kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the question i would put to you is this would you like a single seat in strasbourg?
if the answer is yes' as i suspect it is for some members then surely we need to agree the principle of a single seat and then agree that a future parliament can take that decision.
you may want to correct that.
here i am afraid that most colleagues would instinctively say that b' means brussels.
and why brussels?
zagreb has much nicer weather than brussels!
europe has once again enlarged and all those who hurry to brussels should take that into account.
so let us vote for this report and make it clear that we are not going to misuse the new right to name the seat.
it has been named.
it is in strasbourg. in order to achieve economic efficiency and environmental targets the solution is as simple as that let us stop travelling to brussels.
in addressing. it is not an accident that they do not have the access to our markets
only minimal quantities. moreover they import from different
of establishments. only four were
this is an important vindication of the effective controls that the eu maintains on
i now want to turn to your specific questions.
issue. first how can the commission guarantee to european citizens that these dishonest trading practices in the food supply chain will not be allowed to happen
approved for export. that is of course four establishments too many which is why we immediately banned them
to the eu; second not to propose any new establishment for approval for export
our citizens want strong and transparent action and a high level of protection and that is what i am committed to giving them. i also want to address the claim that i did not provide comprehensive answers when i appeared before you in
the meat scandal in brazil was of course shocking and european consumers naturally have legitimate concerns.
our priority should always be to protect the health of our consumers.
this crisis must be solved and we must ensure that it does not happen again. i believe that the eu has taken these concerns seriously.
on revelation of the scandal the eu suspended meat imports from brazil but these restrictions must stay in place until we can be certain that there are no risks.
the brazilian authorities have to show they have implemented all the necessary measures for their inspection system and safety checks and in this regard i welcome a second audit by the commission at the end of this year.
after years of deadlock these negotiations have been revived and i call on the commission to use this political momentum on both sides to continue pushing forward.
this agreement will bring many opportunities for our businesses and consumers and should thus not be overshadowed by this scandal.
nineteen eu countries already have paternity leave and making a statement of intent to extend this meagre entitlement to fathers is the right thing to do.
in ireland we have a good level of maternity leave and also an option for eight weeks' unpaid leave but the situation for fathers is nowhere near as good.
fathers in fact can be very badly treated in the justice system across the eu and workers in general have made huge sacrifices through cuts in pay hours and allowances. it is time that we recognised this and granted fathers paternity leave.
it is therefore necessary to give priority to addressing barriers to women's participation in the labour market and men's more active involvement in caring duties.
that would be a starting point in order to move forward on this issue.
i think that compromises from both sides are needed but this can be achieved only through debates and not by taking the issue off the agenda.
if the answer is no the council should then present the latest and lowest common denominator position.
what is poland planning to do to facilitate a compromise?
mr president i would like to say to the minister that this debate is not about time schedules for breastfeeding but all about priorities priorities of men and women and priorities of the european union. like men women should also have the right both to work and have a family without having to choose. in the europe two thousand and twenty strategy we aim to reach a seventy five employment rate for women.
would the council agree to a gradual implementation of the directive?
in the eu we are working towards a competitive and inclusive economy.
the maternity leave directive is stuck with the council.
thinking that all the responsibilities of having children should be endured by women alone is outdated but unfortunately still reality. we should promote shared responsibility and stress the role of both parents in raising children.
to achieve this immediate measures are necessary.
what is your stance towards paternity leave? would you agree on our proposals regarding the length of maternity leave and the level of payments?
this comes straight from the commission factory and we shall oppose this job destroying proposal.
in addition minister you plan to extend minimum parental leave from three months to four months for each parent.
that is separate from the maternity leave with one month of the four not transferable to the other parent.
otherwise you intend to give member states two years to amend their laws though how you can say their' laws i do not know.
sometimes i think this parliament talks too much and is not willing to listen to member states' concerns.
the women's rights committee is now trying to push its overreaching expensive and unnecessary proposal onto the council.
early this year i was practically a lone voice in the committee calling for a reassessment of the directive and i wish to state again what i said in the past.
it is not right for businesses and it is not right for member states' governments in a time of economic recession.
twenty weeks of fully paid compulsory maternity leave two weeks' fully paid paternity leave and breast feeding breaks of three hours a day are totally unrealistic.
there is a reason why the council is blocking these proposals.
the council is the last line of defence a member state has;
national governments are sending us a powerful message and it is time we listened.
we should have listened months ago and amended this directive to make it workable for all the stakeholders. time and again rigid rules supported by so called social dimensions triumph over common sense.
we need to be more flexible.
we did not listen so now we are paying the price.
i wish he had better news. every part of the draft directive is equally important. however i think that we have to look at a broader perspective here for a moment because it seems to me that we cannot see the wood for the trees. we need these directives yes we do need them for our children's health and for the inclusion of women in the labour market so that more children are born. we simply do not have a choice in this matter given the problem of an ageing society.
is the time perfect?
what do the raif badawis in the prisons of the world think when they hear that this report elaborates on financial transactions and labour standards?
however let me be quite frank here today.
more importantly we divide and divert the attention given to those who really need our engagement for human rights.
of course in the end all committees of this house have dealt and deal with issues which have something to do with humans.
the annual report shows us that globalisation does not only send goods and money and investments around the world but also values and good ideas.
therefore in order to send a signal the ecr political group will this time abstain.
what do they think when they hear that there are demands of social dialogues and labour standards medical policies and climate change?
mr president as a long time member of amnesty international i have to come to the conclusion that this parliament can be the most effective advocate of human rights in the world.
but if the subcommittee on human rights keeps on ever expanding the definition of human rights then we might as well close down all other committees of this house.
in the course of the discussions with members of other political groups i have come to the conclusion that some of them misuse human rights to ride their ideological hobby horses.
today there are more democracies in the world than ever before. by the way i do not know of any democracy which does not have a market driven economic system implemented and more countries than ever have abolished the death penalty.
human rights are too often treated as a soft issue while i believe it is in our interest and of course it is our responsibility to be a beacon for those who are facing repression intimidation violence torture or even death.
we cannot allow these deals and our interests to overshadow the key issue of human rights.
as we speak in europe today refugees and asylum seekers are treated and talked about in inhumane ways.
in reality their success and the ability of the eu to push for real change depends on our willingness to lead politically.
that does not do justice to the painful lessons we have learned in history or to the promise this continent has for the next generation.
we can only lead credibly if it is by example.
i really want to object to this kind of cynical deal making and urge all of us to recognise that we are at a critical moment in a changing world and it is important that we give meaning to our responsibilities.
particularly the young generation growing up in for example north africa and the middle east looks to europe and sees a lot of deal making deals with turkey on refugees deals with iran on the nuclear problem.
on the other hand european instruments guidelines programmes and budget lines offer many opportunities for solutions.
i know there is strong opposition on this issue but on other issues like the working group on private security companies we may not agree but we attend.
it is a primary responsibility of the european union to find the ways and means of how to be more effective in dealing with freedom of expression freedom of thought conscience and religion and freedom of assembly and association.
first of all it is for us the european union and its member states to make sure that we will remain an example to be followed.
the tendencies are rather worrisome.
secondly it is time to come back to the very basics.
to me this only proves two main things.
defending human rights is becoming an ever harder challenge for all of us in particular promoting and helping to protect a healthy space for civil society organisations.
but at the same time we need to work harder to secure inclusion.
we need more equality and more human rights not less.
challenging landscape.
in that regard you are of course our privileged
restrictive laws have emerged imposing unjustified and complicated procedures for the registration of associations or restrictions on their funding in particular from foreign sources.
civil society organisations in our neighbourhood and beyond need our support more than ever.
of course the action plan looks at a number of other priorities. this includes a number of topics that you recall in your report and which we have many times discussed together.
welcome. our work does not end but begins with the adoption of the action plan. putting it into practice will be a living process where all actors will make their contribution.
we also want to make social and economic rights increasingly part of our human rights policy.
however while the years ahead will continue to be challenging for the european union our approach cannot change.
and we decided to strongly condemn in the opinion the use of harmful practices on women and the use of rape as a weapon of war.
human rights must be at the core of our development agenda. we therefore stressed the need to ensure that the two thousand and thirty agenda for sustainable development is underpinned by the human rights based approach.
a strong connection between insisting on human rights gender equality good governance peace and security and the goal of eradicating poverty and inequalities as well as achieving the social development goals in the world.
last but not least we reminded the commission and member states that agreements concluded with developing countries must include binding clauses on human rights and that the commission must conduct systematic human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements.
i believe that it is too early to say whether it should be prohibited or regulated in another way.
however i think there is a problem.
i just want to draw your attention to the fact that it is being discussed in several international institutions including the hague conference on private international law.
despite the deal we have to mention one of the most oppressive governments in the world and its activities in terms of human rights. hopefully it is not linked with the recent the visit of president schulz to tehran and his intention to intensify
it has to be taken into account.
dialogue.
it was a matter of complaint by minorities of various types both national and religious minorities.
mr president the human rights and democracy report before us is one of the most comprehensive that has been produced on the subject globally and is the result of hours of work by experts in the european institutions. i am proud that we in europe take a stand on behalf of those whose rights are denied around the world.
today at the close of two thousand and fifteen it is a sobering fact that millions suffer in syria and more refugees knock on our doors.
however the struggle for human rights continues.
it is a story of long campaigns and uneasy victories against conflict and poverty against prejudice and ignorance and against crime and justice and repression.
i see that in more cooperation in giving humane shelter to asylum seekers and people fleeing violence in the middle east but also in finding solutions to those wars.
it cannot be that we only recognise the importance of doing something when the challenge of violence through terrorism or the challenge of asylum seekers through refugees touches our own territory. our role in this world is connected to that of others and we have to work together in europe to come up with real solutions.
mr president it is pleasing indeed that this year's preda report has remained far more focused on fundamental core human rights issues in stark contrast to previous annual reports and i have spoken on many of them which included a host of less pressing and somewhat divisive issues way beyond the fundamental civil and political rights to include all sorts of new
social and economic areas which undermine and dilute the basic message we should be propagating.
our main focus in the european union should be to continue to stop people from being tortured unjustly imprisoned or executed and to intervene in countries run by extreme and brutal dictators not to constantly push the limits of the definition of human rights to include less significant economic and social dialogues.
increasingly the human rights concept is being extended and linked to the larger context of interdependence with other domains of eu activity and ambition including things such as trade negotiations.
the challenge is how to mainstream human rights into other areas of activity without losing our focus and risking our credibility.
house. together we can speak with one voice in upholding the universality of human rights and in supporting the democratic aspiration of our partners.
i hate to embarrass you on this one but i have been active on the issue of the return of the chagossians for many years and pursued it in the previous parliament.
unfortunately that is not the case for most islamic states where i think only turkey has abolished the death penalty.
although the eu strategic framework on human rights and democracy is big on words the eu has to step up its efforts if it wants to live up fully to its pledge of being an advocate of liberty democracy and human rights all over the world.
the deliberate targeting of human rights defenders is not acceptable.
not a single case.
the eu must be at the forefront of the protection and support of human rights defenders who are silenced attacked harassed put behind bars and murdered.
i hope that we can stick to the agreement found on the financing of iter which takes into account the concerns of both arms of the budgetary authority and strikes the right balance between fresh money and funds available within the existing expenditure ceilings.
the proposed revision of the current multiannual financial framework will provide the fresh money necessary to cover most of the additional financing needs of iter in two thousand. and twelve and two thousand and thirteen the fact that parliament and council are able to take such important decisions despite the current difficulties in national public finances is a sign that europe can and does work. so
let us focus on this let us move forward even in difficult times to promote projects that are expected to have a significant impact for the future of next generations.
we have to reflect on that and i think we can come up with a fruitful proposal relating to the upcoming two thousand and thirteen financial prospects of this project. i would like also to say that we understand the concerns of some member states but we have to stick to this agreement now and see what will happen in the future.
i would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his excellent work because this was really something very difficult to achieve. this is an experimental scientific project but we need to finance it since it is a major project and a major scientific challenge with great prospects.
the polish presidency has done a good job together with our rapporteur and others in negotiating to find an agreement that is reasonable.
there are no other options.
i am one of those who feel that this is the best solution that could be found but it does not make the outcome in any way satisfactory because we are still going to start redeploying money from heading one a and mainly from the framework programme for research to the iter project.
let me say very clearly also in the light of what has been said already concerning some voices within the council that if there are those in the council who find this agreement reached in the trialogue some weeks back unsatisfactory there are also many in parliament who find this solution very unsatisfactory.
a compromise is a compromise and this is a fair deal reached in a difficult economic situation.
the decision of the court is very clear that is why we think that legal certainty is there and there is really no need for further legal action on this point.
we consider that there is no need to propose new legislation to address the principle of unisex pricing in insurance services.
mr president the commission welcomes this report by the european parliament.
the commission will watch closely to see whether all member states have properly implemented the ruling in their respective national legislation.
i can inform you that the commission will report on the impact of the ruling in two thousand and fourteen in the context of a more general report on the implementation of this directive.
i would like to thank the european parliament for keeping gender equality in europe high on the political agenda.
promoting effective gender equality in the european union is and will continue to be a priority of the commission. as the rapporteur underlined and we would like to agree national equality bodies play an important role in this and the commission can reassure parliament that it will monitor properly
then the commission will also provide information about the outcome of the conformity checks of the national legislations.
the judgment of the court of justice of the european union is clear.
here we have to do our best.
then we can decide together what we are going to do.
i think there are many good reasons to report even before.
it is not only about legislation. i hear what the commission is saying about the reporting but i find that a very bureaucratic approach.
i hope that the commission will take that into account when reporting.
if you look at the actual reality that we are living in we know even without your report that there is very unequal provision of services to men and women.
before i make my remarks to the european commission maybe we could all remind providers of goods and services that they do not actually have to wait for the implementation of the directive to provide their services in an equal manner.
two thousand and fourteen let's face it even if the directive has been on the table since two thousand and four it is only a law on paper.
but my point was that when sexual and reproductive health services are provided sometimes there are restrictions which disproportionately or very one sidedly affect women.
mrs morvai i fully agree with you that it is a shared responsibility which is unfortunately not always the case in practice as we know.
this is what i was arguing for to make sure that women have access to the full range of services so that they have a choice.
they are the t' in the lgbt movement but the legislation on sexual orientation does not apply.
one of the things that they found is that a staggering thirty five of transgender persons say that they have faced physical assault in the last five years.
they deserve our protection but they are falling through the cracks in our policies.
not nearly enough people care about this group.
there are positive experiences when it comes to implementation of this directive but it is clear that further steps are necessary in certain areas.
i hear the points that some of you raised regarding my reference to the inclusion of the media and advertisements in the scope of the directive should there be revision?
i do not doubt that the industry uses reliable data and differentiation is not discrimination.
during the current crisis citizens keep losing trust and faith in the european union.
at the same time i do not think that including the media in this particular legislation would be the solution to that;
i think there might be other ways.
because you were talking about discrimination in this context in another way.
in line with the principles of better regulation that proposal had two objectives first to maintain specific rules for foods only when these are necessary to protect vulnerable population groups; and second to simplify
the co legislators agreed from the very beginning that it was time to abolish the concept of dietetic food a concept that is considered outdated today given the evolution of the food market over the past decade.
during the negotiations a very delicate point arose regarding rules on gluten free foods. i am pleased to see that the final agreement provides for the current rules on these products to be transferred and to fall within the regulation on food information to consumers.
therefore in this context i will now read again verbatim the statement made by the commission on this matter in implementing article eleven the commission will pay particular attention
these include the increased clarity that will be created by the union list of substances this list will replace three different lists currently scattered among existing legislation and the clear message to carry out work on lactose free foods and to further study complex issues such as growing up milks'
i share the same views as parliament on protecting infants and young children.
the current legislation by removing rules that have become unnecessary or even contradictory.
this includes infants young children and people with medical conditions.
by focusing on medical food and foods for infants and children the revised directive will make it easier to ensure quality and security while allowing consumers to make an informed choice.
i welcome the decision to have other foods such as so called sports foods and foods for people with gluten or lactose intolerance covered by the general food legislation.
the proposals do not cover the complex legal situation of so called growing up milks or toddlers' milks but instead refer the question back to the commissioner to take a view if necessary.
we need rules which are flexible enough to allow manufacturers to quickly create and bring to market new products which benefit patients.