kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
most importantly i would like to thank them for defending the prerogatives of this house. to my colleagues from the ecr i would say that this is not grandstanding but legitimately asserting our role in this process.
in times of crisis we need effective solutions stability and predictability and all these features can be achieved best when we avail ourselves of the community institutions.
intergovernmental solutions will not in the long run lead us anywhere.
now some bond interest rates are creeping up again into the unsustainable zone.
rescue arrangements that were made have been shown to need change and with the best will i doubt that the next attempt will be one hundred percent correct let alone future proof.
therefore we need a permanent funding mechanism that is flexible not least to enable early intervention if that is the most effective remedy.
but of course there have to be boundaries priorities and governance. so we need a treaty change that enables evolution not a treaty change that leads to embroilment in what is meant by indispensable to the euro area as a whole' which at the very least suffers from size discrimination.
even strong euro area countries need the stability mechanism because of the interconnectedness of the banking system and sovereign debt.
it is not a coincidence that the ecb calls for a fund large enough to cope with euro area bank recapitalisation.
and on interest rates a balance has to be struck between sustainability and moral hazard but the end of the day position cannot be that member states extract rent greatly in excess of costs.
but i understand why the crisis in the euro area is prompting you to establish a permanent stability mechanism and although the uk is not a member of the euro area we do wish to see your economic success.
for these reasons my government has said that it will not block the treaty change required to establish the mechanism.
but this resolution goes further and we know from history that introducing vague language leads to uncertainties.
to summarise we will not vote against the treaty language agreed by member states which is specifically to enable this mechanism to be created but we cannot support this resolution with creeping vague concepts.
the responsibility lies with governments.
that is why i think it is important that the financing of the stability mechanism is structured in such a way that those who are exposing us to bigger risks by having bigger deficits should be obliged to pay more in order to contribute to the mechanism.
there are huge amounts of money involved taxpayers' money citizens' money that could be used for other things especially in these times of austerity. corruption also erodes the legitimacy of the political system of all of us of our authorities and of our public institutions and that is devastating for a democracy.
the vast majority of our citizens are very concerned about corruption and want europe to act more in this regard.
we have to remind many of our political leaders that they actually ran for election on a non corruption agenda.
we must push for implementation of what has been decided and ratification of international instruments. i do not think we are in a position mr moraes to make an intermediate report but we will not sit silent until.
i think it is time to deliver on that right now because as i have said and many of you have repeated it is not lack of legislation that is the problem it is lack of implementation and it is lack of political will. the commission is of course not the police.
i think it has been a most useful debate and it shows that we are taking seriously the concerns of citizens to which many of you have referred.
at. there is a lot to
what we must do and i know the commission wants to do this is define the immediate priorities.
what they want to see and certainly what my group wants to see is some definition and highlighting of how exactly we will implement many of the elements of the package which of course we welcome.
i welcome very much what the commission has said but i must say that the lack of transparency and the poor quality of transposition as somebody who is near to this subject is something which is very disturbing.
one way we can make progress is to take the general approach of prioritising our fight within the context of our security agenda for years to come.
we must control that disease at all times but particularly when the economic body is weak so that it cannot be allowed to spread causing further possibly irreparable damage.
mr president one of the words so often associated with the eu rightly or wrongly is that it is corrupt.
it was the involvement of this parliament which forced the inclusion of self certification in the iia and i hope this institution will have a continuing role to play in ensuring that the anti corruption package really bites.
i welcome action by the commission and its use of a series of measures that tackle corruption both in the public and the private sphere. however before we here pass legislation affecting the activities of our citizens we need to begin by getting our own house in order and securing finally a positive statement of assurance on the eu's accounts.
in the institute of internal auditors the council gave a commitment that member states would self certify the money they spend on behalf of the eu which is something like eighty of the eu budget yet as we near the end of this mff we have still to see that promise fully implemented across the eu. therefore i ask the council and commission for a firm statement today that they will step up their demands on member states to provide full and proper self certification of all eu monies which hopefully would go a long way towards alleviating auditors' concerns.
we all recall the debates surrounding the interinstitutional agreement attached to the last multiannual financial framework.
of course we also need to see more naming and shaming of countries that fail to stamp out corrupt practices.
if the eu economy was a body then corruption would be deemed a disease.
we hope that we can include people from a variety of backgrounds law enforcement prevention of corruption civil society research the private and public sectors international organisations etc. there will also be a network of local research correspondents consisting of representatives of civil society and academia.
we are presently not intending to submit draft conclusions to the council as these matters have been addressed through the recently adopted anti corruption package.
i know that you are expecting us to come up with the report next year but i must tell you that it is not possible to produce a thorough high quality report before.
we will highlight in an objective manner the achievements as well as the vulnerabilities of the member states' anti corruption efforts.
the commission will therefore continue to work with member states on improving enforcement and will monitor further progress. as regards other key international anti corruption instruments such as the uncac the two council of europe conventions and the oecd anti bribery convention they all have a dedicated monitoring mechanism and we
that report indicates that the quality of transposition remained uneven notably as regards criminalisation of all elements of active and passive bribery and reliability of legal persons. moreover even for those member states who had transposed such provisions the information on the actual track record
your commitment and your recommendations as published today and in the future will be considered by the commission.
that will does not exist to a sufficient degree.
regarding all the other international instruments and you are aware of them there are differences in implementation.
minimum standards on anti corruption policies have already been defined through international instruments but effective results are still missing and this is due to the lack of political will.
the specific circumstances of each member state will be considered in the country analysis and the shortcomings found will subsequently be reflected in the tailor made recommendations but we do not intend to set up flying squads to send to member states.
in this context we have called upon the member states to ratify the legal instruments without further delay and we will keep on monitoring this in the report calling upon member states to do the necessary ratification. this will be monitored in the anti corruption report in the tailor made individual recommendations to member states. that report should therefore try to generate additional political commitment to ensure compliance with eu and international commitments.
this could be an option in the long run but for the moment we need to focus on implementation.
the contact point network against corruption will be a very valuable resource for us but more needs to be done in terms of specific deliverables and the focus of the eu contact point network against corruption.
we do not include in this any specific provisions on transparency but of course transparency and accountability are and will remain key guiding principles when we adopt legislation.
long and intensive evidence gathering careful comparison with existing legal documents and thorough analysis of the potential impact of a legislative solution would be needed to agree on common definitions and minimum sanctions.
i am proud that we adopted the anti corruption package just before the summer.
also as you have acknowledged the main problem with anti corruption policy is uneven implementation.
for that reason in the preparation of the anti corruption report the commission will focus a great deal on the implementation and effectiveness of this.
as part of the package the commission also adopted a report on the implementation of the framework decision from two thousand and three on combating corruption in the private sector.
the commission is planning to adopt the decision to set up the framework for the work of this expert group by the autumn so that experts can be selected and start work as soon as possible.
the report will be equally applicable to all twenty seven member states.
only by continuing this pressure will we achieve results.
since corruption is a contagious disease that rapidly transforms itself into a structural epidemic it has to be addressed by all possible means from full transparency to harsh sanctions.
we should not turn a blind eye to our own practices.
in march this year the global organisation of parliamentarians against corruption stated in a resolution that we have a responsibility to strengthen the confidence of the citizens we represent.
in order to do so we all regardless of the countries we come from have to be much more transparent when it comes to our own activities and the financial resources we handle.
codes of conduct with a clear and strict definition of conflicts of interest must be drawn up by all eu institutions eu agencies and member state governments and public agencies alike.
how can you have a sustainable healthcare system when the taxation that is paid for our health and for our education is spent on paying back a debt that was never ours?
eur eleven million is all that is needed in funding to keep the ninety residents in place at this home that helps our health system but we cannot afford to pay for it.
i heard today mr juncker say that we made sure taxpayers never again have to pay for the greed of financial speculators.
this year eur five hundred million will be destroyed and we will get nothing for it.
so we have to keep a competitive edge when it comes to innovation.
first of all there are major differences in healthcare spending between member states. the european semester could serve as a tool to monitor healthcare quality organisation and spending.
the commission is trying to coordinate invest and exchange information setting up networks and sharing best practices but this will not result in the changes that we really need.
i call for the establishment of a european rare disease fund which would harmonise the health technology assessment procedure making it easier for companies to enter all european markets and obtain reimbursement.
this means that we have to look fundamentally at how we run our healthcare systems if we want to keep them open qualitative and affordable for everybody.
the combined member states would have a stronger negotiating position over the price and the fund would guarantee access for all patients suffering from a rare disease to the most novel and innovative treatments.
recommendations per member state and follow up of implementation of best practice by the commission would then be key.
this means creating a simplified stable and favourable environment for investing in healthcare ranging from drug development to e health applications to prevention strategies bringing down the cost for the whole system.
therefore i would like to make three concrete proposals.
we have to change our thinking about healthcare and the way that we look at european healthcare systems so i count on the commission to lead the way.
the commission has no competence to regulate the level of prices of medical treatments these are determined by member states individually. the commission could however explore other avenues for example by pursuing improved exchanges of information among member states on their pricing policies with a view to minimising negative effects on the accessibility of medicines in the eu. another way in which the commission could assist would be through further exploring the use of the joint procurement mechanism to encourage more
there is a small number of cases outstanding which will be resolved in a near future.
the communication stressed the need for improved cooperation increased transparency and better coordination to minimise any unintended effects that current national pricing systems may have in terms of accessibility throughout the eu.
i would like to point out that there is a huge difference between the insurance and privatisedbased model of healthcare prevalent in most of europe and the contributory taxationbased national health service model that we have in the united kingdom.
many of the chronic healthcare conditions that create the demand are coming about because of lifestyle choices by patients and by individuals of all age groups.
we need to do more if we are going do anything at all to tackle the source of those problems and start talking about the business interests and the lobbying companies that push the products and create the environmental factors that create the illnesses and the problems for the eu. i would finally like to point out that if you cannot control your borders cannot control your population and cannot control demand you will never ever be able to meet supply.
at the same time we need to ensure broad access to affordable and high quality health services.
something needs to be done in order to face the great challenges that are putting too much pressure on our healthcare systems including our ageing population and the rise of chronic diseases on which we spend most of the eu healthcare budget.
service will improve science will develop and a great quantity of financial resources can be saved to be used for something else within the healthcare budget.
that has a massive negative profound impact on those countries and i just wanted to raise that issue that problem and to say that we need to think about the ethics of what we're doing when that happens.
in march this year the council reaffirmed that protected areas and ecological networks are a cornerstone of our efforts to preserve biodiversity and stressed the need to fully implement the birds and habitats directives and speed up completion of the natura two thousand network.
most sites are living landscapes which have been shaped as a result of many years of human intervention.
across europe the process of designation of natura two thousand sites is nearing completion and the priority is now to ensure that the natura two thousand network is effectively managed and properly resourced so that it can fully achieve its objectives.
finally in view of the fact that we have not met the political target of halting the loss of biodiversity in two thousand and ten we will have to assess the reasons why we have failed.
it is one of the greatest achievements of european union environmental policy.
on the contrary there are many examples such as the port of antwerp which i visited recently and which is also mentioned in your question where economic development successfully continues side by side with nature protection.
the natura network is one of the most advanced most extensive and most flexible systems of nature protection in the world.
the eu habitats directive is a unique flexible tool which allows farming fishing forestry hunting and even major development projects to be carried out in a way that does not destroy the ecological value of our natural heritage. natura sites are not no go areas where human activities and economic development are to be excluded.
we are now at a crucial stage of implementation of the legislation.
to ensure compatibility between nature protection and economic development. the commission does not believe that a review would be justified at this stage.
designation of a natura site does not mean that economic activities within the site must be frozen.
there are certain parts of the population particularly unborn children who are extremely vulnerable to these chemicals and the changes have been shown to be irreversible so people's lives have been blighted from before birth as a result of this.
i thank you commissioner for your reply but i have an immense feeling of frustration because this is thirteen years that this has been under consideration eighty four studies over thirteen years.
as a result there is a risk that it could migrate into food or in wider consumer uses involving daily exposure also move into the body.
as regards the notification by the member states to the commission of administrative arrangements the deadline expires on twenty six june of this year.
two thousand and nine to date twelve member states including ireland have met this deadline.
ireland also takes an active role at the european level in promoting valuable information exchange between the member states on different topics related to the implementation of the directive such as on how to deal with flash and pluvial floods flood mapping and development of flood risk management plans.
ireland has notified the legislation transposing the directive and has reported administrative arrangements.
the main implementation milestones are still some time away.
two thousand and fifteen the public and interested parties must also be consulted on these plans before they are adopted.
two thousand and thirteen and thirdly to prepare the first flood risk management plans in.
across the european union member states are preparing these steps which are firstly to carry out a preliminary flood risk assessment in two thousand and eleven and to identify areas of potential significant flood risks;
the commission is now checking that all relevant information on the responsible authorities and the geographical coverage of the units of management is in compliance with the directive.
we furthermore welcome the fact that ireland has already undertaken pilot exercises in the dodder catchment in the dublin area as well as in the lee catchment in the south of ireland where a draft catchment flood risk management plan was prepared and submitted to public consultation.
in this respect i will urge minsk to continue to cooperate with the osce order on the reform of the electoral code ahead of the next presidential elections.
in the light of this during the visit i intend to pay to minsk in july i will convey to the authorities the clear message that progress needs to be made in a number of areas which are key to democratisation if belarus is serious
one of these areas is electoral legislation which is one of the most evident tests of democratic standards.
however the report states that these amendments are unlikely to resolve the concerns that the electoral code continues to fall short of genuinely democratic elections.
according to the opinion of the osce office for democratic institutions and human rights which was issued on three june two thousand and ten this represented and i quote a step towards removing some flaws'
having said that in order to draw a balanced set of conclusions for the future i think we must recognise that the reasons for the outcomes of these meetings are manifold and need to be analysed on a case by case basis.
nonetheless both for the cites and the climate change negotiations this did not prevent the eu from agreeing on a common line and carrying out a range of outreach activities towards its international partners.
in this field the treaty tasks the commission with ensuring the union's external representation.
looking beyond the examples of the copenhagen and doha meetings it is important to see that one of the key objectives of the lisbon treaty is to strengthen the union's voice in the world.
the commission is currently discussing with member states in the council how to implement this framework. in those discussions the commission is very vigilant that the implementation of the lisbon treaty effectively results in reinforcing the unity and the coherence of eu representation in multilateral negotiations.
in case the council considers it politically opportune that the union engages in negotiations on international agreements the treaty obliges the council to authorise the commission to conduct such negotiations on behalf of the union for matters falling under union competence.
with respect to the climate change negotiations the eu's internal debate in the context of copenhagen was not excessive and the eu has significantly improved the coordination of its diplomatic sources across the world.
for the cites conference of parties the eu position on many issues had been established more than six months before the meeting outreach activities have been undertaken by eu and member state delegations all around the world on important eu proposals on sharks and tigers and internal eu discussions before and during the cop on those topics ran smoothly.
we obviously need to learn a number of lessons from these experiences against the background of the relevant provisions in the lisbon treaty.
it is obviously not an easy task to agree on a common position among twenty seven member states representing five hundred million citizens for international negotiations on complex issues that have a direct impact on the economy and society of the european union.
this means that the competent environmental authorities can use their own capacity to proceed with a proper assessment of the information provided while ngos or interested parties can and very often do challenge the whole assessment on the basis of the data provided in case they do not reflect the real situation
indeed all the information provided by the developer has to be made public to the environmental authorities and the public which have to be consulted.
my services have already started working on the review of the eia directive.
all this is also made available to the public. but to be honest your question is very relevant.
it is true that under the environmental impact assessment directive the responsibility for gathering the necessary environmental information and submitting it to the public authorities is given to the developer.
the ecj case law and harmonise and simplify to the extent possible existing procedures. in this context the overall quality of the environmental assessments will be a central issue and there is certainly room for improvement.
on the one hand the quality control of the eia documentation submitted by the developer could be improved.
any commission proposal will have to be subject to a legislative impact assessment.
after more than twenty years of implementation we have identified the areas where improvements are needed and reached the conclusion that the eia directive should be reviewed. my objective is to present a new text which will further improve environmental protection take on board the challenges in the areas of climate change energy and biodiversity integrate