kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this will therefore address some of the concerns that we have heard expressed here today during this debate.
mr president this is a very technical issue but a very important one for our consumers and many of the details they perhaps do not need to know.
however what they do need is to be reassured that this change if it comes about guarantees them a high level of protection in terms of what they consume.
i also spoke to the irish food safety authority which agrees with the commission proposal this risk based strategy.
and indeed as others have suggested this change may allow and should allow for better visual examination and for carcasses to be taken off the line where there is a problem.
i think people need to be aware of that.
ultimately i believe that this can work where the official veterinarian does the job of the official veterinarian and literally takes away carcasses which they have any concerns about at all and that they are the final arbiter of what goes into the food chain.
so initially i had some reservations about this and i listened to those who work in the industry on the line and indeed in the industry and those associated with it on the food safety side and i now can support my colleague mr schnellhardt in his recommendations because he is an expert on these issues.
with respect to enlargement and neighbourhood these regions require that we focus our attention on the rule of law and fundamental freedoms. we must continue to engage with our partners in these countries and pay attention to their political developments.
a few months ago we witnessed how the trump administration reinstated and expanded the global gag rule. this is a breach of human rights that will jeopardise efforts to fight diseases such as aids zika or malaria and to reduce high risk births and child mortality.
in that sense it is fundamental that the eu and its member states fill the financing gap left by the us in this field.
in bahrain at least one hundred and sixty nine peaceful critics have been targeted in the space of a year.
nabeel rajab is a prisoner of conscience; he deserves our full support and resolute action. in turkey the situation is truly appalling.
madam president last year i condemned the global clampdown on civil society and human rights defenders but sadly the situation is only getting worse.
many human rights defenders lawyers academics civil society representatives trade unionist activists judges journalists civil servants and artists face trumpedup charges of terrorism.
ten the eu must uphold its human rights commitments in assisting civil society actors worldwide as stated in the eu action plan on human rights and democracy two thousand and fifteen two thousand and nineteen and the eu global strategy.
ms mogherini i urge you to call for the immediate release of mr rajab in bahrain and all jailed human rights defenders in turkey and to concretely engage with defenders well before they are put on trial.
the european union's ambiguous relationship with mr erdogan is unacceptable and our policy must change.
in the gulf where many eu member states including the united kingdom have strategic and economic interests the situation of human rights defenders remains catastrophic.
last week bahrain activist nedal al salman was banned from travelling to the eu ngo forum on human rights and as we speak nabeel rajab is serving a two year sentence solely for speaking to the media.
missions. as rightly pointed out in your report a special focus is now given to the follow up of our missions' recommendations.
when we work for better institutions or to open up the space for civil society or for free and independent media we are also contributing to resilience and to sustainable
we are facing a global problem.
this feeling of exclusion is one of the great enemies of our democracies.
girls. no continent is
of. two thousand and eighteen today we would like to focus on three issues in particular.
one could even call it a political or cultural problem.
interest. in these difficult times we have become an even more indispensable partner for all those who believe in human rights and work
world. the second issue is violence against women and
i thank the rapporteur for her openness during the negotiations and i am happy to see that issues which were proposed by my group were extensively supported by the other groups and are now in the final report.
we should not censor ourselves when speaking about violations of human rights and democracy in the world without referring to particular cases countries and regimes.
we should not be shy in naming and shaming abusive state and non state actors.
the aim of the report is also to be a supportive instrument for the work of the european external action service as well as to the eu delegations in the third countries.
i believe that speaking openly and stating the facts about undemocratic regimes will strengthen the significance of our work and its impact on the design of eu external policies.
meps of other countries will dictate the terms of downgrading for the medium sized countries concerned yet if their voters are dissatisfied with those who have voted for their downgrade they cannot remove them at the ballot box.
now we hear of proposals to force the uk to hold its elections on a sunday to force the use of european political party names and to dictate the contents of political broadcasts.
there can be few better examples of how undemocratic the european union is.
mr president although the united kingdom does not appear to be in danger of diminished representation this proposal must be roundly condemned.
go ahead just see how that plays to the people of the uk.
likewise any member of the european council safe in their own country is immune from democratic accountability.
in the various schemes that are mooted in this report it is the medium sized countries that will be downgraded.
but i do accept that it is the most practical one especially considering the very tight timescale we face to complete the task in good time for the next european elections.
it is not though an ideal solution;
in an ideal world i should like to see a formula adopted where the number of meps allocated to each nation state is more closely related to their population.
the rapporteurs have taken the view that in order to get this legislation through the council and through this house no country apart from germany should lose more than one seat.
moreover we all know that the political balance in the institutions does not only depend on the repartition of seats in the european parliament.
i do hope we can achieve that in the future.
distinction in population merits two meps.
if i can explain the difference in terms of population between sweden and hungary is four hundred and seventy five zero people and we do not feel that this small
the report puts that question firmly on the agenda of the convention which we expect to start in the spring of two thousand and fifteen plus the important question of transnational lists and i believe that
that the principle of digressive proportionality is breached.
before an election in a transparent and straightforward manner and i believe that this formula will surely be close to the cambridge compromise as delivered to afco two years ago.
all these things need to be looked at.
this discriminates against small member states in particular.
this is supposed to be degressive proportionality in action. in actual fact it is a manifestation of depressive disproportionality as it discriminates against many member states especially small ones which one year off from elections do not know how many meps they are going to have and what their constituencies are going to be.
eleven that is the proposal when our population is soaring. this is not right and i do not believe that the principle of digressive proportionality has been determined.
look the reality is that we are being judges in our own cause and that is wrong in principle.
the geese think it is a great idea because they are not losing.
let me ask this question why do we need seven hundred and fifty one seats?
this may well be challenged in the courts.
i could accept that but we have gone down from fifteen to thirteen to twelve now to.
regarding the composition of parliament in two thousand and fourteen i would like to make one prediction the uk political party most likely to come first and return the highest number of meps will be the uk independence party.
indeed we came second out of the uk political parties in.
this will reflect the growing mood of the british population and will be another important milestone on the road to achieving britain's withdrawal from the european union.
two thousand and nine we did so precisely because we are dedicated to taking britain out of the european union.
but as others have rightly said it is a temporary solution and the report recognises that in two thousand and fifteen we have to come up with a more long term solution that can apply to all circumstances so that we do not have to negotiate between member states;
i hope having had this endorsement from the council that the member states will now get on and ratify those dates for the election.
mr president i am afraid i am going to join the broad consensus and welcome this report and congratulate the rapporteurs on an excellent job.
two thousand and fourteen that is a thursday to a sunday so there is no threat to britain's right to vote on a thursday.
it was not easy but they came up as others have said with a pragmatic workable solution which enables us to reach a position in time for next year's european elections.
if we compare germany's ninety nine seats with ireland's twelve it becomes clear to see the challenges we face in making sure small peripheral countries such as ireland remain at the heart of europe's decision making.
if the number of seats is reduced it will become even more difficult to follow legislation across the twenty two different committees in parliament.
ireland has only twelve seats out of over seven hundred and fifty which means we are already stretched to capacity to ensure that irish voices are heard on key issues such as the cap.
the key principle of digressive proportionality is that countries with smaller populations should have a more favourable ratio of population to seats than the larger member states.
this has considerable implications for the effective representation of ireland particularly across the twenty two committees.
small and medium sized countries are suffering at the expense of the larger countries.
especially for some of the members from the smaller and medium sized member states who are personally influenced by the proposals that we put on the table.
i mean this is one of those rare occasions when the european parliament has the right of initiative and i think that the most important thing is that we cannot shy away from that responsibility.
we decided with roberto to choose a pragmatic solution. what were the other options? asking for more seats?
i think that would be the worst possible signal in today's crisis and seriously could we think of ourselves asking for more seats?
that would be the only posture coming from the european parliament. i do not think that that is the way forward.
the other option was to ask for a radical overhaul of the system.
it is true that if we wanted to have a smooth progression from the smallest to the biggest state when it comes to the number of citizens represented by a single member of this house with the bigger the member state the more citizens a given member of this house represents we would have to have a more radical solution where some member states would gain seats and some would lose
more than one.
but could we realistically see a radical solution accepted either by this house or by the council?
we decided that for the moment no state should lose more than one seat and that no state should gain seats.
such a profound change can only be made when other institutional questions are up for review because our institutional set up is based on the balance between what happens in the european parliament and what happens in the council.
my view is that we can only have a radical solution in conjunction with other institutional reforms;
most importantly with the weighting of votes in the council which is not now up for discussion.
we will however and i can promise you that come back to that issue in the near future when maybe we can have a system which is a little bit more far reaching.
our system in this house when it comes to seats is that of digressive proportionality.
we looked at the historical development when it was the biggest states which were progressively losing seats.
the system is skewed to their disadvantage.
that is why we decided to remedy that.
no wonder that we used it as a point of reference.
that is why we care very much about the relationship between representativeness on the one hand and demography on the other.
that is why we proposed what we proposed.
although i understand why some of you have submitted amendments we as rapporteurs cannot support amendments which question either the rationale or the main principles of our thinking and of our report.
for us to be effective for our proposal to carry the day in the council we need a strong majority in this house backing our report and therefore even though i know that for some of you it will not be easy i ask you to support our compromise.
not because this is the best compromise in the ideal world but i think that there is simply no other solution visible on the short term horizon.
thank you very much for your support and i hope that we can tackle the issue at least for the moment.
should it not be done without politicians making these decisions and just determined by independent bodies as is done in the uk?
ms guillaume i have to ask you do you think that you can change the whole distribution of seats in the european parliament without changing the council? there is a balance between institutions and what you want is really to unbalance this
indeed it should be the automatic consequence of enlargement.
the eu admits a new member state and the new member state has the right to representation.
in reality as we know only too well the process is far from trouble free. despite valiant attempts to base the redistribution of mandates on a technical or even a technocratic formula the hard reality is that politics cannot be expelled from an issue as political as this one.
then there is the question of how mandates should be distributed at all.
the principle of digressive proportionality is there to ensure that small and medium sized states are not disadvantaged and are not under represented politically.
if they were to be so under represented then their voice would be even weaker than is the case and large states need to be reminded that european integration is not a large state monopoly.
if the eu is to work as an even handed democratic body then the status of the smaller states as equals in terms of respect must be given cast iron safeguards. we know only too well from the history of europe what happens when large states regard smaller states as their satellites where they are free to do as they will.
the rules are there to ensure stability.
the same holds true for the redistribution of mandates. there must be rules. in this instance the logic of redistribution is that no state should lose more than one mandate and equally that digressive proportionality should be secured.
those who seek to overturn these two fundamental principles are threatening the very bases of european integration and thereby run the risk of encouraging anti european sentiments.
my presence on that committee is for finding out what it is doing and reporting it back to the people of britain because many people in britain do not understand what is going on here and it is certainly being shielded from them by the conservative party.
conflicts like the one in east congo have taught us that peace is not possible unless the link between military and business is broken. an important step has been taken in myanmar with the signing of the extractive industries transparency initiative but this will lead to change only if implementation is made a priority.
we have seen major economies like thailand and malaysia backslide on human rights issues lately so i welcome the investment protection negotiations that have been re launched and i would like to ask a representative of the commission if they were here or the high representative
the eu needs to support the new leadership in tackling these major concerns and maintaining a positive dynamic in the asean.
the eu has the capacity to provide an important supportive role in the changes that will inevitably occur.
the plight of ethnic minorities needs to be urgently addressed and although both the military and allies of the newlydefeated government have promised to respect these election results the real test will be to accommodate these groupings within the new regime to ensure stability and a more fruitful future.
the main priorities for engagement democracy peace trade and development and myanmar's re engagement with the international community continue to be valid.
the military will continue to occupy twenty five of parliamentary seats and regardless of who forms the next government three key ministers will come from the army.
two rounds of human rights dialogue led by the eu special representative for human rights have taken place since. two thousand and fourteen myanmar ranks high on our democracy support agenda and we will look into appropriate follow up with a view to implementation of the recommendations of the eom which will be presented early next year.
two thousand and fifteen with other donors we are setting up a joint peace fund to further encourage the process.
despite these challenges we believe that we have witnessed landmark elections offering a great opportunity to strengthen democracy in myanmar. the next critical stage will be the election of the new president in mid february two thousand and sixteen and the formation of the next government by the end of march.
the disenfranchisement of the rohingya and other ethnic minorities remains a matter of concern.
i would like to take this opportunity to thank graf lambsdorff for his commitment and his excellent work as eu chief observer.
the people have voted for change expressing a strong desire to live in a new free and democratic myanmar.
we are pleased to say that the european union has been at the forefront of international support for democratic transition in myanmar and we very much appreciate that the european parliament has played a very important role in this respect.
in some ethnic areas no election took place on security grounds.
as myanmar steps into the future the scope of our engagement underlines the eu's strong commitment to further supporting the country's democratisation.
last but not least the eu and myanmar are currently negotiating an investment protection agreement and the eu is also part of a labour rights initiative together with other partners.
two thousand and sixteen although aung san suu kyi has yet to reveal the priorities of the new government we can expect that democracy human rights the rule of law and economic development will be high on the agenda. while myanmar can count on our support there are still issues of concern on which we will continue to constructively engage with myanmar.
in recognition of our assistance in the peace process the eu was invited to sign the nationwide ceasefire agreement as an international witness on fifteen october.
the eu is also worried about buddhist radicalisation which has resulted in legislation on the protection of race and religion that is not consistent with the country's international human rights obligations.
eu myanmar relations have come a long way since.
two thousand and thirteen the eu and myanmar have stepped up cooperation in the area of human rights.
two thousand and thirteen everything but arms trade preferences was also reinstated that year.
from running for president.
aung san suu kyi has said little on this issue and it appears that there is little appetite from the nld to prioritise the fate of the rohingyas instead preferring to focus on state and democracy building in myanmar. in achieving these goals there is still a long way to go. but myanmar may yet prove to be a good example of a transition to pluralist democracy a process that must be measured in decades and not in years.
one thousand nine hundred and ninety the democratic transition over the next few months and years will be difficult and it is important that the european union offers all advice and support where appropriate and necessary.
so keeping the roadmap to democracy on track will be a challenge.
but much power is still vested in the national defence and security council which is outside of the elected government's control.
they have been denied voting rights in the latest election on the basis of being unable to prove their citizenship.
myanmar's transition to democracy will also be a very welcome addition and boost to the democratic credentials of asean.
the crucial question however is what will happen now? the process brought the country closer to democracy.
however there is still a lot to be done.
at the same time national reconciliation and inclusiveness need to be high on the agenda.
so there is both a social and an economic dimension to transport which we have to take into account.
it is very sustainable but it is entirely impractical for the job i do. what we need are very practical sustainable transport solutions.
on the issue of a transport fund i would regret any attempt to rob peter to pay paul. our big battle is to secure an adequate budget for the european union in its entirety post.
can i also add that there has rightly been a lot of talk about urban transportation and the need to have systems that link together but let us not forget the numbers of people who live in isolated rural communities where rural transport schemes on a small scale mean that they can get involved in the wider society.
etc. i am also particularly concerned about the citizens' perspective. we need to provide increased security and uniform passenger rights which will stimulate the use of collective transport.
i would like to emphasise a particular point that the report and the entire work of this committee point to. transport is a sector that is crucial in many respects for competitiveness for the environment and for social and territorial cohesion.
i believe that efforts to provide better mobility solutions to citizens and businesses can go hand in hand with a transport system that emits less co two and that would help our transport industry to remain in the lead both on logistics and on transport equipment. the way to do this is by looking
the commission is supporting the development of new vehicle types by funding research and establishing standards. but national and local authorities also have great responsibilities for instance in ensuring that land use planning minimises congestion and unnecessary
roads. finally we acknowledge that innovative thinking is needed to preserve personal mobility while reducing co two emissions.
it is a policy area that deserves all our efforts and attention. i am happy that we have managed to give transport an important role in the commission's eu two thousand and twenty strategy. i am also glad to see that the approach proposed by the commission in the communication a sustainable future for transport' is to a large extent shared by parliament. the calls for efficient comodality and for the completion of the single market are fully in line with our intention to achieve a single transport area in which modes are seamlessly integrated and obstacles to open and efficient markets are removed.
we also need to be ambitious in terms of safety on our
finances are always controversial especially today.
sergei ivanov the kremlin's chief of staff says and i quote the military aim of our operations will exclusively be to provide air support to syrian government forces in the struggle against isis.
our group has always stressed that the only solution in syria the only way in which we can create a safe environment for people to return to is a political solution.