unimelb-nlp/MultiEup-v2 huggingface dataset:
Debate: Banking Union - annual report
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Pedro Silva Pereira
Political group: S-D
Country: Bulgaria
Language: PT

Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a verdade é que, depois de anos de palavras e compromissos, a União Bancária continua hoje a ser uma história inacabada. É certo, os progressos feitos permitiram já ao sistema financeiro responder melhor a esta crise do que à crise anterior, com um novo sistema de supervisão do Banco Central Europeu, o novo quadro regulatório e as medidas de controlo do crédito malparado. É também certo que o Acordo sobre a Reforma do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade, assinado durante a Presidência portuguesa, permitirá que em 2022 o Fundo Único de Resolução possa finalmente estar operacional e contribuir para a estabilidade do sistema financeiro. Mas é precisamente porque houve esta redução de riscos que é tempo de uma maior partilha de riscos, criando o Sistema Europeu de Seguro de Depósitos, que é um pilar essencial da União Bancária.  Por isso este Parlamento, mais uma vez, dirige à Comissão e aos governos no Conselho uma mensagem clara: não deixem para amanhã o que podem e devem fazer hoje. É tempo de concluir a União Bancária e criar o Sistema Europeu de Seguro de Depósitos.
Debate: Banking Union - annual report
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Caroline Nagtegaal
Political group: Renew
Country: Czechia
Language: NL

Voorzitter, commissaris, laatst vroeg iemand mij: “Wat heb ik aan een bankenunie, gewoon als hardwerkende Nederlander?” Een simpele maar een supergoede vraag. En de aanleiding van die bankenunie ligt eigenlijk al tien jaar geleden, toen het financiële systeem echt aan de rand van de afgrond stond en banken met gigantische bedragen aan belastinggeld moesten worden gered. En het probleem? Nationale banken die te veel verweven waren met hun overheden. En het gevolg? Een bankencrisis én een schuldencrisis. En voor wie was dat het allerergst? Precies, voor die belastingbetaler. En juist om die belastingbetaler te beschermen, hebben we die bankenunie opgezet, die ervoor moet zorgen dat jouw spaargeld en je hypotheek veilig zijn, en dat de gewone man niet opdraait voor de wanprestaties van banken.  Als VVD vinden wij het belangrijk dat het bankensysteem stabiel is, het spaargeld veilig op je rekening blijft staan, en dat we zorgen dat banken geen risico’s lopen die ze gewoon niet kunnen dragen, om een nieuwe bankencrisis te voorkomen. Gelukkig gaat er ook veel goed. Het bankwezen is een stuk stabieler geworden en heeft zelfs een hele belangrijke rol kunnen spelen tijdens de coronacrisis door de kredietverlening aan de reële economie gaande te houden.  Maar de bankenunie is echt nog niet af. Een Europees depositogarantiestelsel, dat zou het sluitstuk zijn van wat een volmaakte bankenunie heet. Maar niet voor niets is zo'n gemeenschappelijk garantiestelsel een heel heet hangijzer. Het is een must dat banken hun risico's terugbrengen. Daarmee houden ze niet alleen zichzelf veilig, maar wordt ook de Europese solidariteit niet op het spel gezet. En ik ben ook echt blij met dit verslag waarin dat wordt onderkend en waarmee bovendien een duidelijke boodschap aan de Commissie wordt gegeven: wil zij de onderhandelingen voor een Europees depositogarantiestelsel vlot trekken, dan kan dit niet los worden gezien van risicoreductie. Want dat is juist zo ongelooflijk van belang, dat wat door onze hardwerkende Nederlander en Europeaan is opgebouwd: die Europese economie.
Debate: Banking Union - annual report
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Heidi Hautala
Country: Poland
Language: FI

Kiitos oikein paljon edustaja Nagtegaal. Te puhutte aivan fantastisen hitaasti ja selkeästi. Toivoisin, että täällä enemmän seurattaisiin tällaista rauhallista puhetapaa. Myös tulkit varmasti arvostavat sitä.
Debate: Banking Union - annual report
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Mairead McGuinness
Language: EN

I want to acknowledge, as many of you have, that the banks were stronger going into this crisis because of the work you did, as regulators and legislators, in putting in place stronger capital requirements. This is, therefore, a positive development from COVID, but we have not finished the work. We need to understand that, despite the naysayers, there are big benefits from completing Banking Union.  It will help financial firms adjust business models and facilitate consolidation across borders without threatening financial stability. It will also help the banking sector address challenges to the existing banking model and boost competitiveness. Banking Union will support efforts to finance the green and digital transitions. It will also help handle a challenging macroeconomic environment, an ageing society, high levels of debt and low interest. It will ensure that our safety nets are effective and enough funding is available for banks across the Banking Union in times of crisis. Last, but not least, it will benefit European citizens, because depositor confidence is a public good that we have a responsibility to protect.  I note the challenge to agree on everything about Banking Union by the end of this year, but we do urgently need to set things in motion. I would encourage the European Parliament to remain ambitious and to continue working on these files. Progress will only be possible if Parliament plays its full role as co-legislator. I also want to say that the issue of climate change was mentioned in some of the contributions, and climate change is a risk to financial stability unless it is properly accounted for.  I repeat that the Commission stands ready to support work to advance Banking Union – as well as Capital Markets Union – and ultimately the goal is a strong and resilient economic and monetary union. It is within sight, but we have work to do. These will underpin a strong and resilient European economy, laying the necessary foundations to face other challenges.
Debate: Second voting session
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Heidi Hautala
Country: Poland
Language: FI

Siirrymme nyt tämän päivän toisiin äänestyksiin. Äänestämme tämän päivän esityslistalla ilmoitetuista menettelyistä, ja äänestykset ovat avoinna klo 20.00–21.45. Äänestysmenetelmä on sama kuin edellisissä äänestyksissä. Kaikki äänestykset toimitetaan nimenhuutoäänestyksinä. Julistan nyt toiset äänestykset avatuiksi. Voitte äänestää klo 21.45 saakka. Toisten äänestysten tulokset ilmoitetaan huomenna klo 9.00. Äänestykset on avattu. Hyvää illanjatkoa!
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Othmar Karas
Country: Germany
Language: DE

Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an den Rat „Fehlender Wille des Rates, mit dem ECBM voranzukommen“ von Younous Omarjee im Namen des Ausschusses für regionale Entwicklung (
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Tom Berendsen
Political group: PPE
Country: Netherlands
Language: EN

At the same time, these border regions are among those that benefit the most from European cooperation and experience its successes and flaws on a daily basis. Being able to cooperate with regions and municipalities on the other side of the border improves daily life in those regions, for people and for businesses, for example, in the border villages of Baarle—Nassau, in the Netherlands, and Baarle—Hertog, in Belgium. In order to improve cross-border cooperation, the Commission has proposed a mechanism which would allow Member States to use each other’s legislative framework as a means to overcome obstacles. The European cross—border mechanism could help to remove 30-50% of such obstacles and would enable many new cooperation possibilities, such as Project Crossfire, a joint Dutch—German fire brigade in the Twente—Achterhoek—Münsterland region. This project has the support of the regions on both sides of the border, but has been delayed for several years due to the differences in legislation between both countries. The Commission presented its proposal in May 2018, and Parliament adopted its position more than two and a half years ago. The Council, however, has been dragging its feet for the last two years, first by waiting over a year for a legal opinion and then by taking another year to shelve this file altogether. This is not transparent, not democratic, and this is not the way for institutions to work with each other. We understand that some Member States have legitimate concerns, but the best way to address those concerns is to discuss them and to put them on the table. We therefore call on the Council to take a position and to start negotiations with us: maybe governments in the capitals feel that the border regions are far away, but for us, in the European Parliament, and the EPP Group, border regions are at the core of our policy.
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Corina Crețu
Political group: S-D
Country: Netherlands
Language: RO

Constatăm însă cu tristețe că tocmai aceste regiuni au din punct de vedere economic rezultate mai slabe față de alte regiuni din cadrul unui stat membru, iar cetățenii, întreprinderile și autoritățile publice din regiunile frontaliere se confruntă cu dificultăți specifice legate de serviciile medicale, reglementarea pieței muncii, impozite, dezvoltarea întreprinderilor, precum și obstacolele legate de diferențele dintre culturile administrative și cadrele juridice naționale.  Din acest punct de vedere, Interreg a fost un real succes, nu numai din punct de vedere economic, dar și a ajutat ca unele răni care, din păcate, există pe teritoriul Uniunii Europene să fie vindecate.  Pe parcursul mandatului meu de comisar european pentru politică regională, am fost mereu preocupată de regiunile frontaliere și, la propunerea Președinției luxemburgheze împreună cu colegii de la DG Regio, am prezentat în 2017 comunicarea intitulată „Stimularea creșterii economice și a coeziunii în regiunile frontaliere ale Uniunii Europene”. Am evidențiat atunci în Parlamentul European modalitățile prin care Uniunea Europeană și statele membre pot reduce complexitatea, durata și costurile interacțiunilor transfrontaliere, promovând utilizarea în comun a serviciilor de-a lungul frontierei frontierelor interne.  Apoi, în 2018, Comisia a publicat propunerea legislativă cu privire la mecanismul de cooperare transfrontalieră. Sunt sincer îngrijorată de decizia Consiliului de a stopa procesul codecizional, invocând probleme pe care, atât eu personal, dar am văzut că și serviciile juridice ale Parlamentului European le consideră probleme juridice nepertinente, mai ales ținând cont că studiile efectuate demonstrează că această propunere legislativă ar putea soluționa până la 50 % din obstacolele transfrontaliere existente. Dacă barierele juridice și administrative ar fi eliminate, produsul intern brut din regiunile frontaliere ar putea să crească cu valoarea aproximativă de 3 % din PIB-urile Uniunii Europene sau 8,7 % din PIB-ul total produs în regiunile de frontieră terestră. Deci altfel spus, eliminarea barierelor juridice și administrative ar permite regiunilor frontaliere să fie cu 8,7 % mai bogate decât sunt în prezent.  Mai mult decât atât, obstacolele existente provoacă o pierdere de circa 6 milioane de locuri de muncă în aceste regiuni și, de asemenea, îi afectează pe lucrătorii transfrontalieri. De aceea, solicit Consiliului să revină la dezbaterea mecanismului de cooperare transfrontalieră și să voteze în favoarea acestei propuneri legislative care va reduce obstacolele și va îmbunătăți viața oamenilor.
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Sandro Gozi
Political group: Renew
Country: France
Language: FR

Cependant, l’incompatibilité entre les régimes légaux nationaux freine leur mobilité et leurs possibilités. La pandémie a parfois exacerbé cette tendance. Pourtant, nous avons besoin de plus de coopération dans des domaines tels que la santé ou l’environnement. Trop de barrières existent encore, qu’il s’agisse de services de santé, de droit du travail, de règles fiscales ou de différences dans la culture administrative. Or, nous savons tous qu’il y a un lien direct entre l’élimination des obstacles et la poursuite du développement social et territorial des régions frontalières, ce qui est un élément essentiel de la politique de cohésion européenne. Ces mécanismes visant à lever ces obstacles à la coopération transfrontalière peuvent offrir une solution européenne à un problème européen et je peux dire que ce Parlement a été au rendez-vous. Nous ne pouvons pas en dire autant du Conseil. Le Conseil est resté muet et son Service juridique a avancé des arguments pour le moins discutables. Comme cela arrive souvent – et j’ai une certaine expérience en tant qu’ancien membre de cette institution –, le Service juridique du Conseil a créé de nouveaux obstacles politiques au lieu d’éliminer les obstacles juridiques. On connaît bien cette histoire et elle se répète aujourd’hui. Chers collègues, nos concitoyens méritent mieux. Le mécanisme transfrontalier européen, dont on discute, dispose d’une base juridique solide dans les traités, favorise la cohésion territoriale et répond aux exigences des États membres, tout en leur laissant la liberté de choisir d’utiliser ou non le règlement et quand. C’est une action spécifique, qui va avoir un impact positif sur la situation économique et sociale d’une région et d’un territoire, dans le plein respect de l’article 175 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne. Les règles de la cohésion sont uniformes, mais n’impliquent en aucune manière une approche à taille unique des projets de développement. Ma question s’adresse donc au Conseil: quand allez-vous prendre conscience de l’urgence et relancer le dialogue avec nous? Je demande au président en exercice: quelles sont vos propositions et vos alternatives? Nous sommes ouverts au dialogue, vous ne pouvez pas tout simplement tout bloquer, car nous avons besoin d’une solution législative claire et surtout, parce que nos citoyens ont besoin de réponses et surtout de frontières plus ouvertes pour pouvoir mieux vivre leur vie quotidienne et pour pouvoir se sentir encore plus européens. Donc, ne perdons plus de temps et reprenons le dialogue législatif.
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Ciarán Cuffe
Political group: Verts/ALE
Country: Ireland
Language: EN

Projects such as these are of huge benefit to our border regions. The Carlingford Lough Greenway will be used by students to get to school, by commuters to get to work and by communities on both sides of the Irish border for enjoyment and exercise. It will reduce congestion on the roads, thereby decreasing air and noise pollution, and it will improve road safety. So shouldn’t we do everything in our power to ensure that border regions across the European Union can benefit from such projects?  When we’re debating these kinds of issue, we should remember the EU has 40 internal land border regions and this represents 40% of the Union’s territory and close to 30% of the overall EU population, so there’s so much potential contained in these border regions but they’re often left behind. Cross-border regions often face disadvantages when it comes to provision of quality services and significant administrative hurdles for the implementation of projects straddling two different territories, so it’s time we did more to invest in cross-border communities that are so crucial for our cohesion goals. The European Union is about connecting people. Earlier this evening I went to the station in Strasbourg and I saw the Connecting Europe Express. Brilliant to see a physical manifestation of the need to connect Europe. But here in the Parliament we need to do so much more to facilitate the advantages of the Union for all our citizens. There are legal obstacles, there’s administrative obstacles, they stand in the way. Let’s tackle them. Let’s move forward with negotiations for the European cross-border mechanism. Studies show that such a mechanism could help overcome between 30 and 50% of the obstacles to cross-border communication, so we call on the Council to unblock this file and come, meet us at the table.
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Elżbieta Kruk
Political group: ECR
Country: Bulgaria
Language: PL

Badania obszarów przygranicznych wskazują, że radzą sobie one gorzej pod względem gospodarczym niż pozostałe regiony. Trudniejszy jest tam dostęp do różnego rodzaju usług publicznych. Odmienne systemy prawne i administracyjne rodzą dodatkowe koszty współpracy. Proponowane rozwiązanie prawne co do swej misji jest więc warte poparcia, tym bardziej, że programy transgranicznej współpracy Interreg nie są wystarczającym narzędziem  do redukowania istniejących barier. Szczegółowe rozwiązania znajdujące się w projekcie rozporządzenia wymagają jednak głębszej analizy. Wiele przepisów wymaga wyjaśnień, gdyż są nieprecyzyjne. W sytuacji gdy państwo członkowskie zdecyduje się na stosowanie mechanizmu z zaproponowanego rozporządzenia, możliwe jest jedno z dwóch rozwiązań. Pierwszym z nich jest zawarcie europejskiego zobowiązania transgranicznego, na mocy którego niektóre przepisy państwa członkowskiego stosuje się na terytorium państwa sąsiadującego. Drugie rozwiązanie to podpisanie europejskiego oświadczenia transgranicznego. Organ podpisujący oświadczenie zobowiązuje się, że w określonym terminie uruchomi prace legislacyjne służące przeprowadzeniu niezbędnych zmian w obowiązującym prawodawstwie. Wiele wątpliwości rodzi szczególnie pierwsze rozwiązanie. Skutkiem podjęcia zobowiązania jest pozostanie w mocy dotychczasowych regulacji krajowych. Jednak w kontekście realizacji konkretnego projektu transgranicznego zobowiązanie umożliwia derogację tych przepisów. W ich miejsce będzie obowiązywać prawo państwa sąsiedniego. Stąd wątpliwość co do możliwości zastosowania  tej ścieżki w projektach realizowanych z udziałem podmiotów z  państwa podejmującego zobowiązanie. Wątpliwości budzi też efektywność i skuteczność zaproponowanego rozwiązania. Długotrwała i wieloetapowa procedura uruchomienia mechanizmu może dla inicjatora projektu transgranicznego okazać się mało pomocna.
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: José Gusmão
Political group: The Left
Country: Finland
Language: PT

Em muitos países da União Europeia, como no meu, as regiões transfronteiriças são também regiões afastadas dos grandes centros urbanos e, portanto, regiões em que já existe uma menor densidade de serviços públicos, de infraestruturas, problemas de desertificação e de abandono. Se somamos a estes problemas crónicos, pelo menos crónicos em alguns países da União Europeia, os obstáculos legais que este mecanismo visava ultrapassar, estamos a agravar a situação destas regiões e a ir contra todo o espírito da política de coesão europeia.  É por isso que o Parlamento Europeu procurou debater esta matéria e ultrapassar algumas das preocupações que foram inicialmente manifestadas do ponto de vista da natureza voluntária deste mecanismo que, a não se confirmar, poderia pôr em causa o princípio da subsidiariedade. O contributo do Parlamento permitiu afastar essas dúvidas do ponto de vista da implementação deste mecanismo. E é por isso que é tão difícil compreender o bloqueio do Conselho, quanto mais não seja porque esse bloqueio é contraditório com as posições passadas de vários governos, alguns deles ainda em funções, em relação à prossecução deste mecanismo e à sua compatibilidade com o princípio da subsidiariedade. É triste que a União Europeia, que se tem revelado tão eficaz em ultrapassar todas as barreiras legais, em alguns casos e do meu ponto de vista demasiado longe, para conseguir harmonizar o mercado interno, não seja capaz de ultrapassar obstáculos tão simples para promover o investimento público, para promover serviços públicos e infraestruturas elementares.  E a verdade é que o Conselho não trouxe aqui uma explicação para este bloqueio e, muito menos, uma proposta para um instrumento alternativo de resolução destes problemas, e portanto fica a pergunta, e renovo a pergunta, que é, aliás, o assunto desta pergunta oral, se existe uma alternativa, se o Conselho vai propor alguma alternativa, se a Comissão vai propor alguma alternativa, ou se a ideia é ficar tudo na mesma?
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Andrey Novakov
Political group: PPE
Country: France
Language: EN

Mr President, on my way to work this morning, I crossed the River Rhine on the Europabrücke. It’s a project that is co—financed by Interreg, using our European funds. If our Cross—Border Mechanism had been in place, it would have been open much earlier because, according to the expectations of local authorities and the European institutions, the Cross—Border Mechanism would cut 50% of the administrative burden that the authorities are facing at the moment. I have had no explanation, neither for myself nor for my voters, as to why this crucial regulation is taking the Council so long.  So I call on the Slovenian Presidency to reopen the negotiations because, exactly two years ago, we voted to start negotiations, and nothing has happened. Two years. Two years in which many projects could have been started, finished and already in place to be used by our citizens. The reason for all regulations and funds are to serve people. When we achieve that, we do not need many arguments to convince our voters that Europe is the future. So let’s reopen the negotiations and close them as soon as possible.
Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Nacho Sánchez Amor
Political group: S-D
Country: Poland
Language: ES

Señor presidente, algunos diputados han expresado aquí sus experiencias personales y políticas en la cooperación transfronteriza. Es mi caso, y por eso también sé que los avances de la cooperación transfronteriza siempre encuentran inicialmente recelos y reticencias en los ministerios y en las capitales —un ambiente de sospecha—.  Por eso es bueno recordarles a los Gobiernos que Europa se ha construido jurídicamente con tratados entre las capitales, pero se ha cosido y se ha legitimado socialmente en cada frontera. Y que la lógica y la inercia histórica de Europa son precisamente la superación de los efectos indeseados de las fronteras y que en esas fronteras hay muchos actores no estatales: regiones, municipios, sociedad civil, que esperan sensibilidad para con sus problemas.  La Comisión y el Parlamento deben insistir en esta fórmula y el Consejo debe saber que sus reticencias serán barridas por la inercia de la construcción europea. Nos dicen los Gobiernos que hay otras formas de solucionar estos problemas. ¿Por qué no lo han hecho durante decenios? ¿Por qué seguimos hablando de problemas que ustedes dicen que podrían haber resuelto? ¿O es que la subsidiariedad es la excusa para la inacción?  La Comisión debe continuar con este proyecto y el Parlamento debe darle todo su apoyo político.