kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i think that we can expect five g infrastructure to be an important element of the agency's work.
the commission will also be able to issue opinions in particular when union projects and programmes are potentially at risk. in this way the regulation will help ensure member states have the information they need when making key decisions on their critical digital infrastructures.
it is fair and just that we can attract investment and get new jobs and more taxpayers thats fair and just.
it is fair and just that people can live on their incomes.
and i also have concerns let me say when the secretary of state tries to threaten and bribe the people of northern ireland and say that the funds will not be in existence afterwards if we don't support her brexit policy.
and can i put it on record that it has been a source of good in the assistance it has given to northern ireland through the regional funds through the peace funds now at over eur two billion and that is something that i am proud of and the people of northern ireland can be proud of as well.
and it's a big risk for another reason because security matters;
any response at all bears the danger of being overly cautious overly protectionist to the extent that we ultimately find ourselves excluding technology from overseas but that has to be balanced against broader security questions and to me the question of risk management is essentially very similar to the question of the precautionary principle.
there are concerns from australia from japan from a number of other european nations closer to home. the british defence secretary gavin williamson has said that he has very deep concerns about chinese involvement in five g networks.
if we have a lack of absolute scientific certainty on which side should we bear the risk?
for example the director of the fbi claims that huawei smartphones can conduct undetected espionage and maliciously modify or steal information but to what extent can this be done? what the hard evidence is remains something of a mystery.
our response to this kind of situation demands the careful consideration of all the evidence and i believe that the uk's response needs to be dependent on three fundamental questions.
secondly what is the level of risk that the chinese government could mandate the disclosure of information held by chinese tech companies in the uk potentially even putting chinese citizens at risk?
firstly what is the level of risk of back door routes being installed potentially at the direction of the chinese government which would enable industrial espionage to take place?
but it's not just the usa;
likewise the arrest of meng wanzhou in canada at the request of the american government raises concerns.
and if there is a risk then it must be a very big one.
it's a philosophical question as much as a practical one but i believe that to make practical judgments we need a little bit better information as to the level and nature of the risk.
but post brexit neighbourly cooperation remains important. we know that the chinese government is particularly sensitive about suggestions that there could be any security risks regarding the introduction of five g technology and indeed they even went so far as to take out a full page advertisement in the to attempt to assuage those concerns. and perhaps one of the biggest difficulties for me or indeed for anyone watching this debate is to assess the nature of evidence which isn't in the public domain.
because ultimately it's a matter of national protection national defence and national sovereignty.
because every government every government has an interest in raising billions through five g auctions and the chinese companies are bound to be the leading competitors in those auctions.
what is the level of evidence needed for us to act? i don't see this is a question of proof beyond reasonable doubt maybe not a question of proof at all but a question of protection.
apple famously paid only.
three this is not only making a mockery of ordinary citizens and regular companies in europe who are paying their fair taxes to contribute to society but it is an existential threat to well functioning welfare states societal fairness and a sustainable transition in europe.
lead. we want a fair and urgent taxation of the internet giants who profit from european customers but pay almost no tax in europe.
blocking an effective eu solution to the problem of the non taxation of digital giants will not prevent uncoordinated action on this. it will actually ensure uncoordinated
we also want a financial transaction tax to stop harmful speculation and to ensure muchneeded taxes to fund public services.
it's time to stand up for fair taxation and demand that all companies especially the largest and richest of them the digital giants contribute to society.
how on earth can opponents of the eu solution claim that thirty six members of oecd and one hundred and twenty eight members of the inclusive framework will reach a decision faster than the twenty eight member states in the eu when they themselves are blocking progress in the european council?
make now. do we want to act and force internet giants to pay their fair tax in europe or do we just want to wait and hope someone else will find a solution while the countries of europe are losing billions
because he needs to support the oecd solution
too. do you trust a deal with the man who pulled out of the paris agreement and a g seven statement via tweets? this is a choice that the politicians of europe must
we social democrats of course support the oecd solution to the problem of taxing digital companies but we will not wait forever and we will not sit idle and silent while the richest and biggest companies in the world continue to pay less than one tax in europe. we reject the false argument that eu member states should not take the lead in stopping the nontaxation of digital giants.
we want an effective minimum corporate taxation in europe to stop the harmful race to the bottom on corporate taxation.
place. but honestly do you really think for a second that donald trump will fight for fair taxation of companies?
we socialists and democrats want to stop international tax evasion and avoidance that also accelerates inequalities in the world today. we know that twenty six people owe as much as eur. three eight billion half of the world's population according to new figures. we want tax justice and we want it now. we have put forward concrete solutions to achieve that and the eu needs to take the
here again i wish to thank you for your support.
the second key element is about new policy objectives.
this should happen through a responsible dialogue including at the highest levels. the stakes are simply too high.
let the other twenty seven nations follow the uk's lead and leave this place and let the individual nations and their peoples decide how and whether to spend their money.
it's taken from the pockets of the taxpayers from the individual nations to fund your insane and dangerous vanity project to create a modern napoleonic empire.
our starting point in moving towards a sustainable european future has to be the seventeen comprehensive and interdependent sustainable development goals the world agreed upon and committed to in the united nations in.
it is about upholding our way of life and upgrading the well being of our children and grandchildren.
our core challenge for the next decade is to find a way to develop economically continuously improving our living standards and well being for the benefit of all without depleting our natural resources destroying and poisoning our environment and spurring climate change.
we need to continue to be the strongest advocate for sustainable development in a multi polar world in a world based on multilateralism.
we need to put our food system onto a fully sustainable path.
good governance is key as the very foundations we build on are the rule of law democracy and fundamental rights.
but we will only truly be successful if we make these changes in a socially fair manner putting strong social policies in place and making sure we leave no one behind.
we are best placed to be a first mover blaze a trail for the rest of the world and reap the social and economic benefits of the sustainable transition while helping to shape global standards.
we need to future proof our energy buildings and mobility.
that's the only way you can get everyone behind this policy.
these include education science research innovation and digitisation as well as finance taxation pricing so that sustainable products and services become the most affordable ones including responsible business conduct and fair trade policies.
this is of course a global issue especially now when others are questioning their commitment.
the eu is at the origin of many of the most innovative and comprehensive sustainability solutions.
there are certain key game changing policy areas we in the eu have already started to deliver on and need to continue to prioritise.
what we need is an economy that grows within the limits of our planet and delivers prosperity to the many not the few.
two thousand and fifteen these goals offer the most comprehensive and universally accepted framework to guide our work for the years to come.
it's about equality a healthy natural environment and a thriving green and inclusive economy.
more balanced and realistic requirements will lead to more competition on the ets market and more efficient operations.
the text you will be asked to vote on tomorrow addresses the fundamental problems in the field of electronic tolling.
this is important to keep pace with the technological development on the ground as stressed by the rapporteur. lastly the co legislators have extended the scope of application of cross border enforcement.
we have calculated that this leads to a revenue leakage of around eur three hundred million per year. clearly toll evasion is one of the main obstacles to a wider deployment of barrier free tolls in the union.
the commission can only support this extension. this initiative will help in the transition from traditional vignette schemes and tolls with barriers to modern and smart free flow tolling systems the kind of systems we need in order to shape more sustainable mobility in the future. overall i believe that all three eu institutions can be very satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations and i'm looking forward
in place to identify the owners of a foreign registered vehicle for the purpose of toll collection.
it will apply to all types of road fees both electronic and manual.
they should have to sign only one toll service contract and should receive a single invoice at the end of the month. second the agreed text will introduce a mechanism to facilitate the cross border enforcement of toll payment. today member states have no effective instruments
in addition the agreed text extends the scope of application of the directive to tolling systems using automated number plate recognition as the main technology.
it is already possible for national authorities to go after those who commit a road safety related traffic offence but those who evade toll payments can escape fines.
but it has to be used in a way which is efficient which does not create barriers to the flow of traffic and which protects the data that is being collected.
this will mean savings for road users savings for toll chargers and additional revenues for member states.
businesses lose market opportunities and consumers don't benefit from increased choice and lower prices.
this is why they were also speedy.
the commission will intervene in this procedure providing the expertise to assist solid centres in solving the case.
a product that can sell in one member state you should also be allowed to sell in any other member state.
as you know this is a very important proposal for the commission.
that is a mutual recognition principle but evidence suggests that neither businesses nor national authorities make sufficient use of it.
in addition the commission will implement an action plan on mutual recognition to complement this proposal.
it seems to me that if you seek to make a mutual set of standards and bring everyone together there is a danger that you are forcing some nations to accept a lower quality of product.
madam president at the moment member states can set the standard as to what quality of goods they accept and this proposal as i understand it would seek to standardise the quality and standards of the products being sold across the eu.
why not allow businesses and business bodies to work on international standards to come together and say this is the kind of standard level that we're aiming for' and let them make proposals to put forward for international trade.
allow market freedom.
this proposal as was mentioned by one of our colleagues earlier could facilitate a serious lowering of standards the uk fire safety standards were mentioned earlier on.
it was clear to us that in some places you needed a higher quality a higher standard and when you sell to those places you work out how you're going to do it.
allow businesses to see where one nation might be able to accept something of a certain level which is perfectly acceptable but can be done a lot cheaper and more competitively and then look at the ones who are demanding higher standards because that's what the people and the customers there want and say ok we'll do that for you but by god you're going to pay us for it'. when it comes to trade and business
quality is a great driver of price. it should be a profit motive. why not if people want a higher quality?
there are always chances to make money and to do trade as long as government and politicians regardless of their good intentions step back a little and allow the market to do its job.
there are always possibilities.
frankly if they want a higher quality and standard it's a business opportunity because you can sell it for a higher price.
where there is demand supply will find it.
before i came to this place i had a twenty year career in steel sales and exotic metals and we would buy and sell all around the world.
the proposal in front of us will cost billions in new regulations and training.
well if a certain nation be it the uk or any other nation wants a level of standards on safety or anything else they should be allowed to do it and businesses should be able to say hang on a minute this is what these guys need.
allow people to look into this.
i think that we need to look at this in a whole different way.
of course the aim is to facilitate smoother trade a noble goal and one which i think we all share and would all like to see.
this is not the marketplace.
why shouldn't different nations require different standards?
it is about modernising our societies about new forms of doing business and consuming about reaping the benefits of new technologies and innovation.
here the investment plan can play an important role in bringing the private sector on board. the action plan on sustainable finance will provide investors with comprehensive information on what is sustainable investment and create a new market for it.
it is not about lowering our living standards but about being smarter about our resources.
we will continue contributing solutions together with the rest of the world in multilateral forums and through development cooperation the external investment plan as well as through open and rules based trade.
the circular economy is another area where we can create a new market.
second we need to invest more in research development and innovation and also digitalisation in particular in artificial intelligence. this has a huge potential for example in health or agriculture and europe cannot lag behind in this field. third the rule of law and respect for fundamental values. we have recently seen worrying signs of leaders calling the very foundation of our democracies into question.
to be successful the transition needs to fulfil some conditions.
the reflection paper is also a call to the rest of the world not to get tempted by easy solutions that may solve symptoms in the short term but that do not address the causes of our problems.
first we need to invest more in education and training to ensure equal opportunities and fairer societies.
the past years have shown that gdp growth is compatible with the reduction of co two emissions.
of course this requires a significant amount of investment.
it's about our future competitiveness.
mr president our aim was and continues to be to eliminate an entire class of nuclear arms. indeed i support the zero option for all nuclear arms.
forgive me my radicalism here because putin's russia doesn't believe in deterrents and thinks that the new arms race is the answer.
which doesn't remember the balance carefully developed in the cold war.
as i've said before my dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the earth who said that?
we should show that we are ready for that and in that case bodil we will have total peace.
so far this is the only tool able to ensure that citizens have affordable and effective treatments vis vis the values demanded by profit making manufacturers.
however the reality shows that hta is fragmented throughout europe.
in fact by reaching different outcomes these assessments leave citizens and health professionals with different spans of choice according to their member states.
here you can also count on us to fight for equal opportunities.
this proposal relies on the collaboration of member states but still leaves room for national decisions.
by centralising the clinical assessment we can avoid duplication save resources and above all create a european union with less asymmetry in access to health care.
this proposal is only effective with the combined efforts of the national regulatory agencies and i greatly salute the integration of patient representatives in the assessment procedure.
that weights the contributions to the patients' quality of life.
but for the assessments to be beyond any doubt they need to be as transparent as possible.
while i abhor their methods i understand the sense of injustice that lies at the root of this conflict. since the financial crisis inequality has sharpened with those who caused the crisis continuing to accumulate wealth and power while the pain is borne by the weak and the poor.
i have always believed that inequality is corrosive and that societies and people flourish when there is justice and fairness but even if you believe that inequality is the engine of innovation and growth you must realise that you need social stability and public consent for your businesses to make their profits.
this parliament has made great progress in the four investigatory committees on tax.
i commend those members who sit on the right side of this house for embracing the task of implementing a fair tax system but i would implore them to share that message with their national governments who are playing the beggarthyneighbour game at the behest of corporations and blocking any real progress towards a fair and equitable tax system in the council.
corporations have used the process of globalisation to shirk their tax responsibilities.
the expansion of economic systems beyond the reach of national governments has allowed the selfish and the greedy to find ways to hoard their wealth at the expense of others.
mr president a reinforced simpler and more focused cohesion policy that takes into account the investment needs of all regions is the best answer the eu can give both to historical development disparities and to the new challenges of our changing world.
it was never an easy task to reconcile all the constraints and needs related to this file starting from brexit induced budgetary constraints stakeholder calls for simplification or the identification of those ex ante conditionalities which are essential for the good implementation of the funds but i think that ultimately we obtained a good result.
yes we need to line up the future set out what are going to be the next steps because we are seeing the exponential growth of the challenges.
i would have five suggestions.
you will like my question my question is was it president trump who broke the inf or president putin?
the pca supports people to people exchanges including academic mobility under the erasmus mundus programme and facilitates the further development of cultural exchange in order to increase mutual understanding and knowledge of our respective cultures.
the experience from many member states shows that in many cases we are facing serious problems with third countries state owned enterprises taking over european technological companies only for the key strategic reasons.
i think even if we are very close to elections we will not lose our joint aim which is to create a really pure single market go step by step but make transport efficient and environmentally friendly.
i can assure you that the commission will in its work take actions in the future to promote and further integrate inland navigation into the overall european transport policy.
it is not intended to stop investment that we need for jobs for growth etcetera and it is not a way for the commission to tell member states what investments they should accept or not.
but it is a very important new tool which would help us strengthen our collective capacity to respond to challenges that have arisen because of globalisation in particular when foreign investments threaten our strategic interest.
it would be the first time that we have the means to assess those risks and address them reflecting the fact that we are an integrated economy in which foreign investors operate freely from one member state to another.
we will be able to share information to coordinate and to get a much better overview thanks to this proposal. we've had very intense exchanges over the past years on how we should calibrate this instrument the balance between the roles of member states and the commission;
the balance between confidentiality and security interests; and how to protect them while still exchanging meaningful information and ensuring reporting.
the outcome of the negotiations reflects in my view this careful balance.
we are in the area of security and public order and that places responsibility on all those involved the commission and the member states to ensure that the cooperation mechanism is trustworthy works in practice and is efficient.
the interest in this foreign direct investment fdi screenings framework arose of course from concerns about external investors buying technologies in our european countries which could be used for their own strategic objectives while they themselves maintain barriers for investments from european countries.
it's important therefore that individual member states retain responsibility for setting up screening mechanisms for fdi on grounds of security and to cover critical infrastructure and sensitive technologies. these now specifically include among other categories aerospace and defence facilities and nano and bio technologies.
there is also a need to consider whether a foreign investor is directly or indirectly controlled by government or its state bodies or armed forces including through the ownership structure. so this is a difficult and complex area and i might just somewhat mischievously and separately remark that while today we're considering only fdi into the union
some of the considerations should also perhaps apply to activities within the union particularly investment in assets in one member state by state controlled assets in another.
first of all it is important that we agree the eu budget and the regulations as soon as possible because if we don't there will be gaps between the projects projects will stop people will lose their jobs.
therefore once again i'm pleased that the co rapporteurs have brought forward proposals which will allow the regulations to be simplified.
and thirdly we need to make structural funds more visible. too often we've gone right across the european union visited projects and the project beneficiaries didn't realise their project was funded by the european union. that must stop.
that must change.