kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
maybe in an office of the luxembourg government or maybe in this room there is a young lawyer a young person with heart and brain in the right place who is going to end up being the european edward snowden.
i would like to emphasise that if you want to grant discharge to the environment agency and i urge you to do so then you have to vote against at the next vote.
mr president i would like to appeal to everyone not to take this issue on the agenda this week because indeed as has been mentioned the delegation will travel at the end of this week and it will be the first ever parliamentary association committee meeting with georgia.
it would be very damaging to take positions now.
we will certainly have a possibility to discuss with our colleagues both from government and opposition during that visit.
secondly may i just point out that when during the previous government a similar case was raised the closure of imedi television by the government there was no reaction from the same people who now want to propose a resolution.
the situations are serious enough in several eastern partner countries.
this mechanism enables member states to purchase medicines together so as to help secure access to medicines at better conditions and prices.
the commission services for health are coordinating this work together with other relevant commission services and the european medicines agency.
furthermore a strategy on eu cooperation on health technology assessment was adopted in october of last year.
the commission also extends support to member states to mitigate some of the negative effects on patient access that are associated with the common practice of benchmarking national prices to those in other countries.
thank you very much for today's debate.
while pricing for proposals of reimbursement is an exclusive competence of the member states the only way forward is a voluntary exchange of information on member states' pricing and reimbursement models and involvement of the industry.
this was one of the objectives of the council conclusions on innovation for the benefit of patients adopted on one december.
probably exactly the opposite would happen. these budgets should remain in the hands of member state governments governments which are directly elected by their citizens rather than run by officials here in brussels.
this parliament is not the appropriate forum for this discussion.
we do not simply conjure money into the commission to enable member states to work harder in their health systems to get access to medicine.
this is to enable their own health services to work better.
each member state has its own unique healthcare system with varying degrees of state funding for reimbursement.
we should be debating the economic health of europe ensuring thriving economies that can afford the best of health for their citizens.
they have not actually delivered any resolution.
if we could deal with the inefficiencies of drug waste drug dumping and patient compliance we would do an awful lot to help with patient access.
what about supporting drug development and innovation in academia and the commercial sectors on a free market basis?
what about stopping penalising uk and european manufacturers of both patent protected and generic products via the hta system?
we need to recognise that drug innovation is pivotal to future cure and treatment options and that comes with cost of which there are two components development time and research process.
but let me give members a list of things that maybe we should be debating this evening.
what about preventing access from fraudulent medicines and what about penalising countries that do not adhere to our patent systems?
the eu would do well to accept that historically interventions have created and exacerbated access eligibility.
want' need' and should have' for patients can be delivered but you do not do it by more intervention.
it is also about affordability ensuring that patients healthcare providers and governments can afford the products;
it involves several aspects namely availability meaning that new medicines are developed or existing products are adapted;
such mechanisms include conditional marketing authorisation and authorisation under exceptional circumstances.
it also includes accelerated scientific review compassionate use programmes or adaptive licensing.
work should also continue on issues related to affordable pricing the use of generic medicines orphan medicines medical devices and small markets.
secondly to tackle the accessibility of medicines that is making authorised products available to patients in need european legislation already provides for mechanisms allowing marketing authorisation of medicinal products on the basis of less comprehensive data in a variety of special circumstances
these include ten year market exclusivity for orphan medicines.
this resulted in exchanges of information between member states with the objective of pushing down prices.
it is europe's largest public private initiative aiming to speed up the development of better and safer medicines for patients.
the council also notes with satisfaction the recent creation of the expert group on safe and timely access to medicines for patients under the auspices of the pharmaceutical committee of the commission which recently started work.
it will also promote the development of better medicines by facilitating the authorisation of clinical trials conducted at the same time in several member states.
in order to maximise the potential of existing eu regulatory tools the council invited the member states in cooperation with the commission to discuss how to make even better use of these tools.
at the epsco council meeting in june two thousand and fourteen where the council adopted conclusions on the economic crisis and health care the council recognised the need for cooperation among member states through inter alia sharing information on strategies to effectively manage pharmaceutical and medical device expenditure
thirdly the problem of the affordability of medicines for european patients and member states' health system budgets has been addressed by the council on several occasions in recent months.
while ensuring equitable access to effective medicines within sustainable national health care systems.
the presidency will work on the implementation of the council conclusions in the coming months.
two thousand and fourteen ministers agreed that while the pricing of medicinal products is the exclusive competence of member states more systematic and structured exchange of information would be beneficial to ensure greater transparency.
this initiative will continue to be co financed from the horizon two thousand and twenty programme.
to increase effective sharing of information on prices and expenditures on medicinal products such a measure should contribute to greater transparency while respecting the competence of member states for financing their health systems including reimbursement of medicinal products;
additional incentives were introduced by specific legislation in order to promote research and development of paediatrics and orphan medicinal products.
in which it invited member states and the commission to deepen work in several areas namely to explore opportunities for exchange of information between competent bodies in relation to the life cycle approach' for innovative medicinal products.
the problem was further discussed by health ministers at their informal meeting in milan in september.
despite the fact that the existing system provides innovative safe and efficient medicines for patients some challenges still remain as patients are demanding faster availability of promising new therapies at affordable prices.
at the same council meeting a specific problem of the high price for the hepatitis c medicine sovaldi from the us company gilead was raised at the initiative of the french government.
also accessibility bringing the products to patients who need them.
eu pharmaceutical legislation aims at safeguarding public health whilst ensuring timely access of medicines to the market for the benefit of patients.
as we all agree access for patients to medicines that efficiently treat illness is an important issue that must be addressed both at national and eu level.
may i suggest you go back to your sources because you are incorrect with the figures you gave this evening. any drug company will tell you whether it is a generic manufacture or coming from the academic sector that it takes a lot longer and that they do need the time to actually develop that.
if we are going to start penalising companies when they are bringing forward therapeutic innovation i think we have started off from the wrong position.
the commission will naturally continue to actively support these and other discussions.
also to finance the cost of new high priced medicines generic and biosimilar medicines uptake must be used to create headroom for the healthcare budget.
a major problem is that making the best use of such developments in the area of healthcare is particularly expensive and difficult especially for some of the member states that are relatively small or low income countries.
thank you very much for your comments sir.
the outermost regions report covers french departments across an ocean and spanish and portuguese possessions well beyond europe.
those countries are simply part of the member states concerned. the report even adds the missing' french overseas department of mayotte.
the places i have listed must be given the chance to be an integral part of the united kingdom.
i can announce to this parliament and to the british people that this is ukip policy.
we promise to incorporate these places into the uk.
if further referenda are wanted we will offer them. whilst the uk is in the eu any future outermost regions report should include the uk in the atlantic.
on the negotiations i am aware that some of you would have liked to take a little longer.
four hundred and twenty million people residing in the area move freely across the internal borders making some.
the commission will also have greater possibilities to make sure that member states do not have unauthorised border controls at the internal borders.
with this agreement the freedom to travel around europe without border controls should continue to be granted for many years to come.
the creation of schengen as many of you have said is the most tangible and valued achievement of the european union.
however the council has still not yet been in a position to make that decision.
last but not least the reference to illegal immigration is not acceptable for us at all.
we started out with a fundamental difference of view on the issue of the legal base of the schengen evaluation proposal.
those citizens and visitors make more than a billon journeys within the eu every year and consider freedom to travel as amongst the most concrete and important benefits of the union.
this is one of the most obvious and practical achievements of european integration over recent decades.
the european council was equally clear that this should not jeopardise the principle of free movement of persons.
as was the case with the current proposal.
i welcome the fact that we have been able to build on the work of earlier presidencies and find a way forward together. the difficulties have been overcome and your views have been taken into account to the fullest extent possible on both measures.
as i know it is by all members in this chamber.
the overall agreement also comprises a joint declaration by parliament the council and the commission which makes it clear that any future proposals from the commission for amending the schengen evaluation system will be submitted to parliament for consultative purposes so that your opinion can be taken into account to the fullest extent possible before the adoption of a final text
i am very much looking forward to the debate and listening to the contributions from a range of members of the european parliament.
i would like to close by expressing my particular thanks to the rapporteurs for the two legislative proposals mrs renate weber and mr carlos coelho whose commitment and hard work on these legislative proposals has been absolutely crucial to ensuring that an agreement was possible so your contribution is very much appreciated by our presidency and by the council
free movement is highly valued and is a daily reality for the five hundred million citizens within the european union as well as the nationals of third countries who are legally present in the schengen area as residents or visitors.
we have therefore been guided in our work on these two legislative proposals by the need to protect and strengthen free movement.
that is why it is important that we have been able to strengthen arrangements for ensuring the proper functioning of the schengen area. the new reinforced schengen evaluation mechanism combined with an eu based mechanism for responding to exceptional threats will contribute significantly to that goal as well as improve the transparency of its operation. i am of course fully aware that the negotiations on these measures have not been easy.
the agreement responds fully to the request from the european council in june two thousand and eleven for the existing evaluation mechanism to be improved and deepened and for the introduction of a mechanism to respond to exceptional circumstances which could put the overall functioning of schengen cooperation at risk.
but this has now been successfully addressed.
mr president last year we saw the schengen system buckle under the strain of mass migration and some member states sought to introduce unilateral controls.
the eu's open borders policy is a disaster for ordinary people and has created enormous social problems.
it is too little too late. an open borders policy could only work between countries with very similar and stable economic and cultural natures.
this has all been done in pursuit of a political ideology not shared by the people of europe.
then why hesitate for more than a year and a half to reach an agreement on something so much wanted and appreciated by european citizens?
the current possibilities for reintroducing border controls have been clarified and among the safeguards we should note a proportionality test of the impact of the measures and where appropriate consultations and meetings among the member states affected by the reintroduction of border controls and opinions
in a europe where for decades people even families were separated by borders and horrendous controls finding ourselves all together in an area where movement is free gives us the feeling of living in one big house.
the commission will present to the european parliament and the council at least annually a report on the functioning of the area without internal border controls.
the true achievement here is the role of the commission.
the council can adopt recommendations only upon proposals from the commission.
a populist approach has taken over several eu member states and the ongoing elections here and there have determined a switch in the approach of some governments but here we are.
migration and the crossing of external borders by a large number of third country nationals should not per se be considered to be a threat to public policy or to internal security.
but in that case the proposal will come from the commission after thorough evaluation. among other additional checks and balances we should mention that a recital was introduced so as to keep our two thousand and eleven commitment.
it is also interesting to note that in relation to the decision making process a joint statement from the three institutions has been adopted and it provides that any future commission proposal amending the evaluation mechanism should be submitted to parliament for consultation.
if today it is a mere observer and the mechanism is based on a peer to peer review in future the commission will be responsible for most decisions to be taken either in comitology in cooperation with member states or acting alone.
it is also very easy to notice the economic benefits for our businesses.
however it is fair to say that we succeeded in introducing a degree of community dimension and additional guarantees to ensure that the mechanism would not be misused.
there are good reasons for this answer.
the total period during which border controls are reintroduced on the basis of a serious threat to public policy or internal security cannot exceed two months.
we understand the objections in respect of parliament's role the lack of codecision and the difficulties but we have to make an assessment about what the rapporteurs have achieved and the jump that we have made from those opportunistic situations to where we are now.
however all of our authorities must be able to identify those who pose a risk to our citizens and there have been some shocking cases of individuals who have been known to pose a risk in one member state then being able to commit crimes because they relocated to another country where they were less well known. the freedom of movement of people is a very valued freedom
but we also need to protect citizens so it must be coupled with full and accurate exchange of information. tackling risks posed by potentially dangerous individuals is critically important and stricter border controls can help to achieve this.
this is not just because of the european union it is because of the complete inability and lack of will on the part of british governments to actually put in proper immigration controls and carry them out.
so i agree with you that this is a disaster in my country that is not entirely of the making of the eu.
in answer to ms morvai's question regarding the free movement of people no we do not believe in the free movement of peoples in my party.
we believe in controlled immigration and controlled border policy.
we do not want to stop immigrants;
we do not want to stop people coming.
but we want this to be controlled by our government in the interests of the british people and not in the interests of a political ideology which they do not share.
now regarding this measure i think a lot of practical sensible measures are here which i would support. schengen is a great part of the european union.
but freedom does not mean uncontrolled. there have to be controls in everything and particularly at times of exceptional circumstances the measures proposed here measures of last resort for limited periods do make sense and i think unilateral action for a maximum of five days is a sensible approach as well.
we now have instruments at hand which will allow us to strengthen schengen and therefore the commission can fully support the compromise reached.
i know how hard you worked with your different shadow rapporteurs and collaborators.
the compromise reached will as you have both said bring a major improvement compared to the current system.
we need a new one that ensures that the area without internal border controls is better protected a system that is better equipped to identify deficiencies at an early stage and that ensures that there are appropriate measures and follow ups.
the revised mechanism will serve this purpose while at the same time allowing more transparency and openness.
although it is very unlikely that these will occur the new system also provides for a system to respond to situations where recommendations for remedial action are not sufficient.
to ensure that persistent serious deficiencies in a member state's control of its external borders are adequately remedied a new system allows for a coordinated decision to be taken on the temporary reintroduction of controls at internal borders.
this would only be used to ensure that the problems can be resolved while minimising the impact on free movement.
parliament will have increased possibilities to influence the functioning of the schengen area.
it will receive all relevant information and both the commission and the council have expressed their political will to consult parliament on the schengen evaluation mechanism.
the joint statement that will accompany the decision clearly states that any future proposal from the commission to amend the evaluation system will be submitted to parliament and that its opinion will be taken into consideration to the fullest extent possible before adopting the final text.
once again as in the previous debate i know many of you were there as well it shows that when we really sit together the three institutions can cooperate for the benefit of the european citizens.
that is important because it will give a clear signal to commissioner barnier who i know is extremely interested in this about the areas where the commission can move forward in the framework of active subsidiarity.
i think that is a great word that has come out of this report which does not undermine the ability of every member state to regulate gambling in its tradition and in its history but at the same time places an obligation on member states to say that if you do not intensify your cooperation together
then consumers will not be properly looked after in every country.
for decades now we have lived in hope that the aviation industry will regulate itself and introduce the limits on emissions our planet so desperately needs.
so far we have allowed the only industry that is rapidly increasing its carbon emissions to continue posing a catastrophic threat to the climate and that at a time when the caribbean is experiencing the worst ever hurricane season.
when i became an mep i pledged that i would travel to brussels by train and that i would only fly once in my mandate.
how ironic that this flight will be later this week and will take me through the hurricane zone itself.
within europe we urgently need to stop aviation's free ride on the climate by ending their tax breaks and introducing a frequent flyer levy. outside europe we need to implement ambitious emissions reduction targets for aviation as soon as possible because nature is making it very clear that she is not stopping the clock'.
mr president how am i supposed to vote on this? we have a subsidy scheme which should be the preserve of individual nations.
so i supported some of the amendments for example to make sure that it refers only to fresh fruit and vegetables and not to processed and chocolate milk and everything else that we have heard about this evening.
so if i vote no' i do absolutely nothing to make a bad scheme better.
if on the other hand i vote yes' then i am legitimising the idea that these things should be happening at a european union level not by individual nations.
it is estimated that up to some fifty zero jobs would be negatively impacted particularly if the issue of issuance goes through which would give powers to capture london within the jurisdiction of the ftt.
a number of weeks ago the chinese vice president spent three days in ireland.
he was extremely interested in our farming methodology.
what is obvious is that there is a huge potential food export market for eu farmers under the new common agricultural policy a population in china of.
i voted for it and i commend the rapporteur. it focuses on the glaring trade imbalances and the need to update the one thousand nine hundred and eighty five agreement. however if we do get binding rules under a new agreement and a level playing field the potential for eu exports to china is absolutely huge.
this is unlikely to promote the growth that we all desire.
the report acknowledges that there is a lack of international agreement but states that the eu should go ahead anyway.
it would be disproportionate to request the city of london to pay in addition an eu wide ftt putting it at a comparative disadvantage internationally.
the city of london plays host to a comparatively large financial services sector which is already subject to stamp duty at national level therefore contributing to the prosperity of the eu as a whole.
mr president the report on a common system for taxing financial transactions states that such a tax can have a positive impact on the long term growth of the eu.
as i have said before surely my colleagues from sweden can understand and share my position towards an eu wide ftt.