kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
let me make it very clear to the great and the good in this house if you want to listen that we cannot and will not as unionists in northern ireland accept a customs or regulatory border between us and the rest of the united kingdom.
let me make my position very clear i do not want to be in a position where we have no deal or a bad deal.
there are other ways.
there are other solutions.
is it not time we looked at other ways rather than trying to push something that is never ever going to work?
mr president i am delighted to support some of the aspects of today's budget particularly the propositions that put funding and resources behind the fine words that have been spoken in this parliament to tackle the problems of sexual harassment.
after today we will have what we need to address the problem which is resources and people with the skills and the experience that we need to take that problem on so i am delighted about that.
the overall cost of the european union budget per week per citizen is about a pint of beer.
the cost of this parliament is about a cup of coffee a year but it is very important that we seek to bring down that further and i am delighted to see that propositions for a single seat parliament are going through parliament today.
it's for far too long that we have neglected that issue and if the french are serious about it and mr macron is serious about it then he can take on this problem too because it rests in his hands.
mr president i already said this morning that the origins of european integration is the wish of the european people to negotiate their differences around the conference table rather than on the battlefield.
but if you look at europe today the challenges we face are global challenges and the one question you can ask your citizens and i am sure of the answer you'll get is do you honestly think you can face the migration challenge on your own as a member state?
do you honestly think nationalism is an answer to the challenges of economic change in the fourth industrial revolution?
do you honestly believe that being on your own will make you stronger in facing the challenges of president putin or the challenges of a president trump who wants to change the international system?
do we honestly believe we will be stronger on our own?
i don't think there is a constituency anywhere in a member state that truly believes that and i'm afraid the british people today are learning this the hard way.
i believe that if we take that as a starting point the way we transform our rules the way we apply the treaty to face these challenges and to come up with real results for our citizens is going to determine whether we'll get support for this.
i think debates about abstract notions such as sovereignty are distracting people or they are causing alarm.
then the answer will be very clear only if we act collectively can we shape the world according to the values we share in a world that is changing so fast.
i wish that could be the starting point of our discussion about what we need in a treaty. there are still ample opportunities in the existing lisbon treaty to move ahead.
let's try and use those opportunities first and if they are exhausted we can talk about treaty change.
but we haven't exhausted the possibilities that are on the table with the existing lisbon treaty.
we propose the participation of northern ireland in the single market and the customs union for goods through regulatory alignment. but this solution cannot be extended to the whole of the uk as westminster would like precisely because the uk's government majority in westminster of which the democratic unionist party is a key element does not accept any differential solution for northern ireland since this would create a border in the irish sea.
but it is undeniable that successive irish governments have known that rendition flights did travel through ireland and they knew that this violated international conventions on torture.
mr president a recent report by open society justice initiative confirms what irish people have known for quite a long time that ireland is one of fifty four countries which helped facilitate the use of illegal actions by the cia by permitting the use of its airspace and airports for fights associated with the so called extraordinary rendition'.
in two thousand and five the then government stated that inspections of military planes in shannon were not necessary because it had received assurances from the us administration that detainees had not been and would not be transported illegally through irish territory.
but for the sake of maintaining good relations a special relationship with the us they did nothing except cover up kidnapping and torture.
this agreement represents the key channels for law enforcement cooperation and the commission has to ensure that this instrument as well as all other relevant eu legislation against terrorism is implemented and applied in a manner fully compatible with the charter of fundamental rights.
about the letters in july and the european commission will continue to urge member states to answer as we have no intention of neglecting this important challenge for the future of judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
at the time of the execution of these cia programmes between two thousand and one and two thousand and three there was no eu provision applicable to judicial cooperation between the eu and the usa. only in october two thousand and nine did the council adopt a decision
mr president practices referred to as renditions' constitute a serious violation of several fundamental rights.
today the european parliament is again asking about the possible breach of eu provisions by those member states that seemingly collaborated with the cia programme. the questions refer mainly to judicial cooperation with the united states.
both agreements entered into force on one january two thousand and ten and both clarify and unify the legal framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters with the united states from that moment on.
the commission cannot directly coordinate or even facilitate national investigations in this field because it has no power to set up meetings of prosecutors for example or of other national authorities in charge of the investigations.
first the obligation to uncover the truth.
this is a positive obligation which derives from the european convention on human rights in order to establish responsibilities and enable the victims to obtain compensation for damage.
this falls exclusively within the responsibility of the member states.
they involve unlawful arrest arbitrary detention and very often torture or other ill treatment and we have already underlined several times in this chamber that the fight against terrorism cannot justify
let me now put the facts on the table.
i would like once again to make a clear distinction between two necessities.
on this basis commissioner malmstrm and myself sent a letter on five march two thousand and thirteen to the ministers of the interior and the ministers of justice of all member states to stress the importance of using all relevant eu instruments in the fight against terrorism and to recall
that these instruments must be implemented and applied in a manner fully compatible with the charter. only six member states have replied so far. the european commission services reminded the other member states
approving the conclusion of two agreements with the united states one on extradition and one on mutual legal assistance.
to propose safeguards so as to guarantee respect for human rights in intelligence sharing or to provide for any delimitation of roles between intelligence and law enforcement activities. you will appreciate that a legal constraint on the council and indeed on all the eu institutions in relation to this issue means that the council has not been able
two thousand and twelve it is simply not possible for the council to issue declarations concerning the activities of the security services of the member states given that these fall outside its competence.
any violations of human rights and the rule of law by government agencies in the fight against terrorism give rise to grievances and could actually encourage individuals to resort to terrorism.
the council does not therefore accept that it has breached the principle of loyal cooperation as far as access to documents is concerned.
this dialogue is an opportunity to address questions such as the arrest detention interrogation and transfer of terrorist suspects.
diplomatic exchanges such as these are only valuable if the participants can express themselves openly and freely.
however it should be clear that the specific activities of intelligence services are not covered in this dialogue. summaries of these meetings have been made available to parliament but full minutes have not been released given the need to protect the confidential nature of
it has been clear also that the existence of secret detention facilities where detained persons are kept in a legal vacuum is not in conformity with international law.
to initiate any measures to provide for a follow up to the recommendation in your report from last year.
it has stated clearly on several occasions that the fight against terrorism has to take place in full respect for international law including human rights law international humanitarian law and refugee law.
this means that the work of intelligence agencies of member states falls outside the remit of the european union and its institutions.
on such sensitive issues quiet diplomacy is more beneficial than more public pronouncements.
the discussions.
of course such circumstances can never justify or excuse any act of terrorism under any circumstances.
madam president vice president of the commission honourable members i am grateful for this opportunity to respond to the various issues raised in the question
it also enables the eu to underline the importance of respect for international law and human rights.
for the same reason the council has not held hearings with the relevant eu security agencies. as far as the issue of mutual legal assistance in this area is concerned this would be a purely bilateral matter between the member states involved. furthermore it is not within the competence of the council
and this is why the council has not been able to follow up on your resolution which was adopted in september.
where we can make progress or take measures we are ready to do so as in the case of our dialogue with the us but if we want to ensure that the principles which i have just outlined are respected our best way of achieving that is through patient diplomacy and discreet pressure.
we can only be successful in the fight against terrorism in the long term if we stay true to our core values.
if there are allegations of inappropriate involvement by member states in such activities this is first and foremost an issue of scrutiny by national parliaments by national authorities by national legal authorities
these can of course also go wider than national level because all member states are contracting parties to the european convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
it has nothing to do with an absence of loyal cooperation. it has everything to do with the legal and constitutional framework within which we all operate.
even if it had the legal basis to do so the council would never have the political support of all twenty eight member states to issue a statement about such involvement let alone initiate investigations.
a number of speakers this evening have called on the council to investigate allegations of member states' involvement in a programme of transportation and illegal detention of prisoners by the cia. the council consists
i realise that may be frustrating to members of this house to hear but we also operate within the framework of rules which have to be respected.
of the representatives of the governments of the twenty eight member states.
so mechanisms do exist but they are not mechanisms which are under the control of the council.
that is why the council has been unable to follow up on the recommendations in your resolution.
and there are channels at the national level for holding national executives to account.
torture and inhumane treatment are not and can never be the tools on which we can build and preserve a strong and free society.
my own country the united kingdom is one of the countries against whom these allegations have been levelled a country whose long established principles are freedom and fairness under the rule of law.
i welcome the opportunity of an investigation in order to reinstate the reputation of our security services which is currently tarnished.
however such an investigation must be carried out by an established process a judicial inquiry if necessary which is fully independent and held and investigated at member state level.
but i do not believe it is for this parliament to set demands on how these inquiries are conducted. unfortunately here accusations are too often treated like facts and recommendations are treated like condemnations.
this must stop if the credibility of this place is to be preserved.
once again this parliament wishes the european union to play a bigger role in the oversight of the intelligence community as a whole but i would question why?
how would it carry out such a role in a sensible credible and rational way?
it is about asking the commission to introduce more measures to bring national security services under its control.
the public can read more about this plan in the commission's own document entitled european security strategy a secure europe in a better world' published as part of the stockholm programme.
these proposals are just another step along the road to creating a united states of europe.
just as the eu now has its own foreign policy and is taking control of member states' armed forces so it needs control of their security services to complete the picture.
the eu does not yet have the power to do that and we must ensure that it never does.
mr president this resolution does two things it repeats our decade long criticism of the us led extraordinary rendition programme of kidnapping secret and illegal imprisonment and torture and european countries' complicity in that programme.
it was in fact ten years ago last month that i organised the first hearing in the european parliament on guantnamo.
i will come back to the defective legal thinking which underpinned the wrong path that the us and the european allies took.
but just for a moment i want to focus on the second thing the resolution does which is to demand accountability at national level including my country the uk and to call for the eu institutions the commission and council to assist in that process by monitoring and supporting national accountability exercises. no minister if i may say so to the lithuanian presidency this does not fall outside the remit of the eu or the council.
why else do we have human rights clauses in eu treaties or the charter?
what is the point of declarations that counter terrorism operations must respect human rights and humanitarian law when you will not follow up nationally or at european level on a huge body of evidence?
an exclusive right to define the war and to make up its rules.
it is under the same pretext that drone strikes are used for so called targeted killings.
even if eu institutions will not help call member states to account for torture and disappearances they should take the lead in asserting the true nature and proper application of international law.
when your best friend goes off the rails you try to pull them back on not push them further off.
meps are trying to do that; the commission and council are not.
indeed they are the ones who make a country and ultimately they are the ones who will continue the democratic bloom of turkey.
i was in turkey myself when the protests began and what an energy what an inspiration i witnessed in cities and towns across turkey not only in istanbul turks unifying against the effects of this government on their modern secular lives.
that makes it even more important that we have the social media to report it. the arrogance of the prime minister towards the position of others and the basics of democracy which include the space to disagree are in real contrast to the awareness of president abdullah gl.
any flourishing democracy is judged not on how it treats its majority but on how it treats its minorities and deals with dissent. over the past few months the government of erdoan has ignored the rights of women and minorities including lgbt people and the recourse to violence in response to citizens members of the civil society joining forces to simply defend their human rights and modern lives is inexplicable and in complete contrast with the democratic progress made by turkey all these years.
look at the media for example.
could you please explain what sort of restraint you expected from the peaceful demonstrators on taksim square?
that is what is happening today in turkey.
however the actions of the authorities do not seem to improve.
we need pluralism and democracy for everyone.
the people in the streets of turkey are of various backgrounds ages and beliefs.
the reaction is against governments imposing their preferred lifestyles on the citizens.
the authorities should do their utmost to find an inclusive and peaceful solution to the situation.
negotiations in chapters twenty three and twenty four need to be opened.
yesterday over fifty lawyers were taken into custody for protesting in the courthouse in favour of the peaceful demonstrators.
twenty three why do we have to wait for three years to offer not only to the authorities but also to civil society an additional platform for interaction through a new chapter to be opened?
one cannot work without the other.
on fundamental freedoms and judicial reforms justice freedom security and to do it as quickly as possible.
i call on turkey not to give up on the values of freedom and fundamental rights and to do everything to avoid undermining the new momentum we aim to create in our relations.
these are typical european youngsters wishing to run their own lives.
we are forgetting that the accession process itself through each and every chapter offers an additional platform for that dialogue based on eu values how you would like to ensure that the european union continues to be a benchmark for turkish reforms.
any approach based on confrontation and division is a source of even more serious concern not only for turkish society but also for the european union.
his record of reforms is solid.
we are at a crucial moment in eu turkey relations which i believe still have the potential to develop in a more constructive spirit than before. after a long three years we are in a position to open a new negotiating chapter and discussion among the member states is ongoing. however for the momentum to become sustainable
for further reforms?
we need substantive further progress notably also through further political reforms.
in the light of what is at stake turkey needs more european engagement and with it more of the european union's standards and values not less.
as the high representative cathy ashton stated turkey as a candidate country needs to aspire to the highest possible democratic standards and practices which would imply the protection of the rights of all turkish citizens irrespective of the majority in parliament at a given time.
at the conference i condemned the excessive use of force to silence peaceful protests and asked for those responsible to be brought to account.
as i said to my interlocutors in istanbul we are energising the accession negotiations and progress in democracy and human rights are two sides of the same coin.
they are children of turkey calling for peace freedom and respect simply aspiring to speak up and to be listened to.
how come he is asking me to provide him with the benchmarks for both opening and closing this very important chapter?
considering current events and the importance we all attach to supporting turkey in its reforms it is particularly important to overcome the existing blockages on the eu side and to start negotiations on the relevant chapters twenty three and twenty four
mr president paragraph twelve of the motion for a resolution says that freedom of expression even if it offends is at the heart of democracy.
many other eu countries prosecute and imprison people for heretical historical or political opinion.
we see these demonstrations. why?
of their country.
that deep state is still here and he is using this instrument.
if he wants to come back to the normal way to be a good president a good prime minister to be a role model mr erdoan will have to change.
this tayyip erdoan won't change' mr erdoan said and that is a threat a dangerous threat because he has to change unless he wants to lead turkey away from europe and away from the respect of european values. yes a majority
that is the message that has to come from here.
mr president i would like to say to the high representative that i was appalled by the statements she put out on sunday night calling for restraint on all sides. at that stage i was travelling back from istanbul where i personally witnessed massive and systematic violence by the turkish police against protesters.
the people i met in istanbul were an absolute inspiration.
your statement came just over twenty four hours before the retaking of taksim square by the police and turning it into a war zone as anyone can see from watching television in a move that was entirely anticipated by the protestors and many others.
it is the government that is responsible for cracking down on those rights; it is responsible for massive police brutality and it is responsible for jailing lawyers for making a statement against those policies.
the protestors are guilty only of demanding their democratic rights and freedoms.
it is the government that is responsible for the neo liberal and anti environmental restructuring of istanbul for the repression of the kurdish people and for the imposition of conservative policies against kissing in public and selling alcohol purely in order to divide and rule.
i support the call by socialist alternative and other groups in turkey to mobilise massively next weekend to organise for a one day general strike and to make sure that tayyip erdoan is forced to resign.
it is why we regret your cool words about europe last friday and why we argue for the opening of chapters twenty three and twenty four to enable us to join with you in building democracy and respect for human rights in your country. mr erdoan you cannot promote democracy in syria but not do so at home.
but please do not dismiss our criticisms as some form of international conspiracy against you.
you must recognise that if your media is silent we cannot do the same. prime minister apologise to the protestors.
these are young people trade unionists environmentalists and civil society groups who strengthen democracy through their actions.
commissioner fle last friday you spoke for the whole of europe.
on behalf of the socialist and democrat group i say that this was a protest that started with tree huggers but is now one in which across europe we should all embrace those who uphold democratic pluralism in the country we love turkey.
today i invite you to answer mr erdoan's public claim that you did not raise the protests in your private meeting with him.
i appeal to you to show statesmanship not just by meeting them today but by genuinely conciliating the demands of all who express legitimate opposition in your society.
they are not the deep state' out to get you.
prime minister yes we do condemn the violent crackdown on the protestors and i join the high representative in calling for the police responsible to be brought to justice.
you cannot extinguish the memory of being made a political prisoner yourself by putting your own political opponents in jail today.
my group has welcomed progress made on judicial reform and on the kurdish issue but your response to this crisis shows the need for further reforms of the police on freedom of expression and of assembly.
turkey has a great capacity to become the world's first liberal modern muslim european country