kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
instead of having an increase of consumer choice we have a restriction of consumer choice often driven by one particular producer somewhere in the european union which happens to meet a load of specifications anyway and which sees eu legislation as the way to export its costs to its competitors. this is why our share of world gdp continues to shrink and how my country has shackled itself to a cramped and confined regional bloc.
you can then find that a product that was never intended for export can be criminalised in its own nation of origin.
i certainly would have preferred the alde line where passenger rights would have applied to journeys of a much shorter duration. i am however pleased to see that some of the basic rights in the regulation apply to passengers travelling over shorter distances.
unfortunately member states have a derogation period of up to ten years and while small businesses do need adequate time to comply i would ask and encourage member states to try to ensure compliance with this regulation as soon as possible.
madam president i voted in favour of this regulation even though i feel that it certainly does not go far enough. however it is a start and sometimes in this parliament and in the eu we take only baby steps.
those rights in particular apply to persons with a disability or indeed persons with reduced mobility.
it is unfortunate that some member states are outside this regulation and indeed that it applies only to journeys of distances greater than two hundred and fifty kilometres.
in many cases there is no alternative public transport service available.
i am not particularly happy with the compromise reached.
of course we have to accept the decision that has been taken today and hopefully the derogation period could give the opportunity to those who are outside the two hundred and fifty kilometre limit to adapt.
for many private firms and indeed government transport schemes additional cost will only result in two things higher ticket prices for customers and reduced routes.
i also believe that the financial burden associated with this proposal would be prohibitive for many transport providers.
madam president while i acknowledge that there are many positive aspects to this report and i strongly support the right of those with disabilities to have access to transport and to compensation i believe that these kinds of schemes should be put in place by national governments.
this parliament must remember that many coach firms are privately owned are relatively small and are under an increasing financial pressure as a result of the huge rise in fuel prices experienced over the last twelve to eighteen months.
madam president this proposal is certainly not perfect and indeed may have to be revisited as a result of the ecj judgment in a few weeks. nevertheless i think it is a step in the right direction and for that reason i supported it.
innovation means research development and new products.
new products have to be patented and the easier it is to do that the better.
let me translate light commercial vehicles are of course vans and performance standards mean fuel emissions which depend on fuel burnt.
now we have all seen the rising fuel prices at the pumps but for sole traders like builders plumbers and carpenters running their van is a business critical cost.
on the production line in the general motors factory in luton in my constituency i have also seen that the innovation needed for improvements comes from the factory floor.
there are some who think that just because targets are set in this house in europe they will be achieved.
but the truth is that achieving those targets will mean the innovation comes whether from vans or otherwise and it will come from consumer demands and manufacturers' improvements and not just from european legislation.
has hungary under the present government prosecuted any opposition presidential or other candidates?
mr president the authors of this report seem not to appreciate the irony of their calls for restrictions on freedom of speech in protection of fundamental rights.
two thousand and four has it attempted to ban a political party using evidence fabricated by the security services as germany did in?
to justify themselves they use the emotive term hate speech'.
the fn presidential candidate in two thousand and twelve is now being prosecuted for drawing parallels between military and migratory occupation.
we know from the experience of france how low the threshold can be.
the hungarian authorities have offered solutions on the first two issues.
this year after a detailed analysis of the fourth amendment to the fundamental law of hungary the commission has identified three issues where the compatibility with eu law was at stake.
the hungarian parliament has amended the law and the commission is currently monitoring the application of the new law.
it relates to the so called copenhagen dilemma how to act when the rule of law is put in danger in a member state after this member state has joined the european union.
the commission has been following with great interest the work in the different committees on the tavares report.
when it does this it does so in the tradition of lady justice blind to influences of a political nature but in full respect of the rule of law.
the hungarian authorities indicated last week their readiness to address the commission's concerns.
the conference will bring together senior policy makers at european and national level judges from the supreme court and other courts judicial authorities legal professions and other stakeholders.
we believe that there are some existing initiatives which could help in this endeavour.
let me assure this house that the commission will continue to ensure that legislation is made compatible with eu law and that the values inscribed in the charter of fundamental rights are applied in real terms.
as a preparation for this conference participants will be invited to present contributions focusing notably on the independence and efficiency of justice systems and on ways to better safeguard respect for the rule of law in the eu. we hope that this will allow
on the third issue the european parliament election campaigns contacts are still ongoing between the commission and hungary.
i also believe that the views of the judiciary are important as well.
in the tavares report there is one important element which i would like to underline namely the whole debate on how to best preserve and defend the rule of law in the european union as a whole outside the hungarian case which are discussing today.
this is of great importance to the commission as has already been underlined by president barroso because it is a debate of general interest to the european union.
the commission will engage in a dialogue with the european and the national institutions.
you will recall that last year we launched two infringement cases against hungary one concerning the forced early retirement of judges which was confirmed by the court of justice.
therefore i say to the others who said that this is the first time we have done it;
on the contrary in the year two thousand we warned the austrian government of what it was doing and the consequences for fundamental rights.
since the fidesz government took office it has repeatedly challenged the rights of minorities including lgbt people and their families.
you are attacking the rights of minorities.
i tell you this a european value all civilised democracies are judged not on how they treat the majority but on how they treat the minorities that make up that majority.
in order to exclude single parents grandparents their grandchildren uncles and aunts and of course same sex parents.
on the contrary by defending fundamental rights we are enhancing this parliament's reputation.
if we criticise turkey we should have the courage to criticise ourselves by exactly the same standards.
the new laws of hungary are certainly less discriminatory than the laws of france sweden or other member states and certainly more european than what today goes under the banner of european values.
a lot of you said that you speak as friends of hungary.
not a single objection in the report holds water.
that this report is against hungary.
i was very much in favour of that i was so glad that the european union was looking at what was happening in my country.
there are a lot of hungarians who have been writing to us telling us please go ahead with that because we need the support of the european union'.
this report shows criticism of your government and not of the hungarian people;
this is against european fundamental values and i would really urge you to accept this report as concern expressed by friends of hungary.
why in your constitution are you talking about a family which is only men and women and not single parent families children who live in families with grandparents or same sex families?
you and your government are preparing the ground for growing anti semitism homophobia and anti roma sentiments.
we need our common efforts to safeguard our common values together.
we need new mechanisms and that is up to the commission.
we need new mechanisms.
as others have said before prime minister orban this report is a criticism and a very necessary criticism of your government and what your government is doing and not of the people of hungary whom we strongly appreciate and are friends with.
what we are doing now is exactly the same.
the opposite is true.
no politicians in it.
you do not have the right to say that that these people here are fighting against hungarian interests.
an enormous economic crisis and a euro crisis.
therefore i hope that the message we are sending through this report will be seriously considered by the eu institutions and the hungarian government. i truly hope that mr orbn will not answer in an arrogant style questioning this house and its treaty right to express concern and ask for action on the undemocratic behaviour of a government.
this is the first sentence of the latest analysis of human rights watch and they are right.
we continued with the changes to the judiciary and the constitutional court aimed at limiting judges' powers and making them less independent.
we started with media law that incredible legislation and practice which comprised everything that was bad or controversial in different european countries without any check and balance.
the debate today and the vote tomorrow is a test of how determined parliament is to defend eu fundamental values and principles.
at the same time many other european institutions have expressed harsh criticism the osce the council of europe's secretary general the venice commission the parliamentary assembly of the council of europe and of course the european parliament as well as an impressive number of international and hungarian ngos and media associations. we cannot all be wrong or all be accused of being anti hungarian
we have said again and again that what happens in a member state is an internal business of the european union.
this is what we hope we have done in our group in good faith.
firstly to ensure that we have an own initiative report to determine any further modifications that need to be adopted.
all of these things must be done. this is a test of the fundamental values of all member states and not just the targeting of one member state.
in doing so we come to the conclusions of the report and we say as a group it is not about targeting any individual member state but coming to a conclusion.
this mandate has been full of instances where member states including original member states had to be in this house and have had to have their fundamental rights tested in a very difficult way. and here we are testing another member state and that is difficult of course it is difficult.
to return to the tavares report it is up to us to test the fundamental values of the european union and not to target a member state.
it has to respect fundamental rights and there is your problem because the venice committee has said ninety times that you are not doing that.
two this is a very serious conclusion and one that needs to be taken seriously by all institutions concerned by us by the european commission which we ask to provide a rule of law mechanism and an article two alarm agenda to deal with this and by the hungarian government to whom we address thirty general recommendations for the future that of course they will follow with their own timetable objectives and in a dialogue or let us say a trialogue with the three institutions.
we have had a permanent dialogue with the government of hungary. we have updated the working documents that we have written with all the political groups also with comments by the government of hungary and this is also a dialogue that we want to continue after this report is approved.
in the european parliament we take them very seriously we have done work for over a year examining over five hundred changes to hungarian law by the government that touch all the cornerstones of democracy the parliament the media the judiciary the electoral law the supreme court the constitutional court the data protection authority; the constitution alone was changed twelve times then a new constitution was made then four changes to this constitution in one year. not only the pace and the scope of the changes were unusual but the general trend is one towards concentration of power with the majority and the government.
it has republics and monarchies federal and unitary states unicameral and bicameral parliaments.
all this is possible within compatibility with the values of democracy outlined in the treaties.
hungary in particular not only signed these words hungary wrote these words with other member states. so the question for our debate here today is do we take these words seriously or not?
we not only respect this diversity we cherish this diversity;
we reach a very important conclusion in this report that the changes in hungary have been systemic that they have a general trend and this general trend moves away from the values in article.
let me make very clear what this is not about. europe is a diverse place.
we also ask for an article two trialogue with the european council or the council of the
to. this we call the copenhagen high level group in order to ensure the continuity of the copenhagen criteria.
the union is founded upon the values of respect for human dignity the rule of law democracy liberty equality fundamental rights and the rights of people coming from minorities.
in order to address these concerns the hungarian authorities have offered solutions for the first two issues by proposing changes to the fundamental law and implementing legislation.
closely. we should not forget that an independent and well performing judiciary is also of the greatest economic relevance in terms of legal certainty and investor confidence.
the commission welcomes these announcements from the hungarian authorities. we will monitor the specific implementing steps which must be taken by the hungarian parliament in order to effectively dispel the existing concerns on these two points including the necessary changes at constitutional level which are expected to be voted upon after this summer.
presented in march this is a tool designed as part of the european semester process to promote effective independent and high quality justice systems in
these decisions are part of a determined effort on the part of the commission to ensure full respect for european union law by all member states and they have been efficient. the hungarian authorities have committed to changing their fundamental law in order to make it fully compatible with european union law but we all know that other issues are at stake which go beyond european union law.
in april the commission explained to this house the approach that we have taken as regards the recent developments in the hungarian constitutional system.
be drawn. the upcoming anti corruption report will also need to be taken into account in this reflection.
we have together identified from the beginning of the process the main concerns and we fully share them.
the commission is currently monitoring the application of the new law and is verifying that the reinstatement of dismissed judges is being carried out as announced.
let me assure this house that the commission as guardian of the treaties will continue to ensure that legislation and in the hungarian case the fundamental law of the state is made compatible with eu law where necessary.
we need to establish how to enforce our capacity to better address concerns about the rule of law in member
i welcome this recent information.
one of them concerning the early retirement age for judges was confirmed in november two thousand and twelve by the european court of justice declaring the related hungarian legislation incompatible with european union law.
mr president prime minister orbn honourable members today we are discussing a parliamentary report on a subject which the commission is following with the utmost attention.
we have showed all our diligence just as we did last year when we launched two infringement cases against hungary.
i would like to start by providing you with an update on the commission's actions in this respect.
finally the commission is also following the situation of freedom of speech and media in member states
a second case concerns the violation of the independence of the data protection authority and is pending before the court.
in particular the hungarian authorities propose to remove the current clause on the european court of justice's judgments entailing payment obligations from the fundamental law and to eliminate the system of transferring cases between courts from the hungarian legal system including from the fundamental law.
this is why the country specific recommendations in the context of the european semester also included recommendations for certain member states to take measures to improve and strengthen their justice systems. besides the european semester process judicial reforms are also part of the economic adjustment programmes.
europe. in addition to this the cooperation and verification mechanism for romania and bulgaria is another instrument from which general lessons can
they presumably got their instructions on the future of the european union.
when they came back they refused to give any information to parliament or to the media on what exactly they did and then they blame hungary for having too much concentration of power too few checks and balances too little transparency.
we hungarian patriots have to end the division between us.
i know you speak english mr protasiewicz so you cannot blame it on the interpretation but can i just say to you that the point and the principle that i am putting forward which i want you to accept is that we cannot be selective in the interpretation of the defence of principle.
just as we defend the principles of freedom of association and respect for minorities in turkey we should also do it in the european union. do you agree or not?
mr president we have discussed individual countries before in this context and in this parliament but it was condemned then as it should be condemned now.
if one takes a look at our programme where we seem to be spending more and more of our time looking at individual member states and so called or alleged deficiencies in their internal arrangements we are doing a couple of things wrong.
we are failing to understand the wishes of the citizens in europe in our nation states who can determine their governments thank goodness and their parliaments something that they could not do in many countries only a few years ago.
we are also moving further away from the level of cooperation in european terms between member states for our future and for the future of our children.
it has always been a matter for the commission.
i want the commission to look into these matters as it does with other member states and alleged deficiencies. i do not know the internal political situation in hungary but i do understand this i welcome the fact that their leader has come here to listen to this debate
and to put his point of view to us but please mr president in the future agenda of this house can we concentrate on the things that really are important to all of us in europe and allow democracy to operate within our member states without the interference at least of this institution that ought to know better?
i have tried to participate objectively in the process of drafting this report but my feelings as the ecr shadow on this file have not changed with regard to the premise.
separating this politically charged house from carrying out what needs to be an objective and balanced evaluation is essential.
many members here have lived through the difficult transition from being a former communist country to a fully functioning democracy.
some people here have the luxury of coming from a country where democracy and justice have evolved over centuries.
i had hoped that today would be an opportunity to listen to each other and to find solutions.
i ask you to confirm that i never opposed that mr orbn could reply.
they do not belong to any particular nationality either.
at the same time it strikes me that you always seem to be defending the wrong people.
and if we see that things are not going well we should have the courage to tell each other.
i do not think that this debate should be about how we fit wrong policies questionable policies into legalistic definitions this is about creating a true culture of fundamental rights for all eu citizens.
yes maybe in the past we were not vigilant enough maybe in the past we did not consider that we should speak out but we are learning.
she tries to work harder in the house she tries to be a better wife a better mother but the truth is that she cannot change the abuser's behaviour because the abuser wants to keep her under his power and control.
often the workers themselves are isolated and access to trade unions is often very difficult in this situation.
so we need to look at how we identify that form of trafficking.
it is all too rare that we get a very specific response from commissioners to questions in an oral question. my group very much welcomes the proposal from the ilo for the convention and the recommendation on domestic workers.
we look forward to early ratification by those member states and indeed some interesting implementation.
i think this is something that we really should be looking at at european level because increasingly it is being seen as a weak link in many of the issues that we are facing.
we are aware that at least twenty of our own member states have already commented on the draft and been actively involved in this.
i would also like to thank the commissioner for his answer.
the young woman involved lost four years of her life to her employer who received a nine month sentence.
twenty four seven we know in this house that on call working is a very controversial issue and something that we do not particularly welcome.
in the european union employment in this sector is very likely to expand given population change and higher female participation in the labour market.
it is an important contribution to the second round of discussions on the new international standards which will probably be adopted in a few weeks' time at the one hundredth session of the international labour conference.
let me now look at the practical issues raised by the question and first explain the commission's role in the ilo negotiations on a new convention and recommendation on decent work. the institutional context needs to be borne in mind. the new instrument will be an international agreement.
for instance there are a large number of domestic workers across the world many of them belonging to vulnerable groups.
the commission was attentive in particular to any sections of the draft convention that could affect freedom of movement for workers.