kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we ought to be setting a platinum standard which would include the banning of propaganda on our premises from suspect third parties. it should certainly include a
mandatory register and a legislative footprint and i do hope that the next parliament and commission will be able to take forward such constructive
for that reason we say it should not be the subject of a vote tomorrow;
to date he has not even acknowledged the letter let alone addressed this issue.
thus we are concerned that the proposed change of date is not lawful.
two thousand and fourteen in my view neither of these reasons makes it impossible to hold elections on the date that the law requires.
the act concerning the election of members of the european parliament by direct universal suffrage of one thousand nine hundred and seventy six permits altering the date of those elections if it is impossible to hold the elections on those dates. two reasons have been publicly advanced for changing the dates in. two thousand and fourteen the first is a desire to install a new commission by the end of july two thousand and fourteen apparently more time is required and secondly germany has a public holiday on eight
on twenty four april two thousand and thirteen my colleague morten messerschmidt and i wrote to mr casini in such terms and invited him to secure a legal opinion on the legality of the draft council decision.
to avoid the risk of legal action by a political party dissatisfied with the date the legal basis for this decision must be established properly.
referring to enforcement and control and combating iuu we have a lot to do and we have to work on it together.
parliament has to play an important role on this and we have to find a solution to these problems together.
the other countries the remaining countries have not been that cooperative until now.
these countries will receive additional time to implement the necessary reforms and adapt their fleets but with these countries the cooperation is already there.
to ensure that international conservation rules are applied not only in eu waters but also to the wild fish we import from other countries. our main priority was and is to work at the level of countries at an institutional level.
we have examined and we are still examining a lot of countries but as mr romeva i rueda has already mentioned this resulted in eight countries being given a yellow card' six months ago.
what will the next steps be? the next steps could entail trade measures to be adopted by the council on a proposal from the commission.
let us remember that the objective of this exercise is to bring about fundamental reform of the fisheries control systems.
this what we are preparing now.
what is the objective of this exercise?
over the past three years the commission has undertaken a process of identifying non cooperating third countries.
us? we want these iuu laws to be properly enforced and we have some powerful instruments now in the regulation before you but how many people in the commission are there to enforce
send him to the headteacher. give him detention. punish him. and then perhaps the fourteen year olds who are less well behaved and are going to cause a real problem may get the message that if he does that to jimmy what is he going to do to
but before starting that job i read a book which was slightly tongue in check but it gave some advice to young teachers and it said find jimmy'.
someone whom we can really knock around and then let us throw the book at them throw the legal book get them properly prosecuted for illegal fishing activities everything we possibly can do that the regulation provides for and then maybe the chinas and the koreas and the like will get the message.
please try to follow our procedure here;
ninety six countries are now working together and almost ninety nine of the fish which is imported into the european union has to be accompanied by a certificate.
punished. the fact that we do not see them in the list does not mean that we have done
example. we have listed some korean
so let me come to you again very openly this regulation is not about sanctions.
of course there are loopholes; of course the quality of the certificates is not always of the best. but we have done something so i cannot accept accusations that there is lack of political will on the part of the commission. the will is there but we are facing a lot of difficulties.
we are going to have sanctions at the end of the time line. for three years now we have created a momentum through our international cooperation. we have signed memorandums of understanding with the united states japan and also other countries and we are trying to focus on the implementation of the regulation.
we need to find out how exactly we can promote the implementation of this regulation before discussing anything else.
my understanding is that as of now six local companies in the faroe islands have applied for foreign factory and processing vessels to operate in those waters.
you have totally ignored the express wishes of this parliament.
iuu thrives where countries fail to meet their international responsibilities.
of course in all walks of life as those of us in politics know only too well we can always do more.
but enforcing these rules throughout europe has to be a team effort involve national competition authorities as well as the commission and that can only be effective if everyone has the powers that they need. so i fully agree with your recommendation
that is why we fined those five companies five businesses nearly eur three billion the largest cartel fine in the commission's history.
state aid rules give every company a fair chance to compete and anti trust and merger rules make sure that the markets serve the public not just big companies.
this sort of cartel can make a lot of money for the companies involved. it is their customers who pay the price.
we were happy to discuss that with the national authorities and we are happy to do that with anyone that wants
it. an open single market with fair competition well that helped to cut the cost of input and it helped businesses to grow big enough to compete throughout the world and this is what we want to see and to
as well as anti trust cases we deal with mergers that are reshaping global industries like the one that will now reduce the six biggest producers of seeds and pesticides to just three.
european banks need to put the legacy of the crisis firmly behind them.
this is the message of our enforcement work and i think it is also the message of your report.
it is important that this sector continues to develop new products that correspond to the regulatory requirements in europe and that they will sell these products at competitive prices.
meanwhile the sector inquiry report on capacity mechanism which we published in november will help member states to keep down costs on making sure that there is electricity when demand needs
we have had the same message from our consultations and our impact assessment.
competition can help us bring down the cost of our transition.
because the commission will keep working to enforce the competition rules taking forward the three google cases and continuing to work on the case against gazprom so consumers and businesses do not pay inflated prices for gas.
but in spite of the improvements some banks in europe are still struggling to deal with non performing loans from defaulting borrowers and the commission is working with those member states and banks where non performing loans remain to help banks gradually reduce them.
that is why my services are looking into these mergers in great detail.
pilot tenders have already shown how much we could save.
thank you very much for your draft report.
we apply the same rules in the same way to every bank in every member state.
when it comes to state aids our cases on tax rulings show that no company however big and powerful can avoid paying its fair share of taxes.
and we have taken forward more cases involving amazon mcdonald's and engie in exactly the same spirit.
to. when it comes to banks our state aid rules are there to support troubled banks when it comes to the same terms throughout europe.
i fully share the approach in your draft report.
we have taken four final decisions so far that deal with illegal state aid through tax rulings. of course these decisions are based on the evidence and the rule of law.
so we are now working on a proposal that i hope to be able to present before summer and i firmly expect that we can fully involve parliament.
since the start of this year all new support for large renewable plants has had to be given through a tender.
we will use all our powers to make sure that the single market remains open and fair and in that of course we need to work together.
each of them will be assessed on their own merits and will only be allowed to proceed if they do not impose any impediment to effective competition.
in germany tenders have brought down the price of supporting solar energy by twenty five in the last year and a half.
these transactions can affect each and every one of us because seeds and pesticides crop protection they are the beginning of the food chain.
last but not least renewable energy is important just thinking about the debate you have just had.
it is important for farmers for the consumer and obviously for the environment.
it. if the costs of funding renewable energy would make an energy intensive sector like the steel sector uncompetitive well state aid rules do not stop a member state compensating that part of the cost because the competition rules are here to support european competitiveness not to undermine
it is good to see that luxembourg has brought in much stricter rules on the taxation of financing companies.
at the same time we will continue our investigation into tax rulings in every member state.
do. and through our free trade agreements including the agreement with canada we are encouraging countries around the world to reduce subsidies and to use subsidies more responsibly because competition works.
last year we found that four truck companies well actually five truck makers which together sold nine out of every ten medium and heavy trucks in europe had colluded for fourteen years to raise gross list prices and delay the launch of green technology.
so it takes firm action to make sure that companies have nothing to gain by breaking the rules.
it should make it work.
that we should propose eu legislation to make sure that they have the right powers.
but during this mandate the need is arising to highlight new precautionary signals. firstly european competition policy should avoid the appearance of a frontal contest with other administrations via the application of huge two way fines on a tit for tat basis.
the flexibility of member states in setting their tax policies has to be confirmed.
thirdly there should be concern about a competition policy that is administered through an agency which defines such policy investigates alleged breaches and itself decides on them with the power to set fines.
fourthly given the ongoing current political and economic changes in europe and beyond competition policy needs to be kept under constant review.
if europe is going to be more catholic than the pope it risks losing competitive edge on a global scale.
where it is no economic activity but allowing people to be acquainted with the region to know what to do to find the businesses who do have the economic activity.
that i think is the important thing.
negotiators on the other side of the table.
it is of course obvious that every member state is sovereign in setting the level of their corporate taxation.
if we want european tax legislation it will be through the front door via the council with unanimity.
in the same treaty that gives member states the serenity to set their own tax level we have very strong rules that say you cannot give a company or group of companies selective advantages.
on the google case i very much appreciate the insistence because these are important cases.
last but not least we hope that the digital single market will not keep being mentioned as a separate part of the single market but will come to be seen as a fully integrated part of the single market because it offers a lot of choice for consumers.
whilst the commission proposal is a good first step we must broaden the scope of the directive as suggested by the rapporteur to allow for the inclusion reprotoxic substances a growing problem in workplaces especially for women.
improving workers' health protection by reducing occupational exposure to chemical agents that may cause cancer or mutations should take into account specific issues and real situations including adopting a gender perspective.
the french agency for food environment safety and health indicated that one hundred and eighty zero french workers have been exposed to such substances which can cause all manner of reproductive issues for both female and male workers.
i particularly want to highlight the role of trade unions and workers' federations who have been fighting for years on this issue and have provided excellent evidence for the drafting of this report and the preparation of this debate.
i want to maintain the eu's reputation as a setter of very high standards but i guess that on the day when this parliament voted to disregard the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and restrict the authorisation of glyphosate perhaps it should come as no surprise that we are being asked to vote to lower acceptable limits on chromium six which similarly have no scientific basis.
they should be based on the scientific evidence. i therefore regret the inclusion of this item in an otherwise largely sensible and commendable trilogue conclusion and i can only come to the conclusion that sadly i will not be able to vote in favour.
i will have to abstain on that basis.
in order to ensure ongoing protection and confidence in the system and that is what this legislation is all about we should ensure that decisions on substances and levels are robust and not political.
mr president i want workplaces to be safe irrespective of their setting.
there is the principle of equal pay for equal work at the same place which has yesterday been embraced by a large majority from east and west in the council but this commission has also reinvigorated the promotion of workers' health and safety.
this indeed enabled us to reach agreement on this file at first reading.
i am pleased that the council and the european parliament have reached a timely compromise on our first proposal to update the directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens and mutagens at work.
the fight against occupational cancer is also a matter of priority for me personally.
thank you for all your work;
for parliament one of the key points in the discussions was to include reprotoxic substances in the scope of this directive.
another difficult element in the negotiation was the exposure limit values to chromium vi respirable crystalline and hardwood and softwood dusts.
i can assure you that the commission will deliver on this clause.
this however as you all know requires comprehensive analytical work.
in the end a fair compromise was reached with the council. the deal was a review clause which says that not later than the first quarter of two thousand and nineteen the commission shall assess the opportunity of amending the scope of this directive to include reprotoxic substances'.
in the end an agreement was reached in line with the results of the scientific research and the discussions we had with the social partners.
cancer kills more workers than any other work related disease and causes many families enormous suffering.
this agreement between the co legislators confirms the strong political commitment by all the european institutions to fight against work related cancer.
i invite you also to continue our constructive cooperation.
engine exhaust is a complex issue in particular in terms of defining exposure and identifying adequate measurement methods.
dear members of parliament some of you mentioned diesel engine exhausts and that this is one of the twenty five chemical agents evaluated that are of a major concern for causing occupational cancer.
this legislative proposal is a first step in a series of forthcoming initiatives in this area.
i am pleased that in june this year the council reached a general approach on our second proposal to amend the directive.
i count on the european parliament to adopt its position on this second batch so that the interinstitutional negotiations should start as soon as possible.
as always we take note of your questions and remarks and as i said our work will not stop here.
workrelated cancer is a real tragedy for workers and their families and is at the same time a heavy burden for the whole of society.
mr president protecting people in the workplace is of the utmost importance and while much has improved fifty three of work related deaths are still caused by occupational cancer.
finally it is my hope that workers in manufacturing construction and many other sectors will continue to be protected after brexit because after all they are the lifeblood of our economy.
as a proud union man myself i want to thank them for the role they have played and continue to play. so about this report which places limit values and thirteen further carcinogens given that around fifty carcinogens account for eighty of total exposure in the workplace it is very welcome that the commission plans to introduce limits for additional substances. regular
in the days before the eu it was the trade unions who stood up to protect workers from carcinogenic substances like asbestos and now thankfully there is a directive with specific exposure limits.
mr president it is very important that workers can be confident that they are working in a safe environment and that their exposure to carcinogens is very carefully controlled.
so the first thing we must ensure is that exposure limits are actually measurable in the workplace.
now the limits originally set out in the commission proposal were the result of many years of detailed work including evaluations and fitness checks and frankly it was easy for me coming from the uk to agree to the majority of the proposed limits as we already have these lower limits in britain.
but as well as enforcing the exposure limits member states should be encouraging businesses to strive for the lowest levels possible lower in fact than the levels set in legislation.
i am really concerned by claims that a consequence of brexit will be a race to the bottom for workers' rights and health and safety standards in the uk.
but in fact the uk has the highest health and safety standards.
we have one of the lowest fatality rates among member states second only to malta and our rates of work related ill health and of workers reporting that their jobs risk their health are lower than most other member states'.
so to conclude there is an established and rigorous process for setting limits to ensure that they are evidence based proportionate measurable and achievable and as policymakers we must respect this.
but i have to say that we have to do something if not in this measure then in other measures but we have to do something to address the exposure of healthcare workers to the dangers of the carcinogenic drugs that they administer. there are hundreds and thousands of healthcare workers in the united kingdom alone dying from leukaemia suffering miscarriages and having appalling healthcare outcomes that are entirely preventable.
the technology to prevent this exists quite easily and is only not happening because of cost.
that has to change.
madam president first i want to offer my condolences to all those affected by the synagogue attack in halle especially the families of the two people who were killed.
we must draw on the lessons of a shameful past which brought tyranny to our continent.
the best way to tackle anti semitism is through intercultural dialogue education and a zero tolerance policy regarding anti semitic acts or use of language and i am proud of our manchester muslim jewish forum. reconciliation between the peoples of europe peaceful development on the basis of indivisible and universal human rights genuine democracy and pluralism these did and must always underpin our vision for a shared europe.
no words can ever heal their suffering but i know that the whole of the european parliament stands with you today.
an annual holiday is something that everybody looks forward to and saves for all year.
perhaps the eu would like to put its money where its mouth is and perhaps the eu would like to cough up some hard cash to compensate.
it rewarded failure by paying the then chief executive and directors millions of pounds in pay and bonuses and one hundred and fifty zero holidaymakers were stranded around the world forcing the uk taxpayer to pick up that bill of repatriation costing gbp one hundred million.
but it collapsed because it didn't innovate and it was underpinned by poor management.
therefore i am incredibly sympathetic to those people whose holidays were ruined by the collapse of thomas cook.
this is mission creep because if the eu thinks it should be involved then it shouldn't just be the uk taxpayer picking up the bill.
the bigger question is why are we talking about it here in the eu parliament?
the damage to the material and mental well being of thomas cook employees and contractors and their dependants is huge.
they will not pay the rent for those who have lost their jobs.
in my constituency in cornwall it employs one in five people.
we must finish the digital single market and ensure that no european business is faced with the scenario where they have no incentive to digitise.
madam president the collapse of thomas cook will go down as one of the economic tragedies of our time.
we need to offer support and help to those who could create jobs and new businesses to replace those that have been lost.
the loss of twenty one zero jobs will mean hundreds of thousands will suffer across europe in related jobs and the families of those employed.
we also need to legislate so that no company can collapse from one day to the next stranding people all over the world and causing huge distress.
the tourism industry is changing.
but we need to offer more than sympathy and nice words.
we need to offer support and training for those workers facing unemployment.
but cheap flights online booking and airbnb are all challenging traditional companies.
the polish bill is a bill in a row of many initiatives discriminating young women and young queer people in poland. for us the greens it is important to stand in solidarity with queer activists with feminists in poland and to say you are not alone!
young women should learn about their rights from a young age.
it is the worst thing you can do to young people when you are creating fear and when they can't live in freedom about love or their sexuality.
the worst thing you can do is to ban sex education.
we should trust public school teachers and we should support age appropriate sex education in each member state. we should support equal rights for women for lgbti and for all young people who want to live in freedom.
it is important that young people get answers. it is important that they learn to love to say no and to get self confidence.
mr president people should have the right to learn about love and sexuality. when young people have questions about their gender and sexuality they need answers.
the polish government is creating fear.
mr president i think many of us were shocked to see that faced with protesters against austerity for lower metro fares the chilean government decided not only to impose a curfew not only to use the army but also to impose military rule in santiago and valparaiso.
therefore we gently request a commission statement on the chilean government's repression of these public manifestations against austerity and the role of the chilean military in this as a third item on monday afternoon and for the session to be extended until ten p.