kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we have been listening to stakeholders' concerns about their rights their careers their life choices and opportunities in the twenty first century.
surely if you've got an economic mess you cannot possibly improve people's social conditions.
surely that is complete common sense otherwise it's economic illiteracy.
they must be their foundation and their priority because there is no real european project without social justice and there is no social justice without social investment without tax justice without effective redistribution without accessible and quality public services without decent working conditions without the minimum of economic security without an effective right to housing without gender equality and without opportunities
probably if the european union had long had social europe really on its agenda we would have better navigated through the crisis that has had such a negative impact on social cohesion in europe especially in certain countries including mine catalonia.
if we want to go to convergence between member states that could be good and it can be one of our objectives that we look all together at what is a decent minimum wage and what elements we need to decide upon that.
it's the whole reason why the eu lags behind in growth and why countries outside of it grow quicker with all these wellintentioned schemes and costly ideas.
what you actually do is cripple your economies.
the derogation from this scheme really has nothing to do with anything apart from saving face from an exercise that has been pushed through by dg environment and which has shown that it is not really going to work.
while the ets of fixed installations was ill conceived and poorly designed the inclusion of aviation in that sector amounts to nothing more than a tax on an industry that supports five million jobs across europe and it provides absolutely no benefits.
this was also backed up by one hundred and seventy countries which showed their determination not to be dictated to by the european commission.
it has been a waste of time since we started and we have gained a whole host of hostility from third countries which is not the way that the european union should be doing business in my view.
we are supportive of business and there are other mitigating ways in which we can deal with pollution environment and all of these things.
but thank you for the intervention chris.
switzerland enjoys a privileged position as part of the eu's internal aviation market and geographically it is at the heart of the european continent.
furthermore switzerland and the eu share a strong commitment to addressing climate change and to making progress in the icao and we are even engaged in detailed negotiations on linking our respective emissions trading systems.
we have already set up this high level group and things are actually moving forward though not with as much speed as some of us would like.
so i would end by saying that it is my clear impression that on the swiss side too although there are some technical issues there is a profound understanding of why we need to move this through with a first reading agreement. there are some deadlines here that we need to respect and the swiss government also understands this.
adopting a different approach would thus create disproportionately high risks of distortion of competition in comparison to the alternative.
we should be going with the tide after all. anyone who goes round airbus or boeing knows that the aircraft manufacturers are competing on the basis of fuel efficiency and that of course means lower co two emissions.
let us just hope that this is an example of the european union being able to use its position in this arena of international negotiations to actually secure some very positive and binding commitments from other member states across the world to make progress on this agenda.
so the tide is with us in a way that when we are talking about power stations it is not. i would like the commissioner to come back to this issue of switzerland because there were certainly questions being asked in my group about it.
this is very important for all of us here. thank you commissioner.
the icao assembly in september two thousand and thirteen will need to take the international efforts to the next level in order to demonstrate that the icao's member states are ready to take appropriate measures in the area of international aviation.
this basically serves nobody's interests.
but the fact is that the european union has always made it clear that a global approach to addressing the fast growing emissions from international aviation is our preferred option.
two thousand and fifty so the two thousand and thirteen icao assembly will need to agree on an immediately applicable and meaningful framework that guides the design of national and regional market based mechanisms a realistic timetable for a global market based mechanism and an ambitious set of technological and operational measures.
if clear and sufficient progress is made there the commission will propose further legislative action with a view to adapting the eu ets in line with a successful icao outcome. however if this is not the case the eu ets will again apply to external flights.
let me emphasise that all operators whether registered inside or outside the eu will have to comply for their intra european flights. these obligations will be strictly enforced.
that is why based on the encouraging results of the icao council meeting of nine november two thousand and twelve and the constructive engagement of our international partners in the relevant discussions the commission proposed that the eu stop the clock' by temporarily derogating from the eu ets compliance obligations for international flights operated in two thousand and twelve to and from europe.
it would only create uncertainty and confusion for airlines and would also risk jeopardising the chances of a successful outcome of the icao negotiations by prompting critical third countries to speculate about our commitment to this derogation.
that was one of the options that they actually pointed to.
yet after nearly two decades of negotiations there has been no internationally agreed principle on who has the responsibility and who has the authority to control emissions from international flights.
how can we explain to our citizens that we are taking measures to reduce emissions from their use of cars transport or the heating of their house farms or whatever it is if at the same time we do nothing about the very significant emissions every passenger causes when taking an intercontinental flight?
it simply does not make sense.
so now we can make it abundantly clear to everybody that this is not the case and show that it is now up to our partners to work with us and to demonstrate a genuine commitment to and an engagement in finding solutions.
this significant gesture by the eu would create a unique window of opportunity for the icao process.
the principle of non discrimination based on the nationality of operators has always been and remains a fundamental part of the eu's position. in relation to the amendment proposed at this plenary session let me stress the following any change to the stopping the clock' decision at this late stage would cause major difficulties by forcing
in the absence of a first reading agreement the stopping of the clock would not be adopted in time and the legal situation regarding the application of the ets to external flights would remain unclear for months.
nobody has worked harder actually to achieve that than we have in the european union.
we need the signal now when we are negotiating in the high level group.
we want to make sure that we have the best equipment the best technology and all those things that are cost effective for the european consumer.
we need a little bit of coordination and not duplication of inspections.
we have the overarching inspection for cross compliance by competent authorities but farmers are increasingly facing other levels and layers of inspections from processors from retailers from all sorts of groups;
last year and the year before we pressed the commission to take action to assist dairy farmers across the european union who were in a dire situation. the commission responded with export refunds as an emergency measure.
however not only streamlining of legislation is important but also flexibility for member states and most importantly with the commission and the european court of auditors.
the european court of auditors has shown little to no flexibility or indeed common sense when applying penalties.
this legislation needs urgent attention and more common sense is needed.
the outcome needs to be fully implemented by all twenty seven member states and be fully complied with.
we need to send a clear signal that these new procedures and supervisory authorities especially the proposed european systemic risk board are necessary and can work for the benefit of our constituents and our collective economies.
i do not agree with this conclusion.
for all these areas we need to ensure that a strong and resilient structure is put in place as soon as possible in order to ensure that we can deliver a common set of rules whether for member states accounts and their behaviour in economic governance or for our financial services reform.
in europe we have identified areas in which regulatory gaps can be bridged and will hopefully also improve the transparency of our markets and financial services as a whole.
once this framework has been established it should aid the safety of the financial system and may even prove to be a vehicle to improve the functioning of the single market in financial services.
i commend the commission's focus in addressing the key issues of concern and believe that although by very different methods we will soon end up with a global financial system which is safer and better serves our economy.
in following this agenda we do however need to ensure that any new authorities established work effectively with national supervisory bodies and that at all times these discussions and negotiations strive for the best structure the best supervision and the best outcome rather than whether it is more' or less europe'.
if we can find agreement on the supervisory architecture over the coming days and weeks we will have a robust eu framework centred on a new european systemic risk board and the three lamfalussy committees transformed into european authorities.
the recent financial and economic crisis has necessitated bold measures.
the recent agreement on the us finance bill has been hailed by many as putting the us regulatory reform ahead of the eu.
one could almost feel sorry for you but of course you know you bring some of this on yourselves.
it was always written in the runes as it were.
a. this is just how we got into this pickle to start with. if you want to get out of this mess you need to get rid of the political establishment support for commercial banks and get rid of central banks which are actually part of the problem not the solution.
the very same thing.
our commercial banks have got themselves into a terrible problem because they buy junk debt. they redistributed junk debt repackaged at triple a ratings.
i was in the city at the time and we were buying greek bonds at ten coupons they fell to five and it was a one way bet a bit like having the winner of the horse before the race had even started!
what are our central banks doing now?
to suggest now that we have only just found out that greece was broke is intellectually dishonest.
testing. as you know the commission is playing an important role in promoting transparency and communicating the results of the ongoing stress testing of
to our economic policy to understand that a monetary union without some kind of economic coordination does not make
exist. i am very confident about the overall resilience of the eu banking industry but we must identify possible pockets of vulnerability and deal with
in the last few days a new belgian presidency has renewed momentum towards a
public. as you know this is a national competence but i am indeed extremely pleased with the european council agreement to
grasp. the commission has contributed through various compromise texts and is very pleased that progress is being
that. but in reality we should be able to conclude our legislative work long before our american partners and i believe we should do that to show also our leadership in terms of the financial regulation and supervision at the global level. that could only enhance the role of europe in this
rules. the european decision to publish individual results of bank stress tests was indeed very well received by the g twenty leaders in toronto last weekend and we believe this is the way to restore confidence in our overall
do so. backstop mechanisms must be designed for activation in case of need and this is once again a national responsibility.
as mrs swinburne said and she is right the americans have announced the political agreement but they have not yet legislated.
matter. finally some of you spoke about stress
trying to look at all the aspects.
great and we welcome
if state intervention is needed this will be examined by the commission in a timely manner under the community state aid
tif. it is not only about sanctions for those who do not fulfil the criteria of depth and the deficit.
we will also try to reinforce coordination in terms of the macro economic imbalances.
of. two thousand and eleven we need this since our whole reform is based on this new architecture.
do so. this decision should reassure investors by either lifting unfounded suspicion or by dealing with the remaining problems that may
it is up to the commission to make the proposals and that is what we are doing.
banks. at the last european council i made a strong plea to make the results
them. a fully transparent stress test provides the opportunity to
taxation on labour is far too high in a number of member states.
in your proposals of last week i think you are missing the point.
you have left out several highly relevant options that would really mean a qualitative leap in this field.
we also urgently need operational proposals from you the commission on how to shift the tax burden away from labour as rapidly as possible.
current and further planned austerity measures will lead to a sustained period of low growth increasing unemployment and further social exclusion.
second you must come forward with an economic policy agenda for jobs and fiscal consolidation. today we only have an agenda for cutting deficits at the expense of jobs.
real economic policy coordination should provide for a more differentiated consolidation plan for europe instead of the short sighted one size fits all' austerity agenda that makes no economic sense.
third we need strong proposals on how to safeguard proper public financing for the recently agreed europe two thousand and twenty strategy including new tax revenues from financial transaction taxes and other sources.
there is a need for a qualitative leap in european economic policy and in its governance but that should lead to a balanced policy agenda combining fiscal responsibility with economic effectiveness and social fairness.
last but not least you have stopped short of positive incentives rather than negative sanctions in a renewed stability and growth pact although that could be a very promising path to tread.
i know there are some alternative resolutions but the main message remains that parliament wants to see a better agreement with morocco in the future and i am happy that together we have been able to identify that the current arrangements with morocco are desirable.
it concerns a resolution on the current arrangement with morocco something that has been debated several times in this house especially over the past year.
in other words we are not fishing the surplus;
in light of what i have done and in light of what the two committees who took the opportunity to give an opinion on this agreement have done it is clear that we should not accept the current arrangements. that is why we should vote no'.
with these things explained i think it is quite clear that we need to pass the resolution to show our commissioner who is sitting right there that she has our backing for a new agreement but at the same time a better agreement which takes into account all the problems outlined in the ex post evaluation report.
this is an arrangement which came with the lisbon treaty;
this is also a reason why we need change.
on top of this of course there are the ecological aspects and i actually find them far more troubling. the basic principle of fisheries partnership agreements is that we fish the surplus;
however they need to be economically and ecologically far more sustainable than they are today.
i am happy that we have come to a point in time where we have been able to agree among many groups on the content of this resolution.
i cannot however at all agree with the conclusion that we need to vote in favour of a terrible agreement that almost everyone seems to think is bad just to give you a good agreement in the future.
are critical.
concerning the western sahara i am happy that the commissioner is looking for different arrangements because it is clear that there are so many colleagues in this house that find the current arrangements very problematic.
let me also tell you that only fifteen of the sectoral support from morocco has been used.
i am very happy about the debate which focuses on the future.
let me tell you that every eu job created by this protocol is subsidised by eur. forty five zero is that good economic policy and good spending of taxpayers' money?
our partnership with morocco is important;
i think everyone has stated very clearly despite a few voices that they want a good agreement in the future.
so we also have a very tough debate with the council which is not unanimous on this.
fifteen per cent which means that eighty five was unused. keep that in mind.
i also want to do that.
but before that we need to take a clear stance live up to our responsibilities and vote on my report which is not on a future protocol it is on the current protocol.
there is no doubt based on the debate that this is something that we all want.
that reasoning does not work.
we are not voting on a future protocol now;
the community should therefore envisage either the suspension of the agreement or should apply the agreement in such a way that eu flagged vessels are excluded from the exploitation of the waters off western sahara.
that was an attack on a people abandoned by their spanish colonisers and was a contravention of international law. the fisheries agreement between the eu and morocco including the waters of the western sahara is in fact illegal. this has been established by the legal services of this house in a recent opinion which overrules the previous legal opinion of the commission which was written before it was possible to establish two things firstly
there are now two answers to those questions seventy four of the eu fleet capacity does operate in the waters of western sahara and the people of this region have not been consulted on the matter.
it is extremely clear that morocco only wants to keep the fisheries agreement with the eu for one reason to legitimise morocco's illegal occupation of western sahara by making the eu an accomplice in this criminal act. it would be shameful to this house and to the entire european union if we as a proponent of human rights and defenders of international justice and democracy
this all demonstrates the failure of eu control over uk fisheries and trade.
we know it the un knows it and even parliament's legal services know it.
i am appalled that the liberal democrat political group tried to cancel this public debate and submitted a resolution that urges the commission to close the deal as quickly as possible. this whole issue shows just how little the eu cares for democracy and human rights around the world.
that is a subsidy of extraordinary proportions.
i think we can have confidence that the commissioner will do her very best to negotiate a new arrangement which meets the criteria of sustainability and the social requirements referred to in the declaration.
she can also have a smile on her face as she was not responsible for negotiating the appalling arrangement we have in place at the moment.
not surprisingly when we look at the issue of sustainability and we recognise that these fishermen are fishing in waters which are described as fully exploited' or over exploited' there are questions here about the whole sustainability aspect.
i would like to underline that the commission is here to defend the common european interest.
so please while i understand that we are going through a very difficult time a very difficult situation this separatist narrative is not really fruitful.
we do care but please be aware that it is not easy to solve the international problem through this agreement and the commission cannot accept that idea.
yes but after all we need a clear
this. referring to the past i agree with you that the agreements we had were not economically profitable or environmentally friendly and that is why we are going to change
that is my opinion.
you are now going to decide whether or not this protocol can be concluded.
the lead committee has adopted a positive recommendation but i know that many of you are not convinced so let me explain our position.
as you know this one year protocol an interim protocol was agreed with morocco in february this year just before the previous one expired.
i am convinced that this decision was right.
we have pressed morocco to provide us with reliable information that the local population benefits from the exploitation of these waters as is required by international law.
these efforts have given some potentially positive results.
i know that a lot of you are not convinced about this but i would just like to remind you that this is really important for some hundreds of european vessels fishing there most of which are small scale vessels.
on the basis of a decision taken by the council in july the protocol is now being applied provisionally.
indeed there is less than three months left before it expires at the end of february next year.
that is something i would like to make absolutely clear.
your vote next wednesday will be respected by us.
so in the case of any agreement we have to significantly improve the text with regard to environmental economic and legal political aspects.
let me say here a few words on recent developments in morocco and on the state of relations between the european union and morocco against which your decision today should also be judged.
the commission assessment is that in morocco the authorities have launched a significant process of reform with the elaboration of a new constitution increasing democratic accountability and respect for human rights as well as the successful holding of parliamentary elections which have brought new forces to power.
what are the main parameters of this better deal with morocco that we should be aiming at?
first on economic profitability.
we are definitely seeking value for money.
it is imperative that any new protocol should ensure a better utilisation of available fishing possibilities as well as an overall financial envelope that clearly reflects market value as other committees of this house are asking for. second on environmental sustainability.
this means that we will be defining fishing possibilities based on best available scientific advice and also that we will be targeting only the surplus.
third on international legality.
there are a number of options on how to achieve this.
we are working on all of them.
if we were to follow the option of including the waters off western sahara then we would need to demonstrate through a strict and rigorous reporting mechanism that there are economic benefits for the regions and local populations concerned.
this would become a condition in the new protocol.
on all these issues we will draw on the conclusions from the implementation of the present protocol as well as from the debates in this house.