kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the election in september two thousand and eleven of a new somali president has created a window of opportunity for this war torn region.
mr president it was a truly extraordinary debate this morning. the president of the commission said that the existential threat to the euro was over the crisis was finished and then one after another colleagues lined up to lend their voices to that proposition.
in one sense we were right to say that the crisis was over.
i was thinking of what it would be like to be a strutting boulevardier from one hundred years ago with an exquisitely embroidered waistcoat twirling your silver topped cane stroking your beautifully trimmed beard but your guts inside rotting and your innards being destroyed by syphilis because we have not addressed the fundamental problem.
a crisis is a crossroads a moment of decision a moment when there is one of two futures.
unemployment is rising growth is stuck and those things are going to carry on until we accept that the fundamental problem is that we are applying a single monetary policy to countries with widely divergent conditions and needs.
there is an extraordinary denial going on in this chamber and in the eu institutions as a whole.
therefore it is crucial to adapt intellectual property rights to the case of genetic resources in order to avoid the misappropriation of or even illicit commercial benefit from the use of biological resources taken from local communities for example and patented at their expense.
mr president the protection and preservation of genetic diversity is a key component of the achievements of the millennium development goal one project.
how can we sustain a dynamic economy if its own actors feel insecure?
whilst this report attempts to deal with the renewal of urban areas through cohesion policy i am afraid that the text is sorely lacking in any concrete suggestions which could help town and city centres deliver the employment and growth which europe so much needs.
rather this text focuses on an alternative agenda of using more cohesion funds to integrate marginalised groups in urban areas and attempts to interfere further in the integration of town planning across the eu.
it is unacceptable furthermore that the report suggests using more cohesion funding for the technical assistance of local government which may frequently mean nothing more than a by word for increased bureaucracy.
in summary this text will do little to help job creators in urban areas and my delegation has voted against this disappointing report.
mr president the cozzolino report on urban development as a contribution to eu growth concludes that the eu cohesion policy must focus on developing and assisting local initiatives.
we must avoid taxpayers' money being filtered by bureaucratic layers leaving only residues for those that are targeted.
it is to the local level that citizens feel most attached and to which intangible assets like historical and cultural ties are closely linked.
however this text i regret is far too prescriptive and will not help growth. as a uk conservative i am a believer in localism; it enables the most efficient spending to be matched with the most democratic consent.
therefore the erdf and cohesion policy which frankly need to be radically reformed and repatriated anyway ought to bolster a new approach to urban policies.
however i have to say in the case of the solidarity fund there is some understanding of the need for such a fund because of course when there is a natural disaster or people are suffering it is quite right that other countries neighbouring countries seek to help those neighbours in a time of need by showing true solidarity.
it is really just a socialist wish list which would destroy the ability of struggling companies to stay afloat.
from reading the report you would be forgiven for thinking that there is no legislation governing redundancy and restructuring but there is.
the report contains many very worrying recommendations that would just create new burdens for companies at the very time when they need to move promptly and effectively to restructure to save jobs and to save the business.
redundancy is a very painful and demoralising experience for all concerned but our attention should be focused on how to encourage new job creation and new employment opportunities rather than wasting effort in denying the reality of business today.
in this context biopiracy which is the misappropriation of indigenous medicinal plant knowledge has also emerged as a concern for developing countries. in principle i support effective measures combating biopiracy not least concerning its definition.
i also support assistance to developing countries that are engaged in legal and institutional capacity building to improve the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights but it would be premature to regulate this sector with a binding instrument in the absence of clear definitions. we have particular reservations about the idea of mandatory informed consent.
we should also be aware of the ongoing wipo negotiations and ensure that any resulting agreement is compatible with the cbd nagoya protocol.
mr president restructuring is nothing new;
in the eu over the past five years there have been almost five and half thousand large scale restructurings with the loss of almost two million jobs.
restructuring would be much less damaging for all if companies could demonstrate social responsibility if there is real participation and a long term approach.
the cercas report has set out some very positive recommendations for moving beyond merely repairing the damage caused by restructurings and i was very happy to support it.
this particular report deals with the protection and preservation of genetic diversity and in common with our work on other committees our concerns on environmental and species biodiversity genetic diversity must be protected. my group supports effective measures combating bio piracy but we do have some serious concerns.
to mention just one we have major reservations about the calls for prior informed consent and mandatory requirements on disclosing the origin of genetic resources during patent proceedings.
we also believe that further work must be carried out to clarify and consolidate the legal terminology in this area.
as interest and legislation in this area grow this legal terminology is extremely important.
i saw that in my own constituency last year when after serious flooding particularly in cork solidarity funds were made available to redevelop infrastructure etc.
but also psychologically it made a statement that the european union did care about its citizens particularly in their time of need.
there are proposals here to reform the solidarity fund.
we firmly believe that such proposals for a legal act would be disproportionate and add little value to the needs of businesses facing restructuring.
i understand the political wish to be doing something to help workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
but the recommendations in this report will create burdens for employers facing restructuring which will restrict their flexibility and thus further damage jobs in the future.
in particular it calls for companies to give an early explanation and justification to all relevant stakeholders and would also make companies responsible for ensuring that surveillance and counselling aimed to avoid or minimise the negative impact of the restructuring process on both the physical and psycho social for both redundant workers if any and those staying'
we do not believe that it is the role of the european parliament to call for such initiatives.
we believe that adapting to change requires an integrated approach covering multiple areas including industrial employment education and innovation and not the unrealistic and impractical proposals contained in this report.
mr president the report on the eu solidarity fund dealing with assistance to member states following national disasters acknowledges that austerity across the union precludes an increase in the budget line allocated to the fund and this aspect i particularly welcome. so i also welcome the commission's recent decisions that changes in the solidarity fund will not impose any additional financial burden on both the member states and the eu's budget.
although various member states have in recent years benefited from the fund the report rightly criticises the legal and practical difficulties of accessing the fund.
the demand for access to this fund requires the commission to simplify procedures in order to prevent further delays.
the time taken is unacceptably long and greater flexibility is now needed.
however the solidarity fund does provide added value and has played a valuable role in rebuilding damaged infrastructure in affected territories such as italy the country you come from mr president after the earthquake.
our second response should concern the future of nuclear power as a whole.
the first has been the japanese response which in terms of structural preparation in the cities the rapid response of the emergency units and the inspirational resilience shown by the japanese people has been exemplary and should serve as a template for other earthquake prone countries.
in order to ensure the continued provision of sufficient energy for the eu investments in renewable energy production and increased energy efficiency must also be approved.
in this regard a complete halt to the construction of new nuclear power plants must be agreed.
while japan will undoubtedly learn swiftly from these events europe too must take these lessons on board and our reaction might be broken up into two areas.
i welcome plans for tests and would like to stress that they must conclude with common rules between member states on the security of nuclear power plants and on the storing of highly toxic nuclear waste.
the european civil protection mechanism was activated in order to help coordinate assistance offered by the member states.
compassion and readiness to provide humanitarian as well as technical assistance. this message is also one of respect for the tenacity and the resilience of the japanese people especially those who are still struggling to cope with the situation in fukushima.
implementing and continually improving the high standards for nuclear safety is a top priority for eu regulators and operators;
the eu civil protection team deployed in japan has our full support. individual member states have also been prepared to make very generous offers of assistance.
several member states and industry operators have already decided to review the safety of the nuclear plants which should be welcomed.
the european union stands ready to continue to answer calls for humanitarian assistance technical support of any kind or more specialised assistance that the japanese authorities may consider appropriate.
i also pay tribute to the courage and fortitude of those who are now struggling to tackle the consequences of the terrible earthquake and tsunami as well as those endeavouring to deal with the consequences of the nuclear incident.
i have two comments on this.
first the credibility of the exercise depends on our being transparent about the modalities and outcome of the assessment.
it is obviously important that the message to the public regarding the situation in japan is clear.
the european nuclear safety regulatory group with the full involvement of the member states will define the modalities of this assessment in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.
our support to japan needs to continue.
radiation levels in all member states are normal and appropriate controls are in place regarding foodstuffs imported from japan.
following the extraordinary council of energy ministers on twenty one march the hungarian national development minister tams fellegi has written to brief president van rompuy on the proposal for stress tests for nuclear power plants and for other countries particularly our neighbours to be associated with this exercise. the scope and modalities for the test should be developed in light of recent events and making full use of the available expertise.
there are certain lessons to be learned from this accident.
i have no doubt that our heads of state and government will want to express their continued solidarity with the people of japan as i do now. the european union will continue to stand ready to provide whatever assistance we can to help them through this difficult
but the very concept of continuous improvement implies that we need to draw the lessons first despite the fact that the accident was caused by external factors and not by malfunctions at the plant.
the european union stands alongside the japanese people at this extraordinarily difficult and challenging time.
whilst it is difficult to set a firm date for this it is clear that it needs to get under way as soon as possible. the issue of the safety of nuclear plants obviously does not stop at the eu's borders.
reading our newspapers i see that the spanish government has urged that goods from japan be checked carefully for radiation;
mr president i am surprised that the commissioner seems so optimistic about getting the situation in fukushima under control in a few days when nuclear experts have talked about weeks and months;
meanwhile the plant is still emitting radiation which is continuing to seep into the food supply and into the water supply.
i welcome the call for stress tests but they do not answer the bigger questions.
the question is do we want to accept the rising risks of nuclear power in a world where complex natural disasters and extreme weather events are very much on the increase?
the safety of nuclear reactors simply cannot be fully guaranteed in the event of a large scale disaster of any description where there are multiple levels of disruption where you get cuts to electricity to water supply to communications and to physical access.
that was true before the incidents in japan and it remains true now.
there are the problems of design inadequate regulation not enough independence and obviously do not build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones.
our cities have chemical factories across the board all of them present huge potential risks but we manage those risks we live with them.
over the decades we have had horrific train accidents;
i welcome the stress test proposed by the commission but i think it has to be added that we cannot just have a stress test based on technology and geography.
we need two other steps. one is on the security culture where it obviously has been impossible to envisage multiple risks.
finally as we evaluate the consequences of the disaster we should base our discussion on information and knowledge.
we must remember the extraordinary strength of the earthquake and of the tsunami.
i welcome the precautionary stress tests on european nuclear power plants while remembering that the nuclear industry is already the most regulated and safety conscious in the world and i note the statement earlier this year from wenra the western european
nuclear regulators association about making new reactors even safer than our existing ones.
madam president i see a silver lining in this awful cloud for japan namely that the rebuilding and restoration work in that country courtesy of the deep pockets of the insurance industry should give a huge boost to their economy and that will be good for the rest of the world.
they would have significantly less difficulty in collecting one million signatures.
in a time when only forty two of the people who are entitled to vote in european elections take the time to actually vote every new european instrument especially an instrument like the eci is of great importance.
however we realise that the high expectations that surround the eci may lead to disappointment and frustration.
know from experience that it is frequently necessary to change the treaties in order that their objectives can be fully achieved.
a commission proposal to change the treaties is certainly the commission functioning legally within the framework of its powers and we all
madam president the european citizens' initiative eci is a much needed sign of engagement by the eu and is a great opportunity to increase democratic participation in europe and to strengthen the links between citizens and politicians. although the obstacle of the obligation to provide passport numbers remains applicable in two thirds of the member states i and other members of the ecr group have helped make this citizens' initiative more user friendly by deleting the terribly bureaucratic double admissibility check proposed by the commission and ensuring that the eci was made available to popular movements and not just large organised interest groups.
now truly grassroots initiatives stand a change of succeeding even if they do not follow the spirit of european federalism.
most importantly the commission will be obliged to indicate the exact reasons for refusal of an eci as well as indicating exactly how it intends to follow up on a successful initiative.
transparency in this process is key.
it is about time that the european union began to properly acknowledge the views of european citizens and listen to the voice of the people.
it constitutes a qualitative redistribution of power within the european union and has the potential to generate significant innovation in european politics.
the placing of citizens at the same level as parliament and council by offering citizens the right to call on the commission to bring legislation forward has far reaching implications. for one the new institution creates space to question one of the fundamental features of the way in which the entire integration process has been designed namely that from the outset it has been elite led.
in many respects this has been very successful but there is equally little doubt now that without the active support of the citizens the integration process runs into obstacles.
indeed there is growing evidence that citizens see the eu as remote complex and impenetrable.
they have had very little reason to engage with the eu because the means of doing so have been absent.
this is what the citizens' initiative will remedy. it sets up an instrument that has the capacity to bridge the gap between the eu and the demos.
it is in everyone's interest that the instrument should now work and should work as effectively as possible.
there is a risk that the democratic process in europe could not only be boosted but also derailed and the citizens' initiative could be exploited if not hijacked by extremists and populists.
i think we all have now to take our shared responsibility and make sure it is really used for the citizens.
i call upon elected politicians in member states to respect the fact that they have representative democracy to express their views and this initiative is for citizens.
i call upon the commission to properly inform citizens to avoid raising false expectations and to be tough as regards the admission criteria. i call upon the media to play their role in giving correct information and on member states to respect personal data so that the people will feel enough trust to participate.
yes but not a freely drafted one.
the petitioner is told beforehand what he might ask for which is something within the competence of the commission and what he might not ask for which is something deemed by the commission to be lacking in seriousness or contrary to so called european values.
is it a referendum?
it has been described wrongly as an example of direct democracy.
however there will be no popular vote involving all citizens.
even if a million signatures should be collected the commission will not have to act on it.
ordinary citizens are unlikely to organise themselves autonomously.
only powerful interests will find it easy to mobilise opinion.
most of all it will be a quasi democratic cosmetic for an undemocratic institution.
does that mean we are opposed to it?
we all know that the european union needs this very much.
debate. i would like to assure you and through you all european citizens that we in the commission are absolutely conscious of the importance and the value of one million citizens supporting a particular proposal.
however i am confident that the regulation that we present today tackles many of the challenges that we could imagine during the preparation of the regulation.
we should not be afraid of this new facet of democracy.
let us be honest there is a disconnect between policymakers and citizens.
it is therefore very important that the voice of the ordinary citizen is heard.
we also cannot ignore the fact that the mechanics for gathering the signatures for an eci even with the requirement for participation reduced to a quarter of the member states may mean that it is very difficult for anyone but large lobby organisations which already operate on a pan european basis to gather these required signatures.
this absolutely forbids us to solve this problem and i think that is not fair. the brussels iia regulation is outdated.
so let's act.
it is supposed to help the free movement of judgments in matrimonial law but it's fifteen years old.
registered partnerships may not have been a big deal in two thousand and three but now they are an established part of matrimonial law.
however we have ensured that all its provisions that aim at improving the protection of children will apply equally to all children regardless of the situation of the family where they live.
they deserve proceedings that clarify their situation as quickly as possible and take their best interests into account.
so we need to speed up cross border cases and we need these new rules quickly for the sake of children's welfare.
this is my question.
but until the time comes when we have full equality between same sex couples and couples of different sexes civil partnerships and registered partnerships should be treated as equal in european union legislation.
actually the only real argument that i can see that is on the table right now is that the commission is backing off vis vis right wing governments who do not want registered partnerships to be included and i can only agree with the colleagues speaking about this.
we stand up for the rule of law we stand up for equality we stand up for freedom in this european union.
now would be the time for the commission to actually show this commitment in real terms.
the results of the public consultation undertaken by the commission did not provide sufficient evidence to justify making urgent changes in the area of matrimonial matters.
our assessment was that it is not the right time to change these rules.
the key objective of the brussels iia revision is to propose significant improvements for children facing difficult situations. these need to be addressed urgently.
i would like to stress that in our proposal we have ensured that the improved protection of children applies to all children irrespective of the civil status of their parents that is regardless of whether or not they are married or in a registered partnership.
the debate then becomes a very straightforward decision on the amount of time a breeder can have the exclusive use of his variety.
we just need to let the plant breeders have their moment in the sun.
a system may develop where the breeder of a high flying variety may take the option of purchasing a longer period of purdah from the government to the benefit of the taxpayer a simple commercial decision taken within agreed limits.
our commercial plant breeders therefore need the assurance that their work will bring significant financial rewards and not simply provide a shortcut to others who can quickly build on a novel feature that took many years to isolate and consistently replicate itself within a stable variety. in the past it was usually safe to assume that by the time a competitor breeder had taken advantage of breeders' privilege