kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we also support the principle of mutual recognition and free movement rights should be assured for european citizens but abuse of those rights must be curtailed through strong border controls and by using the eu's weight to secure quicker returns and through the development of frontex protecting the eu's external borders.
let me stress that we too want to see greater cooperation in the quest to find solutions and to have solidarity on immigration and in fighting corruption and exchanging information but this should not necessarily be at the cost of national sovereignty nor should it be overly prescriptive.
the exchange of information helps combat terrorism.
applying the one thousand nine hundred and fifty one united nations convention on refugees all over europe in a proper manner is still the best way of dealing with asylum issues. we support exchange of information to ensure that we have a true jha approach to the use of data underpinned by strong data protection founded on principles of proportionality necessity and transparency.
however we cannot support items that we see as blatant encroachments on sovereignty unless they are in themselves leading to greater cooperation.
whilst i acknowledge the hard work of the rapporteurs and no doubt their noble intentions by trying to include everything in the twenty seven page text the motion is confused and in my view a lot less valuable than the stockholm agenda and the swedish presidency deserve.
in the main i think the swedish presidency and indeed the motion itself have good ideas but unfortunately as usual we go on providing ourselves with massive christmas trees where very little can actually therefore be achieved.
andrew symeou a twenty year old london man was extradited to greece this summer on a manslaughter charge.
the evidence against him would not stand up for five minutes if examined by a british court.
the appeal court in london knew very well there was no real evidence against mr symeou but they were forced to extradite him because under the european arrest warrant they had no power to stop it.
mr president the stockholm programme is part of creating a common legal and judicial system across the european union. the document talks about making people's lives easier a europe of law and justice'.
witness statements have all the signs of having been written by the police.
if the british people want to preserve their liberties then they have to leave the european union.
in the process it will destroy people's lives.
we had a perfectly good area of freedom security and justice in britain before we joined the european union. the european union is destroying the legal protections that we enjoyed in england for centuries.
let me tell you what your common legal system has done for the life of one person.
the identification evidence is contradictory.
let us support it as broadly as possible and get down to work to implement it.
front. ' the surrounding passengers gave a standing ovation while the black man walked up to first
here. the other group my group firmly believes in a europe which people can understand trust and believe
class. ' before the south african lady had a chance to answer the stewardess continued it is quite exceptional to make this kind of upgrade but given the circumstances the captain felt that it was outrageous that someone should be forced to sit next to such an obnoxious person.
' she then turned to the black man sitting next to the south african lady and said sir if you would like to get your things i have a seat ready for you in first class up at the
in. such a europe must be based on human rights fundamental freedoms democracy the rule of law and yes true equality
class. now what has this got to do with us? do we consider others inferior? the white south african lady would shock
i say respectfully to all of those who believe that we do not need a blueprint to fight our corner for the area of freedom and security and justice that we want we do not take our players off the field when the game begins.
we fight our progressive corner and for our group we will fight for our progressive policies.
this is about delivering at last at long last the rights that they have asked for for so long fundamental rights on data protection on security and on anti terrorism. all of these things will mean something when we assume the responsibility in this house to legislate.
we will only do that when we vote through the stockholm programme.
societies are changed not by mediocrity but by courage conviction and vision. and that has been displayed here in parliament this afternoon.
we are talking about freedom security and justice three fundamental principles.
yet without equality and equality of treatment you will never have freedom you will never have security and you will certainly never have justice.
equality and equality of treatment are the only durable building blocks of any civilised society. and that is why i am proud to promote and associate myself with a europe where we are all equal regardless of race ethnicity religion belief age disability gender or sexual orientation a europe of equals;
we need to ensure that mutual recognition really can be based on mutual confidence in all the national criminal justice systems.
this is not the case at present and there are severe weaknesses.
his greek lawyer has made a complaint about police abuse and destruction of evidence.
an application will be made to the european court of human rights and it is pretty shameful that this is necessary because this is about the treatment of one eu citizen by another member state.
security to us is only a tool for reaching freedom; it is not its opponent.
then secondly on frontex minister wallstrm what do you actually mean when you talk about strengthening frontex? what do you mean by that?
because that has not been clarified in any of the versions of the stockholm programme i have seen.
i would prefer to see a strengthening there.
some of that money is currently stuffed in eu banks and that is an unacceptable situation.
secondly we do want a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with tunisia but it has to be asymmetrical we have to open up our markets more than we demand them opening up their markets because of the precarious economic situation in that country.
tunisia is confronted with the consequences of the terrorist attacks of. two thousand and fifteen the result is that its vital tourism sector in particular has been seriously affected and foreign investments have sharply declined.
i would like to stress that timing is of the essence here.
potential policy measures could cover areas such as public finance management fiscal reforms strengthening the social safety net labour market reforms and measures to support the recovery of the tourism sector as well as in trade and investment.
tunisia requires the micro financial assistance to cover its large external financing needs for two thousand and sixteen and two thousand and seventeen so a swift adoption of the current proposal by co legislators under the ordinary legislative procedure is very important.
of course the new mfa operation will be subject to the fulfilment of a number of economic policy conditions.
europe has already provided substantial financial and technical assistance to this country.
this should be reinforced by the conclusion soon of the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement and i strongly support the idea of stronger asymmetrical trade relations with tunisia.
for more than twenty five years this directive has played an important role in helping public authorities and developers assess the environmental benefits and costs of certain projects.
to make the directive more efficient and predictable for developers we need to streamline the process from the beginning coordinate the various environmental assessments and introduce clear time frames for the key phases of the process.
as a result investments have been made in a much more sustainable way.
however the time has come to modernise the current directive in the light of new scientific developments align it with the principles of smart regulation and make it a more effective and efficient instrument for smart and sustainable growth.
another important objective of our proposal is to avoid duplication of assessments.
we strongly believe that this system can provide the necessary guarantees of independence and technical competence and thereby enhance public acceptability for many projects.
despite these difficulties i am convinced that the report that you will vote on strikes a good balance between all the interests that you represent.
so we will of course take into account any further proposals from this house in the context of our work on this shale gas initiative.
let me briefly raise a number of key aspects of the commission proposal.
in any case the commission will examine very carefully the amendments voted here today.
in your resolution of last year you called for an amendment of the annexes to the eia directive.
everyone agrees that scoping accelerates and simplifies the whole process by providing more legal certainty for developers and authorities and by ensuring a level playing field across the european union.
i appeal to you today to support that objective and work towards a modern streamlined and more effective environmental impact assessment directive.
in addition scoping is now mandatory for energy projects as recently agreed between this house and the council for the ten e regulation.
another key issue is the quality of eia reports.
i know this is an issue which is not part of the commission's proposal but it has been an important point in the debate in the european union.
this is why we propose that it should be mandatory as is already the case in half of the member states.
the commission has proposed an accreditation system for the experts preparing or verifying such reports or the creation of committees of national experts.
i am aware that your internal discussions on this file have not been easy.
mr president i strongly believe that the report presented to you and to parliament is a solid basis for negotiations between the institutions and i would urge you to adopt it so that those negotiations can begin.
as you know the commission as part of its work programme for two thousand and thirteen this year is preparing a specific initiative on this which is the sign to address precisely this issue.
one is scoping meaning the initial stage of the eia.
the commission hopes for a timely opening of trialogues on the revision of the eia directive with a view to finding a mutually agreeable outcome between all institutions as soon as possible.
this is not surprising since the experience accumulated after more than twenty five years of applying the directive varies across the member states. moreover the directive covers several industrial sectors as it applies to many different project categories.
even if we share the same objectives the report sometimes proposes different means to achieve them.
as with scoping many member states already have accreditation systems in place.
it has helped improve the evidence base for public decisions. it has also led to more public involvement and this has generally strengthened the quality of decisions taken in the european union.
by establishing common principles for the environmental assessment of projects the directive has helped create a level playing field for developments right across the union.
to make the directive more effective we need to modernise it to assess issues such as climate change and biodiversity improve the quality of eia reports monitor adverse impact on the environment and make decision making more transparent.
your work on the review of the directive shows that you share these objectives.
parliament and the commission have been standing side by side in this debate fighting for ambitious collection targets for e waste to increase resource efficiency fighting for a clear reduction of administrative burdens and fighting to give the member states' enforcement authorities an effective tool against illegal
proper treatment is crucial to ensure that harm to the environment and human health is prevented.
it is also one of the central questions of the competitiveness of european industry in the future.
fourthly the commission considers that to be consistent with the treaty the powers conferred on it to establish methodologies for calculating the amount of electronic and electrical equipment put on the market and the amount of weee and to set additional rules on inspections and monitoring in article seven and twenty three
yes you have heard well.
to prevent legal channels for exports of used equipment being abused for illegal waste shipments.
legal and legitimate exports of used equipment declared to be for refurbishment have in the past been abused to cover up illegal exports of what was in fact treated as waste and was in quite poor condition. the commission will therefore continue to work in international forums
thirdly where nanomaterials are mentioned in the text the commission understands them to be those falling under the definition of nanomaterials set out in the commission recommendation.
just to give you an idea of what level of improvement this directive will bring compared to the existing directive let us do a quick calculation. the current collection target for weee is four kilos per capita per year in each member state. with five hundred million citizens in the european union that means that member states are obliged
secondly we will state that transitional arrangements for member states with difficulties meeting the new collection targets must be limited to exceptional circumstances.
of course i would like to move towards these improvements more quickly and also further as mr florenz mentioned and i am sure many of you would too.
ten million tonnes including gold copper silver and platinum and other valuable raw materials that can be pumped back into the production cycle reducing production costs and also emissions.
but this directive clearly puts a new momentum and new dynamic into management of e waste and it deserves our support.
we should be collecting at least ten million tonnes of weee.
the difficulties faced and the specific circumstances on which they are based must be objective well documented and also verifiable.
i can say today that the commission can accept the text negotiated between the institutions and will do its best to ensure smooth and full implementation after adoption by parliament and the council.
we are highly concerned at the environmental and human health cost of smash and burn methods used in some third countries.
potential risks posed by such nanomaterials would be identified with tools available under the appropriate legislation for this purpose.
separate collection of weee is essential to making recycling profitable.
it is not only a question of environmental preservation;
should be delegated powers. the commission therefore informs parliament that it reserves the right to pursue the legal remedies provided by the treaty with a view to seeking clarification from the court of justice.
i am satisfied that the proposed directive as it is now on the table goes a long way towards meeting the objectives that the commission set out to achieve with our proposal.
that is about.
member states now have a flexible framework that we have worked very hard to deliver.
they are mostly welcome but we do need to make sure that they will contribute to improving the situation.
i approve of that because if we want to work with them they need to build effective systems.
so now we have some changes.
i believe that consumers want to be able to recycle and reuse effectively particularly in this challenging economic environment so they must have the information and the opportunity to do so.
that is why i am extremely happy that the target which was set quite high has remained unchanged.
they are refocusing from innovating in the area of labour incentives and labour productivity to productivity which is connected to the resources.
i hope we will understand that.
go and that this is what we are talking about today.
in the first decade of the twenty first century it is just the opposite.
too much of our waste is ending up polluting the lives of africans.
it is immoral on two fronts financial and environmental financial because much of the minerals and chemicals we export have been imported into europe and we have paid good money for them we are wasting what could and should be used again but also environmental because these countries cannot deal with our waste.
through the burning and physical handling of this toxic waste vast natural areas as well as men women and children are polluted and chemically burned.
these renewed proposals are much overdue and i thank the rapporteur but they will be worthless unless we enforce their provisions in every member state and stop the exports now.
in these times of austerity we also note the request in the report to significantly increase the budget of this important programme.
concerning the reduction of the administrative burden this is a concern for all of us. the commission is strengthening the application of the sme test in our impact assessment procedure.
in two thousand and twelve missions have taken place to brazil the united states mexico and colombia. these missions have been a real success judging from the positive feedback and the conclusion of political agreements in a number of sectors such as sme policy and industrial cooperation.
we have no time to lose and the result of this consultation will allow us to go to the core of the problems.
but in addition the future eu budget will also provide targeted financial support for smes.
however they have been seriously affected by the crisis and need help to face new challenges.
this includes in particular the simplification of procedures and the creation of one stop shops.
they voted for all the reports but now when there is something tangible on the table they seem to be backing out.
now it is time to make sure that these social considerations have a meaningful impact on economic policies because up to now member states have been asked on the one hand to cut even more while on the other hand being asked to alleviate poverty
and now finally there is something on the table plans for rating countries not only along economic lines but also along social lines and plans to introduce a stabiliser. commissioner i thank you for this.
other continents might do that but we are europe and we do not.
people would feel abandoned by their governments and by us.
we do not let people go without healthcare or without basic provisions.
i call on all of us because people in europe need us now more than ever.
do they really want social indicators to be nothing more than measurements to have no policy impact so that we can see how horribly poverty and unemployment are rising and we can say oh look' but not really do anything about it?
that is exactly what happened and in crisis countries especially the social situation has become unacceptable families have been evicted people have been left without healthcare without food even and people are angry at europe at politics and at life. in several reports we have therefore expressed the need for a true social europe
will the commission acknowledge that the scoreboard needs to be complemented with a mechanism triggering preventive and corrective action that will promote upward social convergence and social progress?
how can we accurately assess social imbalances given the absence of a european consensus on minimum social protection?
we need a single currency for europe's citizens not just for its central bankers. i was disappointed that the commission was not more ambitious with its communication on the social dimension to emu and i want to ask you commissioner how will the scoreboard truly capture the deepening social challenges that are facing member states?
i want the euro to work.
how for example will it assess the worst forms of poverty such as homelessness?
i want ireland to remain part of it but we do need to fix its basic design flaws by strengthening the social dimension.
how will the commission address this lacuna?
on your seventh sub question regarding the link between the commission communication and the wider agenda on emu completion i would remind you that the commission's blueprint for a deep and genuine emu' distinguishes steps to be taken in the short medium and longer term.
this brings me to your fifth sub question on how we detect alarming levels.
regarding your second sub question the commission believes that the five headline indicators which i mentioned will indeed allow for better identification of major employment and social difficulties that need to be addressed in the interest of the eu as a whole and particularly the sound functioning of monetary union.
on your fourth sub question as i mentioned the commission has integrated the scoreboard of key employment and social indicators in the draft joint employment report. this will serve better to inform the setting of policy priorities for the two thousand and fourteen european semester as well as the process of multilateral surveillance
twenty five it is this age group for which robust policies and measures addressing the school to work transition are most crucially needed although unemployment and inactivity also affect a substantial number of young people aged over.
two thousand and thirteen to answer your first sub question the commission believes that the scoreboard should identify the most serious employment and social problems and developments at an early stage and before a country diverges too strongly from its past performance or from the rest of the european union. the scoreboard does not include statistical thresholds
and thirdly the change in the indicator between two consecutive years relative to the change at eu and euro area levels.
meaning indicative values supporting and clarifying the interpretation of the indicators themselves.
further analysis based on the scoreboard should draw upon the existing battery of indicators already used during the european semester in particular the joint assessment framework the employment performance monitor and the social protection performance monitor.
refers to young people under the age of.
the commission has been cooperating with the relevant committees of the council to this end by presenting its proposals on a technical level.
finally on your last sub question i can confirm that the commission is continuing to pursue its analysis on the longer term possibilities and options for completing emu as presented in its blueprint and its communication on the social dimension of emu.
the difference against the eu and euro area averages which provides a snapshot of existing employment and social disparities;
and the preparation of euro area and country specific recommendations.
this is a very very complex problem which we are facing.
i believe the commission has the technical expertise to come forward with new analyses and new proposals if necessary in the coming period.
at this stage but we had to introduce a new tool which will improve the functioning of the existing procedures especially as regards the european semester.
can you clarify that matter for this house?
commissioner rehn one of the meanest conditions and obligations in the memorandum of understanding is the obligation to cut the minimum wage in ireland by eur two zero per year.
you will not be surprised that solidarity is being presented by eurosceptics as a loss of ireland's independence. that distortion is heightened by the failure of the commission and the council to engage with this parliament on the memorandum of understanding with ireland.
when mr rehn will that memorandum of understanding be brought before this parliament?
we should thank ireland's partners in europe for their solidarity at this time of crisis a crisis created largely by incompetent conservative governments over many years.
the irish government is claiming that you demanded that cut mr rehn.
secondly i want to say that when all is said and done one of the main reasons for the financial crisis is that governments failed to govern and political leaders failed to lead.