kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
industry representatives outnumber academics consumer groups and trade unions by four to one on commission expert groups and seventy five of all eu legislation shows visible progressions owing to corporate pressure.
only in the european institutions would a non mandatory transparency register be considered anything other than an oxymoron.
nine members of the last commission are now corporate lobbyists making sure that the revolving door remains well oiled.
with these facts in mind can we really be expected to believe that agreements such as ttip ceta and tisa are being negotiated in the interests of eu citizens?
don't listen to david cameron's increasingly ludicrous and scare tactics.
i am getting quite a different picture when i am out campaigning.
they represent all sections of society and ethnic groups but they are generally working people who have simply had enough of the european union.
last week i spoke to a young romanian woman whose been in britain for just one year. she said she wished she could vote to leave.
the overwhelming majority of people i speak to tell me they are voting to leave.
what does it mean when recent a eu migrant voices the same complaints as british citizens?
i exhort my constituents to vote to set themselves free from the european union on twenty three june.
in the long run it will likely also reduce the number of people crossing the mediterranean because those people are not interested in staying in greece or italy.
relocation has not worked and will not work and even if it did work it would only encourage more people to come.
mr president i think we focus too much on how to manage and distribute the people who are coming while the question we should be asking is how many people we can afford to take in socially or economically.
what we should understand clearly is that there is now and in the future an endless number of people who want to come to europe.
many member states have reestablished border controls and that has significantly reduced secondary movement and asylum shopping.
this will facilitate their identification and therefore the enforcement of return decisions in line with data protection standards.
finally the reinforced eurodac regulation will continue to support the application of the dublin system.
second the new dublin regulation will better prevent secondary movements within the european union. the current shifts of responsibility between member states will no longer be possible.
europe also needs to set up a robust and effective common european asylum system. the reform of the dublin regulation the reinforcement of eurodac and the transformation of easo into a true european agency for asylum are the first major steps in this direction.
to address them we started last year to strengthen the control at our external borders with our proposal on the european border and coast guard. i am glad that the discussion progresses well but as you have indicated in your report on the holistic approach to migration
the new regulation includes the possibility for member states to store and search data belonging to third country nationals or stateless persons who are irregularly staying in the union.
we are creating an invisible border region around europe where all the neighbouring countries will be safe and third countries will be first asylum countries so we will send everyone back.
so where in fact is that solidarity?
so the country of first entry would still have to check whether a refugee's application is admissible or not.
they were free to take advantage of the eu's internal borders crossing between countries unchecked just like the perpetrators of the paris and the brussels murders. the group had also photographed potential targets in london and one of the group was planning to move to calais
when will the eu learn and when will the uk government learn?
but that is not what this eu asylum system is about it is about forcing countries to take on people who could well be terrorists and fining them if they do not.
the five suspects including one who had been to london had all been granted refugee status.
it is about brussels forcing local services in britain to a breaking point rather than face opposition to their project in other countries with external borders.
of course we should give those in genuine need a safe haven using the geneva convention on refugees.
the second thing is that secondary movements are not part of this.
commissioner your institution is there to oversee compliance with the treaties and with our laws and what i have seen over the last twelve months is member states believing they are all above the laws rather than pursuing the laws that they have negotiated and adopted.
this is essential if we are going to combat irregular economic migration sending a strong signal to human traffickers and allowing us to grant asylum to the most vulnerable. as you are aware my political group has always had serious reservations about a compulsory relocation scheme. it has had little success.
but despite all this my main message here today is a simple one.
i welcome the strengthening of important instruments such easo and eurodac.
i believe that looking at how we can enhance what we already have rather than reinventing the wheel will always be the most effective way forward.
rarely does forcing someone to do something result in improved relations between the parties and the payment system suggestion of a fine of eur two hundred and fifty zero per individual who is not being relocated seems like a punishment for member states rather than a credible alternative.
if we are creating real solidarity in a truly effective area of asylum then the rules must be followed.
these revisions these proposals these enhancements will only work if we all stick to the rule book.
the criteria should also include population and the number of refugees received including children.
and return we should save all but we cannot take all in europe.
when so many are coming at the same time the issue remains how to create the political will for member states to take shared responsibility.
but the eu's assistance should not be a disincentive for member states to build reception capacity.
the eu has to negotiate more readmission agreements and fast adopt the list of safe countries of return including turkey.
mr president i am very happy that we now have two packages of proposals from the commission to tackle the situation with the refugees in a more determined and sustainable way. let us hope that this will put an end to the era of panicdriven negotiations with turkey to outsource our responsibilities to them and instead focus on creating a robust european asylum system that can earn the respect of european citizens while providing sanctuary for people fleeing war and persecution.
as rapporteur for the dublin regulation i can assure the commission member states and this entire house that i together with my negotiating team will work in an effective determined way to conclude in a good agreement.
the dublin regulation is the cornerstone of the european asylum system and this is not the time for watereddown deals.
this is the time to once and for all get it right.
out of respect for my team of shadow rapporteurs i will not set out a specific approach here today.
i believe it is important that we in this house work together and come up with a unified view on the regulation and how it should look in the future.
in order to do this i intend to work closely with all groups that are interested in achieving a progressive european solution.
the commission proposal is a good point of departure but i am convinced that we are going to substantially strengthen the proposal in this house.
however i want to make it clear that i do not accept the approach by the commission with regard to the dublin transfer of unaccompanied minors.
we have clear jurisprudence from the european court of justice that it is not in the best interest of children to be sent around europe like ping pong balls or suitcases.
mr president until we are able to build peace and prospects for war ravaged and persecuted communities in our neighbourhood and beyond people will continue to look to the eu for refuge.
we need to make sure that people who need protection actually receive it.
this is our moral duty as well as our legal responsibility.
and we must find ways to help these people without them having to risk their lives on dangerous journeys.
we need to take them out of the hands of smugglers by putting in place safe and legal ways to the eu for those in need of protection.
cooperation with third countries protection in the region and resettlement from there to the eu should become the model for the future.
we will come forward in june with proposals on how to work better with third countries as part of our work towards a more sustainable approach to managing migration.
recent experience also shows that we need a better approach to large scale arrivals of people at our external borders.
but we have seen how our existing european asylum rules are not doing that.
this results directly from the shortcomings of the dublin system in its current form.
dublin was simply not designed to deal with situations such as these.
it does not deliver effective solutions and it does not ensure solidarity and a sustainable sharing of responsibility.
a month ago we presented options for reforming our common european asylum system and we heard your reactions as well as those of the member states in the council.
the simple truth is that if member states do not find a common approach to sharing the responsibility in handling the refugee crisis at the end of the day not a single member state will be able to handle that responsibility on its own.
we either face this challenge together or we give up on facing it at all with dire consequences for all and with unacceptable consequences for refugees who flee war and persecution.
if we take leave of our common responsibility we will take leave of our common values and weaken the very fabric upon which our societies are built.
that is why the commission has presented a proposal that will make it possible for all member states to take their responsibility. so we propose to introduce a corrective mechanism in our dublin system.
it will be triggered automatically so that whenever a member state has to face a disproportionate number of asylum applications responsibility for new applicants of all nationalities will be transferred to other member states.
once the pressure is relieved that member state will again take responsibility for new applicants.
each member state's share will be based on clear and simple criteria population size and gdp.
their resettlement efforts will also be taken into account in line with our objective to provide safe and legal pathways to europe.
all member states will be required to contribute and show solidarity.
this may under conditions also take the form of financial solidarity.
if temporarily a member state does not relocate asylum applicants they will need to support those member states which do.
the new system will also be much more efficient and fairer with shorter processes for assigning responsibility and processing applications.
it will discourage abuses with clear obligations for applicants and safeguards against asylum shopping'.
at the same time we will better protect the rights of those who seek refuge through better safeguards for unaccompanied minors and stronger guarantees that families will be kept together. i trust this house to examine our proposals with the urgency this issue merits.
i have worked on every dublin regulation that has been brought before this house; most of them have moved forward. i do not think this one is going to and i have to say i will try and keep my language parliamentary but it is going to be a real struggle.
i understand that many ngos and experts have been in discussions with the commission and have basically been told that they need to get real';
that they need to understand what is happening on the ground.
these people do and i think we have a duty to listen to them.
unhcr charter of fundamental rights jesuit refugee service numerous others we should be listening to these people.
i would agree with what we have been told dublin does not work.
we never thought it did.
we would agree that it puts a huge responsibility on countries because of their geographical situation that was always obvious was it not?
we also know that member states need to show solidarity.
we heard this from malta many years ago;
we are still waiting for it.
dublin is only going to have a chance of working if we also take into account asylum seekers themselves because if you are looking at secondary movement you need to think why do people move?
it gives you one chance.
if that is going to be in a country where you think your claim will not be properly examined where you will not be able to make the contacts with your community use the language that you have to integrate as we want you to would you not move? it is your one chance to actually develop your life in any sort of way.
a key point that we made in the last dublin revision was that the thorough examination of your case was also a foundation of dublin.
yet when i look at some of the proposals here for people who dare to cross a border that is now being thrown out of the window and the court cases that decided that go along with it.
i think there are some really big amendments that need to be made to this proposal.
strengthening the maltabased easo is essential and i am pleased that the proposals contain concrete measures in this regard which will see staff and resources increased.
we need to keep proving to our citizens that there is an understanding among politicians in brussels that member states on the front line should not have to face disproportionate pressure on their systems alone.
this is crucial and any change to our systems must have this as its central theme.
the commission's idea for a corrective fairness mechanism is a good step in the right direction in addressing this concern and will go some way to pushing forward a sustainable solution to disproportionate pressures faced at the external borders.
however i think that the commission's idea for member states to be able to pay their way out of the mechanism is provocative and it does show just exactly how far away member states still are from real sharing of responsibility. i can perhaps sympathise with the thinking behind the idea but that some countries will be able to exonerate themselves from responsibility by payment is not in my view the best road towards effective solidarity.
we need to do more to ensure that there is the political will to move forward.
it is a system that has perpetuated a disproportionate responsibility on some member states which feel left alone.
it has poisoned the debate on migration and has allowed extremist elements to hijack the narrative.
it must be changed.
solidarity must be part and parcel of being an eu member state.
it can never be a concept we can buy our way out of.
so what are you going to say to the people who are fleeing a war situation who come to europe and who according to your definitions we cannot absorb any more?
well given the miserable integration rate that we have seen even with much smaller numbers of humanitarian immigrants in europe i would say that we cannot afford even these kind of numbers.
we should not be naive about the people who are now crossing the mediterranean.
the majority of them are economic migrants;
we are concerned at the continued violence the total paralysis of the state of bangladesh and the confrontation between the two political camps.
we call on the government of the country to immediately halt all repressive methods used by the security forces and to release arbitrarily arrested opposition politicians. in order to get out of the political crisis i believe that all options should be considered including an early election if all legitimate political parties are willing to stand and offer voters a choice.
as liberals and democrats we believe in a free and fair society where everyone has a vote and this is achieved in particular through credible inclusive elections.
that is why today the government and the opposition in bangladesh need to put the interests of the bangladeshi people first.
i strongly condemn the violence that discouraged people to go out and vote as well as the arbitrary arrest and repression of opposition politicians.
those who have been detained must be released.
i also find it quite appalling that the united kingdom conservative party seems now to be supporting the use of the death penalty in bangladesh if i read its call for a separate vote correctly. finally i strongly urge the vice president high representative lady ashton to use strong diplomatic pressure to help bring forward a solution.
i think this will be helped by a positive statement from the leader of the opposition this morning who indicated that the opposition was going to call off the protests and strikes and look for a compromise.
so let us hope that that compromise emerges so that we can defend the values of human rights fundamental freedoms and democracy.
we have no corporate view within the uk delegation or the ecr group on the death penalty.
we also expressed our readiness to send an eu election observation mission subject to the security situation and the prospects for credible elections.
we hope that through genuine dialogue and a full democratic process bangladesh can address the significant challenges it faces political social and economic including challenges related to working conditions and factory safety.
meanwhile we will continue our engagement on the sustainability compact.
and the fair allocation of responsibilities among member states for both asylum seekers and other beneficiaries of international protection.
practical cooperation and technical assistance with coordinating and supporting action from easo which must go hand in hand with legislative harmonisation;
first our action on solidarity should be comprehensive and balanced.
other situations also need to be acknowledged as recent experience showed member states without an external border can also experience disproportionate flows.
we should keep such everyday solidarity sharply in our focus in the future not least because it is less politically visible than emergency action. third it will be essential to follow up all the commitments made.
these problems will be addressed by the current reform of the dublin regulation and by more harmonisation in the second phase of the ceas.
to prepare this report the commission will invite member states to an expert meeting this autumn to discuss the current state of play.
i would also like to address the criticism the report makes of the application of the dublin regulation and the related suggestion to develop instead an eu system for relocating asylum seekers.
as we announced in march the commission will report on solidarity issues in its annual report on immigration and asylum starting next year.
it is true that standards in member states are unequal and sometimes insufficient which gives some asylum seekers better chances than others.
the commission evaluation in two thousand and seven acknowledged the disproportionate burden on some member states due to their geographical position.
the best way to achieve mutual trust is for solidarity to be built into member states' everyday practice for example by supporting integration efforts.
mutual support needs to go further than just combating irregular migration.
let me share with you the commission's guiding principles in developing a sound framework for eu solidarity on asylum.
lorry drivers who had been on a nationwide strike in more than two hundred cities all over iran for more than a week.
instead of focusing only on the nuclear deal we need to listen to the people in iran who are fed up with the dictatorship. they want this regime to go and they deserve our attention.
people are demanding their rights in iran but there is almost no mention of these uprisings and protests and human rights of the iranian people by our eu institutions or our eu officials.
as nazanin remains jailed and separated from her family i urge the high representative to act on her behalf to urge the iranian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release her as well as the four other eu iranian dual nationals.
normalised relations with iran will come through upholding our highest standards in terms of human rights as well as by standing by the deal that the european union helped to negotiate.
the complete disregard by the iranian authorities of her right to a fair trial and to consular assistance is appalling.
mr president the recent uprising in iran led by women gives hope to all of us who believe in the possibility of a free iran including freedom for the anglo iranian mother nazanin zaghari ratcliffe who has been imprisoned in iran for more than two years now on trumped up charges.
it is equally appalling to see how in europe governments including the british government have failed to address her case in a proper manner.
with the iran nuclear deal now weakened by the united states it is more important than ever to continue to fight for human rights in iran.
i have been in touch with her family and they appreciate this parliament's decision to call for the release and fair treatment of eu iranian dual nationals. while we debate these arrests of dual nationals we must also highlight that these actions are part of a wider crackdown on freedom of assembly in iran. i urge the external action service to firmly and collectively engage their iranian counterparts echoing the message of this resolution that we debate today.
nazanin is innocent and she is missing her daughter's childhood.
we have to do everything we can to bring nazanin and her daughter home.
we have to appeal to high representative mogherini to take the floor and put this topic high in the agenda in her dialogue with iran. we have to support the role of the un special rapporteur on iran
then thousands of iranian people young people mostly were imprisoned including dual nationals of both eu member states and other democracies' nationalities.
or the respective families.
preserving the nuclear deal is important but we must be able to address human rights as well as iran's toxic role in the middle east.
they suffer in prisons without access to lawyers doctors and eu diplomats.
often they are forced into confessions after which torture and possibly the death penalty can follow.
the fact that eu citizens are seen as only iranians when they still have that nationality tells us all we need to know about the countless iranians and how they are treated unjustly in prisons.
we call for their release and we appeal to high representative vice president mogherini and member state leaders not to allow talks on the nuclear agreement to overshadow our responsibility to address the grave human rights violations in the islamic republic of iran.
i will not discuss details of the cases due to the sensitivity.
i would just say that iran must start behaving in a more reasonable way with respect for other countries and their citizens if it wishes to be taken seriously and treated with respect by the rest of the world.
the release of these british citizens would be a very welcome first step in that direction towards re engagement with the world and a more sensible reasonable approach.
today's resolution topic is sometimes lost in the midst of broader issues such as the unrelated jcpoa on the nuclear deal.
iran sadly continues to support terrorist groups and does indeed practice internal repression and human rights abuses at home.
many of these eu dual nationals including mrs nazanin zaghari ratcliffe a british citizen have been detained on spurious charges without any recognised due process by international standards and are often denied access to consular assistance as iran doesn't recognise their second eu nationality.
whilst detained many are reported to face solitary confinement and cruel treatment during interrogation.