kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
because in the end the most important question is can we make a significant difference with our actions and our efforts?
who seized that opportunity to work with us to express this as a political priority in the form of the single market act. that has been a real success for parliament. it is a lesson on how committees can use their power of political initiative by working together to take that
i am very pleased at what you said about public procurement and mutual recognition also needs to change. we are going to work together on those but today we have created the framework and the foundation in which to move those forward.
people are not taking advantage of it.
again i want to thank all of you who are engaged in that great effort on behalf of all european citizens.
there are also areas which we really have to develop.
we have had lively debates and lively arguments but we have been united in a common goal of wanting to make the competitive single market economy work a competitive social market economy work and for those two things to be linked together.
it is one of the few areas where the eu can deliver growth rather than impede it.
too much time and money has been wasted on grandiose projects that do not benefit the people we represent. i believe it is time to refocus our attention on the single market.
rather than creating more regulations that drive jobs away from the city of london i would ask him to focus on creating a competitive and job creating single market for europe.
the free movement of goods services labour and capital drives innovation and increases the prosperity of the five hundred million people who live in europe.
mr president the european union's greatest achievement is the establishment of the single market.
its expansion and success is crucial for our economies.
the common market was the reason my country joined the eec and the single market is the reason we remain part of the eu but in recent years the eu's focus has strayed from completing the single market.
improving governance of the single market must be a key strategic priority for the eu.
we must urgently identify the obstacles faced by member states in implementing this directive and by the professionals themselves.
by carrying out a rigorous monitoring process and by reducing the time it takes to transpose directives member states will be able to increase trade and ensure a well functioning single market. i am also very supportive of the priority action highlighted in mr correia de campos' report in relation to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications for which i will be the rapporteur.
it is vital that in these difficult economic times we look to enhance our competitiveness increase growth create jobs and drive innovation.
full portability of pensions these are the fields in which citizens need solutions in order to study work and invest in different member states throughout their lives.
to me this is a crucial way of involving european citizens in the reform of the single market for its twentieth anniversary and for that event i wish all of us much success.
better access to banking services;
maybe this is exactly the reason why the negotiations between different political groups on the final form of the text were so difficult. i do agree with them that even if we do not fall in love with the single market we can be very emotional about it.
this issue is also addressed in the document we are going to vote on today.
it is high time these stop hindering the mobility of europeans on this continent our continent without internal borders.
easier recognition of professional qualifications;
is that the level of his influence?
instead my colleague answered the question about jobs in the west midlands. would he then be reminded how the eu subsidised jobs out of the ryton plant in coventry?
these reports appear to be about the single market trade and the transfer of jobs from higher wage economies to lower wage economies. however one rapporteur has not lost the opportunity to look for yet another pretext for yet further immigration not just within europe but by clear implication from outside europe.
the correia de campos report refers to an influx of highly qualified workers and seasonal workers not usually known for their surfeit of qualifications as being beneficial to the european economy.
people are seen not as human beings but as mobile factors of production.
bringing skilled workers from the third world robs poor countries of people they can ill afford to lose.
furthermore bring third world people to europe and you bring part of the third world with them.
you cannot turn them into new europeans by the application of a little cultural stardust.
people are not the product of distinctive cultures;
mr president the debate is essential because by making the single market work more effectively we have the potential to create economic growth which fundamentally results in the creation of jobs.
i was pleased that a compromise has been reached on the subject of the social clause.
the balance between the market and our social values is vitally important;
to have lost this principle would have been deeply damaging.
if member states do not deliver on this agenda the competitiveness of the whole eu suffers.
what pressure can be brought to bear to ensure that no eu citizen wherever he or she lives is left behind in this digital revolution which surrounds us?
it seems obvious to me in the energy sector and even more in terms of scarcity of resources and international tensions.
however this new brussels mantra is only desirable so long as it reinforces competitiveness and lower prices for consumers and there are sectors where it might not be possible.
i doubt whether creating european telecom champions establishing pan european licensing in the audiovisual sector or a single market for on line content will bring more competitiveness in the long run or stimulate creativity culture and growth.
the best way to pursue social europe is to create jobs and that is what the single market act is about.
i have resisted attempts to introduce unnecessary regulation and additional bureaucracy or issues such as the social clause.
the proposal helps to accelerate the rate of response by allowing for advance payments and it contains simpler criteria for an activation of the fund in less time.
devastating floods hit central europe in two thousand and two thousand and two the uk in two thousand and seven and romania and eu neighbours last year.
we look forward to receiving feedback from parliament on the ideas that are set out.
in two thousand and three and two thousand and seven forest fires ravaged portugal and greece.
the member states and the community need to combine their strengths to prevent disasters to limit their impacts and to improve the union's disaster response capacity.
for example the czech republic spontaneously offered its assistance.
it is also an ecological disaster.
however the commission's monitoring and information centre has been in close contact with the concerned member states from the first moments when the storm was forecast.
while this storm was extremely powerful it only affected a narrow band of territory and national resources have been able to cope with the immediate disaster response. for this reason the community civil protect mechanism was not activated.
other member states were aware of the situation and were getting prepared to provide support to the affected regions.
the commission is now cooperating with the authorities of the member states affected in order to identify options for eu support.
storm klaus is an unpleasant reminder that natural disasters are a growing threat for all eu member states.
these events give us an idea of how climate change is likely to affect the eu's future because as the climate changes we can expect more extreme weather events.
the commission will shortly adopt a communication on a community approach on the prevention of natural and man made disasters'.
the two thousand and three heatwave claimed tens of thousands of lives.
it was a scandal and a scandal that no one has put their finger on or identified. i would ask the commission to investigate that heatwave investigate the level of deaths and realise that france did nothing about it and yet when the autumn came and all those people had been buried there were fourteen zero fewer people on their social services
that heatwave lasted five to six weeks and the deaths came over a period of five to six weeks. almost all of the people who died were either disabled or elderly and in nursing homes or residential care or in respite while their families were on holiday.
they just allowed people to die week after week.
the french government at no time recalled the families or recalled staff from their holidays nor did it call in the army or any other rescue services.
i have spoken to many people in france about this incident as i am involved in the commission funded project on rescuing people with disabilities in disasters.
we shall continue our efforts to have those improvements approved by the council.
as i said in my introduction the commission is fully committed to assisting france and spain which were hit by winter storm klaus and will mobilise all relevant european instruments to express european solidarity towards them.
i was asked whether we have in the pipeline other measures to improve the system of solidarity to member states for natural disasters and so would also like to mention that apart from the review of the solidarity fund we have an upcoming communication whose objective is to identify measures that could be included in a community strategy for the prevention of natural and man made disasters.
that is why i fully share both your sentiments and your concerns.
and many others twenty altogether but i know and i share your view that we should improve. we should make it even more practical and give greater assistance to member states.
madam president can i just add my sympathy as others have this evening to the families who are deeply and sadly affected by this storm and offer my support for calls for greater flexibility in the solidarity fund. but there is a wider question as well to which i would draw your attention.
a small number of families were deeply affected by it not enough for anyone to notice but they will suffer serious consequences.
allow me to explain some of the commission's reservations.
i very much appreciate your hard work and commitment.
however if we look closer it reveals that half of those interviewed thought incorrectly that animal cloning involved genetic modification.
allow me to express the commission's doubts as to using this distant link to animal welfare concerns as a justification for such a wide ban.
mr president honourable members last february we discussed all aspects of cloning.
this debate must always be driven and informed by science and the knowledge and best practice that our agriculture sector has and certainly not profit driven by multinational corporations looking to decrease production costs potentially at the expense and health of the consumer. we must be very careful on this path and if cloned meat is to be used in meats and animal products it should always be clearly labelled
evidence based policymaking should be at the heart of what we do. for example we have to take into account the impact of a ban if it were to include germinal products of cloned animals their descendants and embryo clones.
a ban on the import of these products would be challenged according to the existing wto rules. this is a very sensitive issue i am aware of that and there are legitimate concerns about animal welfare.
that could have serious consequences for animal breeders and scientific research in europe.
when it comes to eu policymaking our core guiding principles should be quite simple follow the science.
finally i would like to say that we should never dismiss a technology out of hand.
the second reason i do not think it will catch on is because of the difficulties involved. we have heard about the deformities and mortality.
the retailers can then incorporate non cloning into their assurance schemes and this will guarantee that there are more british products on british supermarket shelves.
imagine a livestock disease sweeps across europe from asia most of european livestock are naive to the infection but a few will survive it.
that is the way to approach it.
the first is that it assumes perfection that you have got there' when in fact there is always somebody somewhere who will produce something better and the clone becomes redundant.
if british consumers do not want to eat clones and the products of clones they can make their wishes known to the retailers as they did about battery chickens forty or fifty years ago.
i can visualize a scenario where cloning might be quite useful.
mr president i would like to thank the commissioner and colleagues for this report. we have discussed the public opinion on cloning here in the plenary but let me just recount a story earlier this year in ireland we had a report of a famous show jumping stallion called who passed away but whose owner had kept genetic material and created two colt foals from this wonderful show jumping horse.
do you close off an avenue for genetic potential mindful and i am very mindful where there are animal welfare concerns that we cannot allow animals to suffer.
we can call for them and it might sound good but can we effectively implement them when we are trading?
it is an expensive technique it cost over eur.
the public reaction was very positive because they liked and appreciated the skills and attributes of that fine animal and that they had been preserved through cloning.
so let us be very careful about bans.
mr president millions across europe are saying that they will not accept global trade any more if it means trading away the rules and standards we hold dearly.
in showing that we can still decide for ourselves and keep or even strengthen the protections that we deem necessary while of course respecting our international commitments this legislation demonstrates that we can regulate globalisation for the benefit of people and the planet.
we have seen that reflected in the chamber today in the comments made by colleagues from across the european union.
a growing world population does indeed present challenges for food supply but cloning animals is not the answer.
rather a move to a more sustainable approach to the entire food chain would benefit the customer the farmer and the environment a sustainable future yes;
but i do believe that the disproportionate call for a permanent ban could be damaging because there is this big assumption that cloning can only lead to bad things.
what about the possibilities that cloning and scientific advance can lead to an improvement in animal welfare?
what is the sense of closing the door entirely with a permanent ban when we could go down the road of a temporary ban which is what i will be supporting in the amendments which would have to be reviewed on a regular basis would give the opportunity for industry to go forward and start working without the possibility that they will never be able to bring any of their advances to market.
since last summer in azerbaijan almost every human rights defender has been put into jail and we have an oral question on the agenda on wednesday evening to debate this but there was no agreement to have a resolution. all the other big institutions that work on human rights like the council of europe across the river there nils muinieks human rights commissioner of the council of europe michel forst un special rapporteur on human rights defenders and dunja mijatovi the osces representative on freedom of the media all these have spoken out in writing that sport cannot ignore human rights.
we need a clear message from here to make sure that people like leyla yunus who was a nominee and shortlisted for the sakharov prize last year and many others will be freed and that these games will not overshadow the deep and bad human rights situation in azerbaijan.
so i think that the plenary of this parliament should not cannot and must not shy away but should accept our responsibilities and also express ourselves in writing via a resolution.
i do not believe that we can do justice to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership in under three hours of debate.
we have many many speaking time requests from people within this group and others across parliament so let us show the public that we care too and give ourselves the chance to subject this report to a little bit more scrutiny.
we all know that the united nations is doing an excellent job in the gaza strip and the west bank.
and yes that we are stuck in a mess in the middle east is certainly the result of us action or inaction and now we come to unrwa.
without the dedicated support of the un we would have no schools no hospitals and probably no food for about a million people who live under dire circumstances.
it is in addition an important signal by the european union at a time when the us administration is retreating more and more from its international commitments.
six million people are registered for services provided by unrwa and there are hundreds of thousands more not registered but who still need unrwa's help.
unrwa works to protect the rights of palestinians rights that are routinely trampled on and discarded by israel as illustrated in the case of ahed tamimi a seventeen yearold palestinian child who should be in school not in a prison dungeon. yet we have the international community
i would like to mention a few reasons why it is essential to support unwra its work and why the european union not only is supporting it but is going to continue to support it and argue for continued or increased support from other international partners.
it is important first of all because millions of people men women and children depend on the united nations relief and works agency for education healthcare and social services humanitarian assistance and employment.
investing in unwra is an interest we all share and the international community and the palestinian refugees and the countries in the region can count on the european union to continue to support its work.
for palestinian kids this means the possibility to keep hoping to build their own future and to believe in their own personal lives which is no minor thing when you are a child;
so it's also here an investment in our own security.
we have already increased our support in recent times.
fourthly unwra is particularly important for the political process in gaza where work is ongoing efforts are ongoing for the return of the palestinian authority and palestinian reconciliation is essential for the prospect of a viable state of palestine. so for all these reasons we are and we will continue to be strong and reliable supporters of the work of unwra.
together with our member states we are doing all we can to avoid repercussions from the us decision to ensure that unwra can continue to operate and to ensure a continued engagement from all other international actors but also from the united states.
a huge number of palestinian refugees. reducing the activities of unwra would cause instability and even security threats all around the region.
and it means also fighting radicalisation.
the european union has always invested and will always continue to invest in the education of people and children to avoid any lost generation.
peace between israel and palestine will clearly be built through negotiations which requires a commitment from the two sides but it must also be preserved every day on the ground and this is what unwra is doing with the palestinian refugees.
for two thousand and eighteen the european union will assist unwra by accelerating our first scheduled payment for this year and i also count on donors around the world with whom we are in contact including in coordination with other players.
so supporting unwra is a humanitarian duty and it is also in our collective interest for peace and security in the middle east.
but in order to achieve improvements we will work on this together with and not against the agency.
there should be no doubt that the eu is and will remain a staunch and reliable supporter of unrwa both politically and financially.
we can and will actively assist unrwa in reaching out to nontraditional donors in order to help the agency to broaden its donor base and given the magnitude of the problem we also need to work with host governments on how they might consider providing certain services that unrwa cannot and maybe should not provide.
but we really must step up now.
two thousand and seven it provides an essential common policy framework for the eu a common vision accompanied by an action plan.
we are the largest donor and have to make sure that we speak very clearly with one voice.
we also concluded that there is scope for further improvement in three areas.
firstly we need to promote the quality and effectiveness of aid by good assessment a well coordinated response and investment in disaster risk reduction and local capacity.
we in the commission have completed a year long review process of the european consensus action plan in close liaison with our member state and humanitarian partners.
the consensus was adopted in.
mr president the eu's attitude to turkey will one day be regarded as a generational error as an ethical mistake.
we risk creating the very thing we purport to fear namely an alienated and anti western state on our doorstep.
we have made promises which we have no intention of fulfilling.
we have made them grovel about the armenian massacres we have imposed tens of thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire on them and then at the end of this process we are going to turn around and flick two fingers at them!
third day three sessions; fourth day three sessions.
instead of meeting on twelve different occasions in strasbourg why do we not meet on twelve different sessions in strasbourg in one week first day three sessions;
two thousand and twelve of course what we were voting on was utter nonsense because it does not address the problem of the three different parliaments strasbourg brussels and of course luxembourg which everybody forgets about.
that way we only need to spend one week a year here. we can spend the rest of the time in brussels if we have to and we can save an enormous amount of cost and an enormous amount of inconvenience.
second day three sessions;
the total combined costs i believe are something in the region of eur two hundred and fifty million per month. what i would like to do is to offer a constructive suggestion.
mr president there is something extraordinary about the monthly peregrination of this parliament between the two seats.
we preach fiscal rectitude and yet we spend hundreds of millions of pounds a month on shifting our interpreters and our committee clerks and all the members.
we talk about global warming and yet we emit thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases as fleets of lorries transport the necessary documentation back and forth. i know there is an argument that members of this house make for the symbolic significance of strasbourg and the historic idea and so on and i am rather attracted to the idea that the eu as a club of nations should share the institutions around rather than concentrating everything in brussels.
but let us have one seat one way or the other.
why do we not simply put it to this house that we should meet either permanently here in this handsome alsatian town or we should meet permanently in brussels?
either way let us cut out the waste and let us in this time of austerity try and return some savings to our hard pressed taxpayers.
and why does this parliament always have to present its arguments as a standoff between the european parliament and one of its member states?
the members of this house are entitled to all kinds of varied and many opinions political and ideological beliefs.
you can claim it is about helping internal monitoring of the application of the treaties but the request for this debate is what it is the left of this parliament is taking another swipe at the centre right because some member states dare to talk about issues which concern their own electorate.