kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
there are people that are being detained some are detained for days or longer and there is no contact for families.
for the european union the protection of human rights is always a work in progress and this is also true inside the european union.
we are still far from perfect and we have a duty to uphold the highest standards here at home if we want to be credible. but let us also be very clear there can be no relativism on human rights. we should not
with the wave of nativism and nationalism we are seeing now is our time to defend and strengthen our commitment to international law and cooperation.
many socalled democracies are trampling over human rights india in occupied kashmir;
israel in occupied palestine for example. authoritarian leaders across the world be they putin erdoan trump or others are being emboldened to violate human rights and cause pain and suffering to marginalised and minority communities.
it is up to us to all true democrats to mobilise and defend our universal values.
too often the human rights council is used by governments for their own interests.
we need to strengthen our investment in human rights institutions like the council and work to strengthen them from both the inside and the outside.
we need to invest more in human rights ngos and civil society and invest in education for true democratic values to raise a new generation of human rights defenders.
secondly addressing the issue of selective justice and also preventing its recurrence through comprehensive judiciary reform;
the european union must remain committed to the defined policy of sequenced engagement with ukraine. we have established an unprecedented objective with ukraine and we hope to be able to achieve
if these commitments are fulfilled this would consolidate ukraine democratically and would enable us to sign the association agreement including a deep and comprehensive free trade area possibly by the time of the eastern partnership summit in vilnius in november.
its determination with respect to addressing the matter of selective justice notably the cases of yulia tymoshenko and yuriy lutsenko deserves high recognition. this mission needs and has all our support as its importance cannot be overstated. it is key that this mission will be in a position
yesterday's presidential decree by president yanukovych including the establishment of a high level national coordination to oversee the implementation of the necessary steps as set out in the december foreign affairs council conclusions the recent statement of the ukrainian parliament
this is particularly disappointing after the encouraging cross party resolution regarding the european agenda.
following the letter and spirit of its own rules. recent developments underline once more the urgent need for judicial and electoral reforms in ukraine.
meanwhile there are a number of developments which go contrary to the spirit of the commitments taken at the summit.
it is important to ensure throughout the process that there is no gap between our expectations.
we have noted some encouraging signals from kiev about a more efficient political steering of the process.
on the one hand the european union ukraine summit in brussels just over two weeks ago took place in a constructive atmosphere with unequivocal commitments from president yanukovych that ukraine is determined to comply with all three areas specified in the foreign affairs council conclusions
the time has come for sending some good news in dealing with selective justice.
this steady process is important as there are a number of milestones between now and the summit.
we have underlined this in every single interaction with the ukrainian authorities in recent weeks and months.
two thousand and thirteen ukraine is well aware that we need to see determined action and tangible progress over the period until the vilnius summit.
ukraine needs the authorities to create an environment that is conducive to dialogue as strongly as it needs a constructive opposition that can fully assume its responsibility towards the ukrainian people.
let me recall what i said before.
i already expressed my deep concerns about the recent legal proceedings on the annulment of parliamentary mandates based on contested or selectively applied legal grounds.
in recent weeks we have worked intensively with kiev at all levels to ensure that there is no gap between our expectations and to help it deliver on the steps required to get us to signature in vilnius.
and the regulation of the cabinet of ministers on the european agenda's priorities show that there is determination in kiev to achieve the objectives.
on the other hand we note that the situation remains difficult. the blockage of the rada is a rather graphic illustration of the stay of play.
let me say this openly just as it is important that the work of the verkhovna rada is not being blocked it is also important that this democratic institution works transparently and predictably
of ten december two thousand and twelve namely firstly follow up actions to remedy shortcomings identified in the conduct of the twenty eight october parliamentary elections;
and thirdly implementation of the reforms defined in our jointly agreed association agenda.
next month to report that there has been clear progress.
a recent preliminary judgement of the european court of human rights also identified serious systemic problems in the functioning of the ukrainian judiciary in particular as regards the separation of powers.
that there must be confidence that there will be no more use of selective justice in ukraine if the conditions for an association agreement are to be met.
the european union and the countries in the eastern partnership do share a european vision and european opportunities. the eastern partnership with the hopes and promises about association agreements and deeper free trade agreements
the eastern partnership was meant to help them take these steps and benefit from deeper economic integration. now we can see a clear pattern in these countries.
was launched because these countries were moving towards democracy and the rule of law.
i appeal to my ukrainian colleagues in the verkhovna rada please both majority and minority members stop these suicidal fights take a deep breath look around and see what kind of future you are building or rather failing to build for your people.
let us export to kiev our ability to find constructive compromises.
we have negotiated the most ambitious association agreement ever with a third country.
however the closer we are the more difficult it becomes to make those small steps which will put ukraine irreversibly on the way towards gradual proximation and integration with the eu.
they were elected in free and fair elections so they should do their duty and they should be allowed to do their work.
on the other hand however we have messages or pieces of information which concern for instance mr vlasenko.
but to attach to a bilateral agreement unilateral extracontractual conditionalities is unprofessional arrogant and counterproductive.
this is not policy but politics. we cannot promote our values in ukraine by interfering in the petty management of the country or by encouraging the internal opposition's blockage tactics.
to that end we must first build a deep political partnership allowing for the harmonisation of our strategic interest.
otherwise we might eventually learn that ukraine did not fulfil our conditionalities but it signed another agreement with another partner which does not cherish our values.
as president van rompuy said this is the most advanced agreement of its kind to be negotiated by the european union. this clearly illustrates our firm commitment to deepening economic and political relations with ukraine. at the same time the eu has to stand by its values and needs to be sure that its closest partners will follow the same line. among its current shortcomings ukraine needs to work hard to reform its election laws implement economic reforms and eliminate its system of selective justice. alarmingly we have witnessed the use of political motivations in several high profile cases in ukraine including those of yulia tymoshenko and yuriy lutsenko. the judicial system must comply with the principle of separation of powers and must stand apart from politics. the recent
side. ukraine should not stay lingering between the eu and the russian led customs union.
there needs to be a clear choice.
it is now time for us to send a clear signal of support to the country.
mr kirilov you used the phrase selective justice' in ukraine in your remarks which i assume is an indirect way of referring to the imprisonment of mrs tymoshenko on what looked like trumped up charges.
in view of what you describe yourself as selective justice' should ukraine send a judge to the european court of human rights?
the right framework for signing this extremely important and innovative agreement and in parallel the commission is working on the text and i expect that in early spring we will be able to send it to the council with the respective request
they might have started at the same time but there are two differences.
there was a light at the end of the tunnel for central europe.
you have a different starting point.
but please be aware of those things.
this year at the vilnius summit we have the opportunity not only to talk about it but to deliver on it.
are going to be the first very concrete steps in transforming this post soviet region and this is a big thing.
we will engage with you we will be active we will be forthcoming we will be supportive we will be creative we will be flexible we will be helpful.
but we made one thing clear.
the aim of that study and the aim of our two thousand and thirteen budget is to make savings where possible but also to make sure we do not damage the efficiency of the european parliament or of the members of this parliament.
i therefore want to thank colleagues for that support throughout the year but also the support that they will hopefully give tomorrow in the vote.
that is why we have established the joint working group.
hopefully the lack of comment in the debate reflects the fact that members recognise that most institutions have shown great responsibility for the two thousand and thirteen budget.
of course this parliament will want to continue to make savings in the future.
two thousand and thirteen on that basis i hope we can now vote through this compromise and avoid the disastrous consequences of no deal and the threat that would have to many programmes which are vitally important to our constituents around europe.
the message from parliament here today to the council should be quite clear we will hold you to that promise.
we have learned to solve the problems of two thousand and twelve in two thousand and twelve and we are to solve many problems of two thousand and thirteen.
also many thanks to the cyprus presidency for their constructive role as the major problems were on the side of the council this time in finding what is really needed what is documented as the real need for two thousand and twelve that is pending claims coming in.
the agreement would not have been possible without the strong involvement i would say pressure from parliament.
you only have to look around europe today to learn that big public expenditure and large government deficits do not seem to be providing the solution.
to do that first we need systems in place to scrutinise and control estimates from the member states and secondly we are going to need greater flexibility in the way that we manage the budget in the future. but turning now if i may to the budget for two thousand and thirteen we in the european conservatives and reformists have been calling for restraint in the size of the budget.
we simply cannot be in denial about the level of debt in many of the donor states.
but what we now need to ensure is that we do not get into a payment crisis of this nature again.
we do agree that there is an urgent need to invest in jobs and growth but what we do not agree with is that this of necessity means increasing the size of the budget.
for that reason you cannot go on increasing the burden of cost to those contributing states.
so is it not time we in this parliament began to focus our fire on better spending of the money we already have before we resort to demanding more from the taxpayer?
indeed i would argue that with twenty five million people out of work and the european economy stagnating those traditional spending programmes the very systems which should be creating jobs and growth are not doing the job.
lower. so i think that does demonstrate to this house and to the wider public that all the eu institutions including this house have done their very best to act in a responsible way in terms of next year's budget. we all know that these are difficult economic and financial
that is why we have established a joint working group between the committee on budgets and the bureau to identify savings some short term savings but also some long term structural savings for the future.
to be. at the end of the day we were able to come to an agreement between the institutions and parliament that their increases would be around.
justice. however we have agreed as one of the three joint statements that an amending budget will be brought forward if the court of justice allows
of course colleagues will want to know that we will continue to make savings in the future.
times. we wanted to be responsible and i believe we have been responsible.
we have achieved that figure by freezing all members' allowances the daily allowance and the office allowance;
we have reduced the amount to be spent on buildings such as the house of european history;
yet the reform of the cfp is a very important issue.
surely in terms of value for money she should make sure that her boss turns up and attends committee meetings rather than wasting taxpayers' money getting paid for doing nothing.
i presented to this parliament a report on what the auditors have said about the common fisheries policy and all of you voted against my report.
it seemed to be a step forward in our relationship the economic significance of which cannot be underestimated. the eu continues to be russia's main trading partner and also the biggest foreign investor in that country.
are we confident that the russian administration is consistent enough to provide such a basis?
in terms of access control and allegedly illegal content on line the issue of blocking access to specific content has already been debated many times and by many people in the member states and here in parliament but these proposals also exist in russia again with the higher risk of arbitrary application and again with a broader scope than we would normally find in europe.
also in russia there are extensive obligations on telecommunications providers and service providers to monitor the communications of their users.
we will also have the opportunity to revisit the question of the monitoring of communications.
and there is good reason for the european union to keep a close watch on the implementation of the trips obligations in russia.
similar objections have been raised in spain and france in the implementation of laws that grant rightholders the power to request the take down of a web page through administrative requests rather than judicial process.
our group filed a number of amendments for which i would like to ask your support.
eight russia has for a long time been the only country with a reasonably well developed information and communications infrastructure that has not been subject to the trips agreement requirements.
it would be a shame if the trips implementation chosen by russia turned out to hinder rather than foster the previously mentioned spirit of solutions for online distribution for the future.
however we believe that proper time must be given to russia to implement the wto requirements before we start talking about further bilateral negotiations on a free trade agreement with the eu.
at the same time the russian authorities appeared to have no regard for freedom of communication or freedom of information flows.
this has led to interesting developments in the field of content distribution in russia not only in illegal downloading a topic which we discuss with far too much aggression too frequently in our house but also in distribution schemes that are or were at the time of their emergence legal under the russian system.
at least once during my time of political involvement russian authorities have casually shut down legal online distribution services at the request of foreign entities to accommodate the advancement of world trade organisation discussions.
we agree that there is reason to remain vigilant on the eurasian customs union but we cannot automatically assume it is incompatible with russia's wto obligations.
in particular we would like to rethink the wisdom of paragraph eleven last indent regarding pre establishment investment protection and to request support for our amendment.
they establish a basis for economic interaction which depends completely on an administrative right a monopoly granted by the government and its legal institutions to private parties.
the trips agreement does not establish any boundaries for enforcement.
given our experiences in europe we need to keep a close eye on this.
therefore we have to ask ourselves whether or not the situation in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of expression will be affected by the implementation of trips in russia.
we have every reason to be vigilant so that the situation in russia does not deteriorate with respect to the monitoring of communications.
the situation in many european jurisdictions with the data retention directive and in terms of intermediary liability for intellectual property rights infringements is uncertain.
in the field of copyright in particular the trips agreement and the present interpretation adopted by the disputes settlement body of the berne three step test should cause us to feel concern for how future implementation of russian copyright will relate to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
one of the concerns raised in the european union by many stakeholders is that notice and take down requests risk imposing arbitrary restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the member states.
i also noted a very clear call from the honourable members of this parliament to the commission to look for constructive solutions and to make sure that russia respects wto rules.
the official commitments include non discriminatory treatment of imports of goods and services reducing tariffs and binding tariff levels ensuring transparency when implementing trade measures limiting agricultural subsidies enforcing intellectual property rights
i think the issue though is about whether russia successfully adopts wto procedures.
for example russia has export duties on no less than four hundred and fifty types of products at the moment and duties will be reduced from nineteen to an average of. eight russia is still a tough place to do business.
so i very much welcome the move towards the wto but there are some tough challenges ahead.
madam president i very much welcome russia joining the wto.
moving goods across the border will be eased with the new rules on customs valuation fees and transit procedures.
however there is scope to break new ground on a range of regulatory issues and europe has one of the world's most advanced regulatory regimes and useful experience to share.
our services industries will also have easier access particularly in finance telecommunications and retail.
what is needed is a thorough reform of the domestic economy and business environment. only russia can choose to pursue such a reform but the eu is willing to help through a new framework agreement. in this context the european commission is not asking for new market access commitments.
for example russia's decision on levying so called recycling fees' on imported vehicles is problematic because it discriminates against european producers and infringes the most basic wto rules and duties on cars are now higher than before russia's wto accession.
we will start by trying to find agreed solutions failing which we will not hesitate to enforce our wto rights if they are violated.
however the past ten months have not been particularly encouraging.
therefore i think it is important to formulate a clear and comprehensive eu position to indicate that this time we expect moscow to live up to its commitments.
talk about substantive changes to parts of directives or regulations that the commission is seeking to recast but in a very restricted form.
i think we need to have a fall back position to improve the own initiative reports if they require it and our experience since july when that previous change was brought in has
exposed the fact that they frequently require improvement in the plenary.
i think it is actually perfectly proper for a political group to express a preference to put more of its members on a committee that it regards as especially
we will see how the house votes tomorrow.
that right would continue but in addition we would allow amendments if they are tabled by a tenth of the members of the house.
i had grave reservations about the amendment that was submitted in the committee.
there is another report which we have not brought to plenary yet which we will have to revisit in the next parliament concerning how we adapt our procedures to the lisbon treaty if it comes into force.
i mentioned some earlier.
secondly the oldest member is not common to all parliaments of the world as he suggested.
it was endorsed by the conference of presidents.
finally the points where i disagree with some members.
there will be up to ten minutes of catch the eye possible for such occasions.
the committee simply acts as a filter for the amendments in plenary so that we do not have to spend several hours voting but only on those amendments which have a certain degree of support.
it concerns this question of initiative reports where we have a procedure which many members feel is a little bit too inflexible now. we have made it slightly more flexible.
this enables a restricted right.
this is not the same amendment that was rejected in committee.
another way in which a previous reform from a number of years ago is being revisited is the amendment by the alde group concerning recasting. i think that is also a welcome adjustment to the procedures that we have at the moment.
for a start the debate will not just be a short presentation by the rapporteur a reply from the commission and that is it.
without their help and work we would not have been able to bring this work to fruition. may i secondly confirm what has been mentioned already. this report was actually split into two.
we do not want to open the floodgates and have hundreds of amendments rewriting lengthy resolutions by a committee of seven hundred and something members but on the other hand a limited right of amendment where there is a strong wish for it we felt was a reasonable compromise and a right balance.
it is to many but it is by no means the only system that exists and it is quite legitimate for us as a european parliament to look at the various systems that exist and choose one which is suitable for our circumstances.
secondly when it comes to amendments these are now prohibited for own initiative reports.
i myself have grave doubts about whether that is a good idea or not but it came from the reform working group on which you sat.
it is not a referral back.
that was something that had a degree of consensus behind it and therefore we are submitting it to the house for approval or indeed rejection.
mr duff the rule on when there are a large number of amendments in plenary and the president can ask a committee to look at it it is not a referral back to committee of the report.
instead groups can table an alternative motion for resolution.
may i also confirm that lots of new ideas have come from other members.