernisation of the cap should be done while at the same time the financial and performance control and audit functions should be performed to the same standard and under the same criteria across all member states.
finally a fair distribution of direct payments among member states will allow faster closing of the gaps between the different regions of the union. supporting the small farms and increasing efficiency of farming is essential.
but anyway i'd be anxious to hear. the average cut in direct payments as i mentioned earlier is closer to three than actually fourteen that you have mentioned and with envelopes increasing from a number of member states the figures in relation to rural development can improve.
our proposals would provide for genuine subsidiarity in the implementation of the policy while also containing sufficient safeguards to ensure that the common nature of the policy will be maintained and farmers will not be put at a competitive disadvantage as a result of our proposals.
you don't need a straw man in order to push the haystack we won't need to have to do that.
i agree with mr kelly when he expresses his pride in our farmers and i think everybody agrees that the key role of farmers in providing high quality food in a sustainable manner is crucial from the point of view of the policy that we are trying to improve.
the cap is as i've said many times an economic environmental and social policy and the legislative proposals that we are bringing forward must reflect that.
we will be making proposals in relation to capping and we will be making proposals in relation to small and medium sized farmers.
i will be bringing shortly the commission's responsibility in this regard and it will then be a matter for all of us to work together as co legislators particularly the council and the parliament to take responsibility and we will be there to help in whatever way we can work closely with you to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
in the meantime thank you very much ladies and gentlemen for your support.
the issue of fairness and equity in payments is very important and it has been frequently raised and one which we highlighted in the november communication and we will be making proposals with regard to convergence.
i'm sure he didn't mean that.
and since we published our communication there have been some concerns expressed about the rise of renationalisation and these have been repeated by a few members this evening. i want to reassure you that i'm confident that you will see in the proposals that will be adopted that there is no intention whatsoever to renationalise the cap.
i want to assure my friend professor de castro that he doesn't have to worry about respecting any proposals or rejecting any proposals on renationalisation because there won't be any.
the proposals will also reflect the principles that we have identified in the communication last november.
the internal market and its integrity are essential to our agricultural policy and essential to our farmers and that will remain the case.
vice president the rapporteur's report is a welcome and constructive contribution to the debate about the modernisation and simplification of the cap and i look forward to presenting the commission's proposals to the parliament's agriculture committee and when you do and i am confident that you will see significant similarities as i said already.
it's a challenging one based on the fact that we have twelve billion less from the fact that the united kingdom is leaving.
also we will be making proposals in relation to internal convergence.
so should i withdraw the money that i've already approved for this promotion programme and actually eliminate any prospect of feta becoming internationally well known and actually able to get a market share in our free trade agreements? i'm not so sure.
that is the present situation and i agree with mr nicholson the end result of course nobody can predict at the moment but we cannot predict as well whether we will have unanimity or not by the other member states the other twenty seven in relation to putting more money in various ways into the total eu budget.
the cap will therefore have to reflect the higher levels of ambition and focus more on results based on these objectives and the legislation that is already in force and the contribution that agriculture must make to these objectives.
at european union level we will maintain and define a strong and common framework to ensure the achievement of common objectives and member states will make the detailed choices and operational definitions in line with their needs and integrated into a single and streamlined cap strategic plan which will cover interventions in both pillars.
we must also look at these payments through the lens of fairness and in the context of the multiannual financial framework the commission has made a number of important steps towards convergence between member states.
a key feature of the commission's proposals and one i have flagged clearly in the communication which was published on the future of food and farming in november is the new delivery model and i want to thank mr dorfmann and the shadow rapporteurs and the agri committee for supporting this new initiative.
we will continue to support farmers in areas where agriculture is constrained by specific conditions for example in mountain areas and the new delivery model will enable member states and regions to address these and other important issues in line with their needs within a strong and common european union framework.
there are a number of other areas identified in mr dorfmann's report where the commission and the european parliament have similar views.
if member states of course choose to increase their level of co funding there is no reason why public support to rural areas cannot be maintained at current levels. alternatively of course if all member states agree by unanimity to provide more finance to the european union budget in various ways then improvements to the agricultural funding can
in respect of the mff i can only urge you to make every possible effort to conclude your work within the current parliamentary mandate though i am under no illusions about the challenge that such a timetable presents.
without prejudice to the precise contents of the forthcoming proposals they will offer various possibilities to better target support towards the needs of our small and medium sized farmers.
you can be assured of course of my constructive cooperation and that of my services in trying to make this a reality.
it is one in which one of the largest net contributors the united kingdom is leaving the european union.
however what i can say is that we have been following very carefully and listening very carefully to the views of the agri committee to the views of mr dorfmann and the shadow rapporteurs in the context of this report.
i do not want to pre empt those proposals which the commission will publish;
culminating in what i hope will be a very strong endorsement of this report when you vote here on wednesday.
these are the foundation of european union agriculture. these are our family farmers.
for all member states with direct payments below ninety of the eu twenty seven average the gap between current level and ninety of that average will be closed by half over a six year period.
in conclusion can i thank mr dorfmann and his colleagues for this report which is an invaluable contribution to the work of reforming modernising and simplifying our common agricultural policy.
support for young farmers should continue and be improved. attracting new farmers and facilitating generational renewal will be one of the main priorities of the cap
be made possible.
however what you would be doing in doing so is providing security and certainty for our stakeholders famers and our people living in rural areas particularly our young farmers.
innovation and knowledge sharing is a key issue for the future cap with benefits in terms of competitiveness sustainability and simplification.
the current green architecture will be replaced by a new one that is based on the new delivery model with environmental and climate objectives which will be set at european union level not at member state level.
it is a new relationship between the european union and member states. the motivation behind this delivery model is to take better account of eu diversity to better target and simplify the support and to ensure performance orientation and a result oriented cap.
an area of obvious common interest is our shared objective for a viable and resilient eu agriculture throughout europe.
eu farmers proudly produce food to some of the highest standards globally and they must be able to continue to do so in the future.
the sector has faced a number of challenges from all angles in recent times such as volatility in domestic and international markets climate and weather conditions food supply chain issues and of course the decision taken by the people in the uk to leave the eu.
the next cap needs to be able to give farmers the necessary tools to address these challenges so that they can support high quality eu food production in order to keep eu farmers competitive in the international marketplace and to protect the rural economy from extreme volatility and market crises.
of course there needs to be adequate funding and i believe and i have made this point a number of times the biggest challenge will be the budget and i heard what the commissioner had to say.
a large net contributor does not leave you without having effects but who knows it would be a brave person tonight who would actually tell us what the final arrangements or deals may well be when the uk finally leaves the eu.
aside from brexit the cap share of the market may also come under pressure as a result of spending in other areas particularly security and migration.
but the biggest problem that we had with it is that when farmers then came to us and were told that they had to do x y and z when we brought them to the commission the commission told them they could do nothing about it. they couldn't help them and they were sent back and forward and back and forward and the problem was never solved.
so who will take ownership of it if there is an issue there?
there is good news definitely the idea that farmers will not be paid for what they did decades ago that's a good move.
the idea that areas of natural constraint will get more funding who could disagree with that?
unless of course you're on really good land.
and the idea that farmers would get paid for public goods which they are already delivering and not getting properly paid for that's a good idea.
i can assure the house of the commission's full support for this resolution. with the political backing of member states the commission is now actively preparing the next stages of the accession process.
to conclude let me reiterate the commission's full support for iceland's aspiration to join the european union.
the negotiating framework lays down the general guidelines for the conduct of accession negotiations and points out reforms iceland must undertake in order to join the european union.
our delegation in reykjavik which will be fully operational by autumn will be instrumental in addressing the citizens of iceland.
the belgian presidency foresees adoption by the general affairs council on twenty six july with a view to convening the first intergovernmental conference with iceland on twenty seven july.
as a sign of it now belonging fully to the enlargement family iceland will for the first time be included in our annual enlargement package this year with the first progress report to be published mid november whereby progress over the last year will be monitored.
recent exchanges at ministerial level give reason for hope.
i understand the concerns raised due to the slowdown in bilateral talks following the negative outcome of the referendum in iceland in march.
two thousand and eleven in line with the renewed consensus on enlargement screening of chapters with special sensitivity in the icelandic context meaning financial services fisheries agriculture and the environment should start very early in the process.
the european parliament resolution under discussion today is a very helpful contribution to the process.
the commission will provide iceland with all necessary technical support to facilitate the process of negotiations. furthermore we are actively preparing for the assessment of iceland's compliance with the acquis on a chapter by chapter basis through the so called screening exercise.
communication will be a clear priority for ipa support to iceland.
the commission warmly welcomes this decision which follows the recommendations of our opinion of february.
that screening is expected to start in autumn two thousand and ten and should last until mid.
i am confident that iceland will continue to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure a positive outcome of the accession negotiations.
as with all candidates negotiations will be based on the country's own merits and their pace will depend on iceland's progress in meeting the requirements set out in the negotiating framework. this includes the fulfilment of iceland's obligations under the european economic area.
i have duly noted the call made on the commission to provide support to the icelandic authorities in its communication strategy on european union membership.
it clearly confirms that iceland has a place in the european union and the common will of member states to welcome it as soon as all conditions are met.
we are well aware that issues such as whaling and fisheries to quote the most obvious are sensitive issues for both iceland and the member states. i heard your call for a constructive attitude when negotiating the fisheries chapters and can assure you that the commission will conduct talks in the best spirit. as regards the icesave issues
as referred to in your resolution we hope that clarification of the legal situation provided by a letter of formal notice from the efta surveillance authority will facilitate the process of swiftly finding a satisfactory agreement between iceland the united kingdom and the netherlands.
iceland's membership of the eea its association with the schengen agreement and the country's high democratic standards will be valuable assets in this process.
let me stress that i greatly appreciate the efforts and commitment of all parties involved to trying to find an agreement on this issue.
it delivers the right messages to iceland at the right moment.
it will work in very close cooperation with the icelandic government which bears the first responsibility in this regard.
not least i share your concerns on the challenges stemming from the absence of national consensus and the related low level of public support in iceland for membership.
we count on the member states' support in this endeavour.
we are working on the setting up of an information centre in the country and on the development of factual and objective communication material.
by contrast paragraph twenty five recognises iceland's responsible and sustainable' attitude to fisheries and calls for constructive negotiations on fisheries so that the outcome may be a mutually satisfactory solution based on best practices and protecting the interest of both fishermen and consumers in the eu as well as in iceland'.
the push to bully iceland into surrendering to eu rule is an example.
they want to preserve them from being destroyed as eu membership has destroyed britain's fish stocks.
eu rule would doom reykjavik to becoming a scale model of the muslim ghettos of londonistan' paris brussels and copenhagen!
my simple recommendation to the icelandic people who may be apprehensive at this stage is to await the final outcome before taking fixed positions. there is no question of bullying iceland as arlene mccarthy has said.
by tradition access negotiations are an open ended process with progress dependent on the good faith of both parties.
do not trust your own career politicians because if you do this lot will take your greatest renewable resource from you!
because they were not part of this club because they did not surrender to the euro they have had a competitive devaluation of the krona which has been good for their economy. it has led to a tourist boom and i would have thought countries like greece would be very jealous of them.
i think that is why roughly two thirds of people in the opinion polls have made their minds up they do not want to join the european union. it is not going to happen!
all i can say is lucky old iceland!
we are talking about a place where people actually think before they jump.
do not give it away!
i am taking them very seriously and they will be high on my list of priorities throughout the accession negotiations.
madam president i believe iceland's membership would strengthen the values of the european union and i welcome the application.
i am told that our insistence on the curtailing of whaling will provoke an outcry in iceland but icelanders need to understand that not to insist upon such a curtailment would provoke an outcry in the rest of europe.
we have to recognise that iceland has an excellent record in marine conservation much better than that of many member states.
i could live with an arrangement that allowed whaling solely to meet indigenous needs although the evidence is that icelanders themselves do not seem to like whale very much.
i cannot accept whaling for commercial export.
madam president there is no doubt that iceland's home is in the european union and it may come as a surprise to nick griffin that iceland already voluntarily applies two thirds of eu laws voluntarily is a member of the internal market and voluntarily is in the schengen zone.
what i want to stress today is that we need to develop responses to the financial crisis.
it has been a dominant feature of our european policy making process.
commissioner as you know today parliament will vote on the financial supervisory package and on capital requirements for institutions and rules for bankers' pay and remuneration.
there is of course as many colleagues have said one major outstanding issue that needs to be resolved.
madam president the ecr group supports enlargement of the union and in principle of course we support the accession of iceland if that is what the people of iceland themselves want.
second iceland's dependence on its fishing industry will most likely result in a favourable deal which itself may prompt long overdue reform of the common fisheries policy and pave the way for norway's eventual accession.
third iceland has already adopted large chunks of the acquis through membership of the european economic area and the schengen zone so absorption of iceland would not exacerbate the so called enlargement fatigue' that has been blamed for the public's disenchantment with the european union.
no one expects wealthy icelanders to leave their underpopulated country en masse to seek work elsewhere in the european union as might be the case for example if turkey were to join in the future. of course the decision rests with the people of iceland in a referendum.
in the last referendum held in iceland voters decided against refunding british savers billions of pounds following the collapse of the icesave bank.
moreover those of you who want to mobilise against accession have just the same right to freedom of speech freedom of expression and freedom of assembly as those who mobilise for the accession.
it is a two way street.
only then can we move forward with what we spoke about today the european union speaking with one voice to the rest of the world.
through all possible means.
with respect to concrete assistance to third countries let me emphasise that the european union has been very active.
i believe this is an important moment to do so less than one month before the entry into force of the convention on cluster munitions.
the aim here is to expand the body of international norms spanning this category of weapons and to reach out to a large number of countries.
two thousand and eight in only a year and a half one hundred and six states have signed the convention and thirty six have ratified it.
the convention on the use of certain conventional weapons is a un convention and therefore a truly multilateral instrument negotiated in the widest forum.
similarly to anti personnel landmines cluster munitions pose as honourable members know a serious threat to the lives of civilians by causing indiscriminate damage particularly affecting children. the very nature of cluster munitions goes against basic humanitarian principles.
although not all eu member states are party to the convention there is a general understanding that the eu can and must play an active role in this area.
that is why the european union is committed to making every effort to achieve a complete ban on these deadly devices.
it is therefore very important that the eu supports this convention and its protocols.
two thousand and ten the santiago conference in june already demonstrated a high level of commitment from large numbers of states as indeed was the case for representatives of civil society.
in the negotiations on the additional protocol on cluster munitions the eu is pleading for a prohibition and not only a restriction of the use production transfer and stockpiling of certain cluster munitions that cause particular humanitarian concerns.
as for the next steps on the convention on cluster munitions as such i am pleased that preparations have begun for the first states party meeting which will take place in laos in november.
i recognise that the scope of this protocol could not be as wide as the convention on cluster munitions but if we could achieve a protocol in the un context with wider participation in particular with the participation of those states that produce and have stocks of these weapons it would help us to get closer to our objectives.
as this house knows this convention originally a norwegian initiative will prohibit all use stockpiling production and transfer of cluster munitions.
as this house knows the eu also continues to support the wider negotiation of an additional protocol on cluster munitions to the un convention on the use of certain conventional weapons.
not only do they release small bomblets over a wide area with indiscriminate effects they also leave behind a large amount of unexploded ordnance that can explode at any time even decades after a conflict has ended.