kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
let me start by stressing that since the entry into force of the lisbon treaty and then of the charter progress has been achieved on three fronts firstly the commission has defined a clear policy on how to put the charter into practice.
this is our objective with this report and with all the proposals on the table.
direct or indirect exclusion based on affiliation with two or more vulnerable groups is especially hard to remedy and it therefore deserves a targeted approach and tailor made programmes.
therefore the measures presented in their integration plans are the most important.
we have made it on a technical level and it has resulted in the elaboration of a draft accession agreement.
i hope that in the european year of citizens the year in which we should go out in order to explain to our citizens also about our instruments and our initiatives that this will be of help.
the amendments which have been brought forward are limited and do not jeopardise the overall architecture and balance of the draft accession agreement.
it is not perfect but it is perfectible.
i believe this is vital for the credibility of the legally binding charter and for the rule of law in the european legal order.
it is about the rights of the individual.
but the charter does not replace national constitutions and national systems of fundamental rights it complements them.
it is not applied horizontally and not to everything and it is not applicable in situations which have no link with eu law.
that can be very frustrating and i agree with those who have underlined their frustrations.
look at the united states.
i am convinced that with political will and determination it will be possible to solve the outstanding issues rapidly. i make an appeal to all member states to help us to go in this direction because this will be an important complement to the charter of fundamental
instead of going to the root of the problem in order to solve it it is very difficult to do it in another way.
there has been very intensive work done on this.
at the same time he also underlined the limits of our institutional arrangements. believe me i would also prefer instead of having only soft power or the nuclear option to have something in between.
extend its scope of application.
i hope we will all go out in order to explain what europe is about.
it is important that we make rapid progress towards a speedy accession.
we also have the convention on human rights which is not a european union instrument but an instrument of the council of europe.
unfortunately and i say this very clearly to mr moraes we take a lot of very important new initiatives in this house but until citizens understand that we have done that we need a lot of time and a lot of energy.
and a reality as has been said not only in a text but for human beings for our citizens.
member states.
this is most unfortunate as it sends a negative message to our citizens in relation to this parliament's position on fundamental rights putting at risk the adoption of this report while the epp alternative resolution is completely empty. i cannot but hope that the epp as a group will not fall into the trap organised by some of its members to cover up what their national parties are doing back home.
among other things this report also addresses the rights of specific groups such as roma minorities lgbt persons people with disabilities migrants and refugees which is one more reason to hope that in the same week when the eu received the nobel peace prize and the world celebrates human rights day the european parliament will vote in favour of a report on fundamental rights at home.
she has taken on board the suggestions and requests of all the shadows including the epp which is why the epp decision to vote against it without any prior notice was equally unexpected and unfair.
this is why we have to use to the maximum all the potential instruments that our treaties give us and reflect on strengthening these powers in the future.
the alde group fully supports the report as it consolidates this house's continuing concerns in relation to the situation of fundamental rights democracy and the rule of law in the eu and in its member states.
could you please explain to the european citizens and this house why putting forward an alternative resolution dismissing the excellent report by the rapporteur is not a political game with fundamental rights?
mr president in her speech the rapporteur mentioned the report for human rights in the world. the vote on that parallel report will take place on thursday morning and it is exactly because this parliament deigns to talk about human rights in the world and give out the sakharov prize that when we discuss the annual report on our fundamental rights
it is with regret that we have an alternative motion for resolution because i have to say as coordinator that i regret that we do not have that unified position. i want to say on record that we did everything that we could to facilitate that position.
why did we want to do that?
because this is the first report since the lisbon treaty and it is on very valuable issues which the commissioner and other speakers have mentioned the european parliament's commitment to the eu accession to the european charter of human rights;
the data protection standards aimed at protecting domestic processing of data;
the clear sets of indicators;
early warnings; and so on and so forth.
we have a whole range of issues which are extremely important to this parliament and we do not want an un unified position on many of these points.
lgbt rights gender equality access to justice the vulnerable at a time of austerity people are looking to us not to be divided when we talk about other countries and other states. i noticed that in many of the speeches in this house time after time people have talked about the quality of the report.
i have to say again as coordinator for the member who has been rapporteur for this report and listening to the commissioner talking about the fundamental rights conference last week the victims' rights package and procedural rights that although we are in the midst now of a debate about opt outs and so on we are talking about real issues which are helping real people and in this annual report we are simply checking whether we are doing the right things for real people.
this is not a theoretical exercise.
in my own member state the victims' rights package was welcomed but it has to be known to more people.
what is happening today is very valuable and i think we should be unified in communicating this to people and not be divided.
mr president england had fundamental rights under the common law for centuries before the concept was dreamed of by the european union and we do not need the european convention on human rights to bestow them on us.
those ancient rights and liberties are now being destroyed by the creation of an eu system of criminal law for example under the infamous european arrest warrant.
suspects against whom no evidence has been presented to a british court can be extradited and imprisoned for months or years without trial.
meanwhile we have been prevented from extraditing non british suspect terrorists and criminals to their own countries outside the european union because of legal judgments made under the convention.
those of you who lived under communist dictatorships prior to your joining the european union might think that this is an improvement.
any consideration by an independent and informed eye of this resolution actually betrays an acceptance that external and externally sponsored internal actors in pakistan are facilitating the terrorist targeting of innocent civilians.
mr president our non legislative and nonbinding resolutions quite often lead to complaints from third countries of factual inaccuracies.
today i intend to concentrate only on one aspect of what is in the resolution and do not in any way seek to take away from some of the very accurate comments that have been made by colleagues whilst recognising that there are various inaccuracies as well.
the people of pakistan have carried a very heavy burden on behalf of the international community for a very long time sometimes on very weak shoulders.
that can be a worry not least if you are a politician.
islam is a religion of peace not of death.
a man has just been sentenced to death in pakistan for insulting the prophet on facebook.
of fifty muslim majority countries around the world only thirteen including pakistan have a death penalty for blasphemy.
we welcome the pakistani government's decision to adopt the human rights action plan;
those who belong to vulnerable groups like the ahmadis live their lives in fear with no democratic rights yet the government fails to protect them.
mr president in two thousand and fourteen the eu allowed pakistan access to gsp an exceptional tool to help kick start the economy and which crucially encourages progress on improving human rights. it has proved its value in many countries but i question whether this is the case in pakistan. a parliament delegation visited pakistan in april and from our meetings with government officials and civil society it became glaringly clear that a lack of the rule of law permeates pakistani society and human rights are violated instead of advanced.
we do not know because there is no transparency.
people who work for ngos face harassment arrest or worse death. how many people are on death row under the vague blasphemy laws?
it is high time to see real progress on human rights and the strengthening of the civil judiciary in pakistan.
to suggest that the state is behind them has condoned them or turns a blind eye to them is simply not true. and this parliament will demean itself if it supports the resolution.
unlike similar trips to india. pakistan relies on our help to deliver on human rights and the rule of law as a genuine ally and economic partner of the eu and the west.
the despicable crimes detailed are just that crimes against the law of the land.
mr president the urgent resolution on pakistan is regrettable misguided and misleading. i stand against abuse of human rights wherever it may arise but such grave allegations as these should be based on fact not fantasy.
this resolution sends the wrong signals altogether.
they are repugnant to the majority of pakistani people and condemned by the government.
interestingly the text makes no mention of the delegation of the committee on foreign affairs to pakistan last april when we were welcome to raise any thorny issue we chose in the presence of senior government authorities opposition parties ngos think tanks and civilians
however there are big differences among the provinces of pakistan as well as strong resistance against any change from religious political parties.
in all its contacts with pakistan the eu continues to stress the importance of reintroducing the moratorium on executions. the number of executions has been reduced in the second half of two thousand and sixteen and the first half of this year. we hope that this trend will lead to a definitive stop of executions and hope that this will set
yet pakistan has established a national commission for human rights.
yet the extension of the military courts for another two years really constitutes a worrying element and the eu has been repeatedly calling for a comprehensive judicial reform. we are equally very concerned about the situation of human rights defenders in pakistan.
apart from pressure and intimidation by the authorities human rights defenders are also subject to threats violence and even murder by extremist militant groups and an even more worrisome trend is that allegations of blasphemy are being used to silence human rights defenders.
it has adopted a human rights action plan and introduced legislation for the protection of women and children.
still despite some progress made in the gsp process the gap between the institutional human rights framework and the situation on the ground in pakistan continues to be significant.
a direction towards finally abolishing the death penalty and towards the full respect of all international human rights obligations by pakistan.
the situation regarding human rights in pakistan is very difficult.
i support the creation of a public prosecutor to investigate and prosecute attacks against journalists in pakistan. finally i believe the pakistan authorities should grant access to international observers and human rights organisations to monitor their inappropriate use of military courts.
but if you mention the death penalty how many times have you criticised one of the biggest proponents of the death penalty the united states of america?
mr president i suppose we should be grateful for the small mercies of subsidiarity and proportionality. the former tries with very limited success to prevent competences being exercised at eu level if they could be more efficiently exercised at member state level.
i would call this principle the cost benefit rule' which would require that the calculated benefit of all legislation when quantifiable was equal to or greater than the cost it imposed on business and the public.
the latter attempts to prevent legislation going beyond and i quote what is necessary to achieve the objects of the treaty'. it is a pity we cannot cut off the last seven words and stop at the word necessary'.
i would like to see a third principle being applied during the legislative process for as long as we have to put up with eu legislation at all.
indeed when can they not?
i am pleased therefore to present my report today which i view as the latest in a number of steps which parliament has taken to drive forward the better law making agenda.
partiality risks fatally undermining this process.
we must also do our duty here in parliament and my report calls for systematic engagement by committees and meps with our new internal impact assessment unit in order to aid the committees' work of scrutinising proposals.
we must reject entirely policy based evidence and insist on evidence based policy making from the commission.
these may originate at the incubation stage in the commission and find themselves added during parliament or council readings or through gold plating in member states.
where we need freedom we find recommendations green papers and communications yet where we need action such as the completion of the single market efforts are sidelined by delayed implementation and long awaited follow up reports.
it is clear that in cases where european regulations would adversely affect our smallest businesses excessively legislation should be left to a more local level where national nuisances can be appropriately addressed.
all too often brussels is described as a distant and inaccessible bureaucracy imposing rules from afar.
as rapporteur now for two reports on better law making i am keenly aware also of internal problems faced throughout the institutions.
it becomes an easy punchbag in domestic politics where unwelcome decisions are disowned and cast as brussels calamities whilst positive achievements are reclaimed and touted as national triumphs.
for instance concerning impact assessments.
it is today still occasionally remarked to me that any legislation at the european level is automatically bad either it imposes excessive or unnecessary burdens or it removes power from national governments or local authorities or it fulfils any number of other stereotypes used to describe european legislation.
we should however look to go further and i am pleased that parliament is able to affirm its commitments towards extending exemptions beyond micro entities to small and possibly medium sized entities where this would be justified.
too often the added value achieved by taking action at the european level is lessened by heavy handed obligations or ill conceived provisions.
i consider that this in conjunction with the commission's routine presentation in their impact assessment at any initial exchange of views on legislative dossiers would represent a significant step forward for evidence based policy making in parliament.
i will reserve my remaining comments for the two minutes which i get after the debate has taken place.
laws crafted and adopted at the european level help companies across europe and from beyond to establish themselves in the largest market in the world with some five hundred million potential customers.
this is not sufficiently and robustly independent.
it is safe to say that we are not in the enviable position of having the perfect acquis.
essential in this regard is the impact assessment board within the commission.
it is encouraging that national parliaments have been able to finally take ownership of this avenue for expressing their views but sadly it remains a difficult path to take successfully.
i am constantly frustrated by impact assessments accompanying proposals which are clearly prepared to justify a certain policy choice.
when we move forward with legislation and we have a very heavy agenda in this parliament regarding standardisation of processes genuinely helpful measures become deeply unhelpful because they are applied in different ways.
therefore hopefully we take away their need sometimes to take those actions at a later stage.
post lisbon and prior to the steady march into the unknown as announced by president barroso yesterday the best we can do is behave in a way our people can support reform and take our people with us.
the circumstances dictate that this work is required.
even now their biggest complaint of unnecessary burdens remains the same and it is justified.
it is quite clear that there is a very real need for reform of our processes. the greater involvement of national parliaments and parliamentarians is something that needs to be introduced in a streamlined way so that our legislation takes full account of local factors where it is necessary for them to be included and indeed provides us with much greater scope to decide whether we actually need to legislate at all.
mr president may i firstly thank all colleagues who took time to contribute to the debate.
it therefore gives me great pleasure to be able to move this report today to ensure that people are aware that we are taking their grievances on board.
i knew only too well the burdens placed on smes sometimes unnecessarily.
with citizens still feeling we are too distant national parliamentarians remaining ill informed of our processes and a breakdown in confidence in our ability to face the huge challenges our union now has we must look to see where we can reform and improve.
national parliaments today have the opportunity to be involved in our processes right from the outset.
we have also strengthened the voice of stakeholders by extending the minimum period for public consultation from eight weeks to twelve weeks as of the beginning of this year.
a central element of the commission's approach is a strengthening of the involvement and consultation of small businesses in better law making.
when they need to be covered we should seek to find adapted solutions and lighter regimes for both micros and smes and their impact should be analysed as an integral part of the impact assessment process.
your report emphasises the importance of respect for the principle of subsidiarity when drawing up legislative proposals and stresses the importance of the participation of regional parliaments with legislative powers in this process.
it should lead to better policy at the end of the decision making process and is a joint responsibility.
the commission is committed to making progress on smart regulation and looks forward to working with parliament the council and the member states to ensure effective delivery as a joint responsibility.
the commission strives to continuously improve its impact assessment system for instance by providing services with further operational guidance on the assessment of specific impacts such as sector competitiveness fundamental rights or smes. the president has reinforced the role of the impact assessment board so that in principle a positive opinion from the iab
now all significant proposals must in principle be based on an evaluation of what is already in place.
furthermore a follow up to the two thousand and ten smart regulation communication taking stock of the progress made and drawing lessons from experience is planned for adoption around the end of this year.
we are also focused on further improving implementation and consultation.
a twelve week public consultation was launched on twenty seven june.
is needed before a proposal can be put forward for a commission decision.
the scoreboard will be updated on a yearly basis.
we are working on further developments to improve the way we do this.
the commission is willing to exchange views share methodology and background to its assessments with the parliament as already agreed in the common approach to impact assessments. we should all bear in mind of course that an impact assessment is not an end in itself.
after all we regularly encourage national parliaments to consult regional parliaments with legislative powers where appropriate in the process of subsidiarity scrutiny as set out in the treaty.
it is a welcome contribution to the smart regulation agenda which the report acknowledges as a shared responsibility.
the commission has also initiated a review of its consultation policy.
this is indeed a very important objective to have in view.
i must emphasise that the commission is already tackling the areas that have been mentioned in the report especially in relation to subsidarity issues where the commission has been very active in facilitating national parliament subsidarity checks.
yes we should make international laws only where we actually need international laws;
and yes where we make laws they should be clear and easy to understand.
yes we need to think much harder about the consequences of our laws.
our impact assessments are not good enough and then parliament flings in amendments without thinking about the consequences.
yes we need to work more closely with our national parliaments and i would add our local authorities who often have to deal with our red tape.
yes we must be aware of the burden of bureaucracy on our small companies and especially on micro businesses tiny businesses which in many cases should be excluded from much of our international law.
a fund to help redundant workers retrain and upskill has already been cut to the bone in budget negotiations and we are trying to get agreement to move it forward but there is none.
as i said commissioner the language is right you said we must do what it takes to deal with unemployment.
commissioner andor said last january that the social dimension of the emu was crucial for the legitimacy of the european project and that the proper functioning and public acceptance of the emu could only be guaranteed if steps to strengthen discipline legitimacy and solidarity were taken simultaneously.
it is incredible and i cannot believe that some members of the council will say to eu citizens we won't fund this programme.
what does that say to all the young people that are unemployed across the eu?
yes we have heard lots about fiscal discipline but solidarity and legitimacy must ring very hollow to those whose bank deposits were raided in cyprus or to greek unemployed citizens now who have no access to healthcare or to the millions of young people across europe who are unemployed.
so the language is right but what about the deeds?
if we look at the youth guarantee at the moment again there is disagreement about its inclusion in the social fund it is only a recommendation.
that is true but those steps have not been taken simultaneously.
this is the responsibility of the member states'.
i look for example at what is happening with the globalisation fund where there is still a blocking minority in council.
so the european institutions are not working together to solve these problems.
but if you look at what is happening right now there is a huge gap between our words and our deeds.