kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i think many of us still have concerns about the legality and there has been much spoken about this either at wto level or within our own internal market rules.
suffice it to say at this moment that i would just wish to say thank you to the lawyers of all three institutions who have worked to get us where we are today.
i suspect they will have more work to do in the future but that as i have said is for another day.
so there we are we will see what the vote brings tomorrow.
i believe that it is a compromise that is worthy of our support a compromise that honours the original written declaration and honours the views of european citizens.
i hope that they will not be disappointed if they see that this does in any way infringe the rights of others elsewhere.
it is that that has bothered me throughout the most and i hope that you will do your best commissioner to make sure that those small and fragile communities are protected.
i have great sympathy with what my colleague christian rovsing has just said in terms of the communities he spoke for but i will be supporting the compromise tomorrow. however i need an assurance from the commissioner.
i would like assurances on ongoing medical research and bioprosthetic use of products from seals in the context of the compromise.
this is a waste of time a waste of effort and a waste of money and the poorest will end up paying.
some say that the eu should look to the uk because we have a stamp duty.
furthermore from one april small companies' shares will not be subjected to it either because we want those companies to be able to raise money to grow.
they move to other parts of the world and the people who are left to pay the tax are the pensioners the savers and the companies who are looking for money to grow each of us as taxpayers when our governments have their own costs of funding put up.
however if you are going to tax financial services do it in a more intelligent way.
so we are unwinding our financial transaction tax.
honourable members again i wish to thank you for your broad support in moving forward with this initiative.
discussions in the council will now continue under the greek presidency which has expressed its determination to strive for solutions.
in this context we need to continue to involve non participating member states.
the commission will support
it. i also firmly believe that a political agreement is possible and should be reached before the european elections.
we all know that a broad based ftt has a lot of supporters;
file. under its leadership there is still time for the eleven member states to converge before the european elections.
our leaders should keep this in mind when considering the proposal especially as the may elections come ever closer.
yes they have advanced on some important aspects at technical level with the full support of the commission but many issues require strong political steering in order to be resolved. unfortunately that steering has been lacking up to
this means adapting to the reality of the situation today and finding a way forward.
the commission has always been clear that it would not stand in the way of an agreement on the ftt as long as the final compromise does not open the way for avoidance or distortions and does not alter the rights of the non participating member states.
you adopted a realistic approach without losing the ambition for results.
it is time for them to engage to compromise and to deliver.
while i still strongly maintain that many of the fears are unfounded i do believe it is now time to speed up the work with the member states in order to find a compromise.
they included implementing lower tax rates for certain products such as governments bonds.
you have had the courage and conviction to transcend individual differences and dogmas and to converge in support of the ftt. last july you strongly supported a design which offered a balance between efficiency and delivery. you identified the sensitive areas in this file and offered strong and credible solutions;
i find myself wondering why the eleven member states have not been able to do the same especially as they had asked specifically to proceed with this project under enhanced cooperation. europe needs to reconnect with its citizens and the ftt is a prime example of a project which can help to achieve this.
it is timely because there are only a few months left before europe will be judged on how it has delivered on its objectives and the financial transaction tax has always been closely aligned to some of the eu's most important objectives fairness responsibility and a stronger single market.
however to see real progress before the elections the eleven member states need to engage.
the broad based ftt is the one that the commission and many stakeholders and citizens want.
this is a highly popular initiative which europeans believe in.
i still believe that it is the best option to achieve our legitimate objectives.
this is something which should not be overlooked in the avalanche of lobby driven criticism.
today's debate is essential because the ftt is at risk.
it is time for all ftt supporters to stand up and team up for progress.
thirdly reduce volatility in securities and derivative trading in order to tame herd behaviour.
the volcker rule as many people know prohibits banks or institutions that own a bank from engaging in proprietary trading that is not at the behest of their clients and from owning or investing in a hedge fund or a private equity fund.
strengthening deposit insurance at the european level;
as it must be clear to all by now the ftt is no panacea for curing all problems of banking.
in any case it is not something to be called own revenue'.
here a modest tax or a flat fee for that matter applicable on selected securities and derivative transactions can be helpful.
secondly we would like to avoid contagion by ring fencing potentially toxic investment banking assets.
in order to preserve liquidity market makers should be able to gain exemptions as well.
we support its limited application only within the framework of a comprehensive and global and i repeat global financial sector reform which would strengthen the efficiency and competitiveness of european banking.
the ftt cannot even be considered a major source of revenue for the eu budget.
it is indispensable to define precisely the objectives we wish to achieve when designing new solutions to the still unfolding banking crisis.
that can be partially achieved by slowing down high frequency trading.
the tax is superficially appealing as a levy on institutions blamed for the recession a tax on the rich to benefit the poor. but as one critic said banks simply pass down their taxes to us the customers.
remember the ftt is the chosen instrument to be an eu own resources tax.
there is reason to believe that its imposition even at a modest level would lead to the migration of funds to countries beyond those participating in it.
if it were ever to be imposed on all twenty eight member states funds would migrate to new york and elsewhere.
the bad news is that it might be drafted in a way that would catch some transactions in countries that have rejected it.
indeed the ftt would be levied most heavily on long term investments such as those of pension funds.
that is why it is complicated to introduce it now.
if we are to have an ongoing debate do discuss the complications because the damages are bigger than the potential benefits and we are risking making the situation worse. we need more and better competitiveness in europe not less.
there is no anonymous market paying for this it is human beings and companies who are supposed to contribute to the growth and that is why it is complicated and that is why it has failed in sweden.
use part of the financial transaction tax as own revenue for the european budget. that would mean less national contributions to the european budget not a bigger budget but a more autonomous budget.
by opting not to take part in the establishment of the european public prosecutor's office the uk is contradicting and undermining its own insistence on maintaining defence and security cooperation with the eu after brexit.
a staggering eur fifty billion is being lost each year in vat fraud. a nice round figure to publicise on the side of a bus!
the reality is that consumption tax is meant to fund our schools and hospitals and the other vital public services.
i call on the uk government to stop its anti terrorism posturing and go to the heart of the problem by joining the eu in its battle to fight vat fraud and starve the terrorists of the funds they need to function.
indeed it is extremely disappointing that the uk is one of a number of eu countries that have fought tax cooperation the tax cooperation we so desperately need.
however it is being avoided on a massive scale and the proceeds of vat fraud are being diverted to fund global terrorist organisations.
the commission has just transmitted on two october the evaluation of the olaf regulation and is analysing the need to adapt the olaf regulation to ensure that olaf can cooperate smoothly with the eppo and has the tools it needs to fulfil its mandate.
strong energies will need to be created in order to allow both the eppo and olaf to perform their tasks in the most efficient and productive manner. there will be no duplication of work.
as president juncker said in his state of the union speech there is a strong case for tasking the new european public prosecutor's office with prosecuting crossborder terrorist crimes and as announced in the letter of intent the commission will issue in the next year a two thousand and twenty five perspective a communication on a possible extension of the tasks of the new european public prosecutor's office to include the fight against terrorism on the basis of article eighty six four
the eppo and the anti fraud directive are two sides of the same coin.
the parliament made its voice heard in key moments during the negotiations and improved many important aspects of the regulation.
just before the summer break after long and extremely complex negotiations the council reached a political agreement to set up the european public prosecutor's office as an enhanced cooperation and i am happy that twenty member states have already expressed their agreement to bring the protection of financial interests to an entirely new level through the establishment of a new union body.
helped to design appointment procedures and introduce permanent chambers which guarantee the eppo's independence;
we will welcome them with open arms the sooner the better and they know it from me. your vote tomorrow will allow the council to move to the final adoption of the regulation at next week's justice council and it will allow the commission to start setting up the eppo so that by two thousand and twenty the first cases can be investigated and prosecuted.
olaf will closely cooperate with the eppo to ensure complementarity of their respective mandates.
criminal investigations are essential to counter the most serious forms of abuse against the eu budget.
also eurojust will continue to play an important role as a crime fighter in europe focusing more on other forms such as the trafficking of human beings or drugs.
it will be to the benefit of the eu as a whole the member states and european taxpayers.
you will have your say in the selection process of the european chief prosecutor as well as in ensuring the general political accountability of the eppo's activities and you will have a decisive say on its budget.
the regulation provides a robust set of procedural rights of suspects and accused persons.
ensured a robust judicial review of the eppo's procedural acts or made sure that from the beginning the eppo can cooperate on a solid basis with nonparticipating member states.
they are constitutive parts in our joint efforts to better fight crimes affecting the eu budget.
for instance you have ensured a clear delineation of competences between the eppo and the other european actors;
on the contrary i believe that the result will be a significant enhancement of our capacity to tackle fraud.
i would like to thank you for your support and to encourage you to give a strong consent to the eppo regulation presented to you.
i have no doubt that this house will continue to support the eppo in its operations.
i will be very strong on this because i am convinced that the eppo will work as a very strong deterrent and let me use the word repressive
already now in the cohesion policy in structural funds distribution there is a lot of control a lot of audit a lot of preventive measures and still you see so much fraud and corruption
body. if a member state does not have the eppo then we will have to be much stronger in preventive action.
i think that is very clear.
i had to bring a lot of arguments facts figures.
so what about the missing member states?
we are being lied to as usual.
such as counterfeiting and vat fraud.
ms may has said that she wants a new security relationship treaty with the european union.
i have always maintained that these opt outs are essentially worthless because the prosecutor would be able to utilise the eu's existing legal instruments and legal institutions in order to circumvent the opt outs.
this new office usurps the authority of nation states and control of their own legal systems.
madam president the stated purpose of the european public prosecutor's office is to pursue financial and economic crimes committed against the european union. now the intention is to pursue criminals for crimes against the eu's budget but also the eu's wider financial interests for example cross border crime
the treaty would include our subservience to all the existing eu legal instruments and institutions.
colleagues i mentioned during the votes that i am going to try not to use the gavel.
we are running slightly over time and i would ask you if you could cooperate with me and see whether as an experiment we can have a good debate without my having to use this.
now my colleagues have described how it is going to be portrayed but can i just issue a big reminder?
the european union has an absolutely abysmal record in terms of finance budget and accountancy.
it must be stressed today that the procedures recast forms the backbone of the package. it is therefore essential that we move forward on this recast in view of the rapidly approaching two thousand and twelve deadline for the creation of the common european asylum system.
quality decision making is a key element which we must not miss.
we may want to see different outcomes but we will cooperate and let us hope in the hungarian presidency we can see some genuine progress.
they reset these goals at the hague and at stockholm so let us revise our history and understand that we depend on the council to unblock the system and we will work cooperatively with the hungarian presidency to try and maintain the momentum of the belgian presidency.
this goal of achieving a common european asylum system is not a goal that parliament set;
parliament should put forward a strong position on this matter to ensure that the commission does not water down its original proposal.
it is clear that standards vary too much between member states and the current legal framework needs revising.
we know the commission is going to come forward with a revised recast proposal in the coming months in view of the opposition of the council.
all of these safeguards are essential to a fair and effective asylum system.
the right to legal assistance a guarantee of personal interview limitations on the use of accelerated procedures;
this is what so many of the members across the party divide want to see;
one of the recurring criticisms by member states of the proposed recast of procedures is that it will lead to an unnecessary financial burden on them but there is a significant body of evidence and i pay tribute to what the commission said on the solihull project in the united kingdom that front loading asylum procedures leads to better decisions at first instance;
we therefore want more information from member states backing up their claims. however i would like to stress that this debate should not just be about costs. as mr de jong said the procedures recast is about harmonising practices and raising standards across the eu.
the commission's overall objective regarding this directive is to progress towards a common procedure and to facilitate more consistent and efficient application of procedural standards.
as regards the negotiations in the council the commission appreciates the commitment of the member states to discuss the proposal in an open and constructive manner. several elements of the proposal proved nevertheless to be difficult indeed. thus to facilitate the adoption of the directive the commission intends to adopt a modified proposal
in the modified proposal the commission will aim to simplify certain provisions with a view to facilitating their application.
concerning specifically the financial impacts the commission fully understands the importance attached to the cost related elements of this proposal and will continue to be attentive to the cost aspects during the next stages of the negotiations.
the commission will continue to endeavour to ensure proper balance between fairness and efficiency of procedures.
the modified proposal will continue to promote respect for fundamental rights and high quality decision making at first instance which will result in solid decisions and faster conclusions of procedures hence leading to a reduction of costs.
before the start of the polish presidency.
two thousand and twelve the commission welcomes the commitment of the european parliament to proceed with the negotiations on the asylum procedures directive.
the commission carried out extensive research at the time of the preparation of the asylum procedures directive proposal in line with the requirements on impact assessment.
others provided certain elements mainly on the costs of legal assistance and interpretation.
investing resources in the early stages of the asylum procedure in order to make it faster more efficient and fairer.
it is the aim of the commission to establish a system that is balanced fair efficient and cost effective.
two thousand and ten this project confirmed the hypothesis that front loading the asylum process in particular by providing access to competent legal advice for asylum applicants at the start of the procedure and allowing the legal representative to interact with the decision maker
therefore the commission does not intend to prepare another study on costs.
the findings have been confirmed by empirical evidence and the information has been complemented by the european parliament study.
such investments are offset due to savings at the appeal stages and a reduction in overall reception costs.
additional investments in the first instance procedure improve the efficiency of the asylum process.
however during the next stages of the negotiations on the asylum procedures directive the commission will continue to be attentive to the cost aspects.
to conclude the commission has paid considerable attention to the cost element as part of the impact assessment.
leads to significant improvements in the quality of first instance decisions. it resulted in much quicker decisions and a higher percentage of positive decisions at first instance fewer appeals and a higher percentage of removals to countries of origin.
the choice of this approach was fully supported by the findings of a recent project in the uk the so called solihull pilot' presented at the ministerial conference on asylum in.
the commission assessed financial implications on the basis of the available information.
financial impact is a critical aspect of every commission proposal and is assessed thoroughly.
the evaluation of financial impact was mainly based on statistical information and data obtained from member states through the comprehensive questionnaires sent out by the commission. only a few member states could identify the full cost of asylum procedures.
first of all we seem to have concentrated on new proposals when we all know that there is existing legislation which member states are struggling to implement and this has created an ill at ease feeling amongst member states because they are clearly not prepared to move on to new laws when they have difficulties with existing ones.
secondly the new proposals feature and envisage new and much higher obligations and burdens which are at times unrealistic especially in the current context and which could also as has been highlighted already lead to abuse that should be avoided.
thirdly there is indeed a lack of a financial assessment of a study to determine costs and i am afraid i have to disagree with you commissioner i do not think that the study carried out by the european parliament on burden sharing is about the costs of these proposals.
in any case it is a job for the commission to study the financial implications of its own proposals.
furthermore there is no proposal on a proper legally binding burden sharing mechanism and this too creates difficulties for a number of member states and indeed for this parliament.
finally the council is still stonewalling on proposals such as the review of the dublin regulation.
it is difficult. we are in a difficult situation and we need to get out of it.
the epp group is still very much open to cooperating with the council and most importantly with other groups here in parliament to try and reach a compromise that is acceptable for all.
member states lose even more control of their own destinies while having to pay the as yet unknown cost for the privilege.
the whole system is essentially a racket for those not eligible for legitimate immigration.
i realise that i am wasting my breath in speaking about this here since most of you could not care less about preserving the democratic powers of the nation state.
most of you are entranced in a grotesque fantasy world of endless eu integration like characters in some kind of painting by hieronymus bosch but the british people will one day hold to account the treasonous and treacherous politicians in britain who made this possible by denying them a referendum on the lisbon treaty.
the hollowness of the supposed commitment of us imperialism to democracy is demonstrated by their continued support for the regime in bahrain.
they are guilty of nothing but treating the injured and should be released immediately.
these weapons will be used like the weapons before them and like the weapons provided by britain to mow down peaceful protestors.
at the start of this month they sold another fifty three million dollars' worth of weapons to the regime;
the military trial and torture of medical personnel was an indication of the brutality in which the regime engaged.
i have no confidence whatsoever in the so called independent commission of inquiry.
mr president first of all i want to salute the determination and courage of the protestors in bahrain who have stood up against absolutely brutal repression in fighting for democratic rights and change in bahrain.
what is needed is a genuine people's tribunal which could actually investigate and expose the gross abuses of human rights by the regime.
the abuse of emergency laws is of great concern. that must end.
that is a universally applied principle.
amidst a violent government led crackdown on peaceful protesters these doctors risked their lives to assist fellow citizens in need.
eu companies have played an unpleasant role in the crackdown. some have been laying off workers at the demand of the government and others have provided surveillance technology.
these practices as well as any and all weapon exports must stop and human rights must be respected.
they have now been convicted by military courts and received draconian sentences of up to fifteen years for fulfilling their obligations.
one is that of targeted attacks against doctors and paramedics but more broadly military trials for civilians.
we condemn these highly cynical abuses of power and demand the unconditional release of the bahraini doctors and all other political prisoners including bloggers.