kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
they are also largely supported by service providers and other stakeholders.
mr president a culture of criminal impunity is developing in russia with regard to the abuse of human rights activists. journalists who dare to challenge the official view of things are harassed;
ethnic minorities suffer disproportionately from violent crime which seems to go unsolved;
russia has got used to the equivocation of the eu.
this is clear from the way the union has reacted to russia's bullying of ukraine or russia's invasion and occupation of sovereign georgian territory last summer.
clearly there are vital strategic questions at stake in the eu having good relations with russia but we cannot allow these questions to erase our obligation to speak out for our fundamental freedoms and shared european common values freedoms and values the russian people themselves should be enabled to share fully in peace and security.
the recent wave of violence against human rights defenders has put the spotlight on the grave dangers they run in the course of their work.
many have paid the ultimate price for bringing to light violations of human rights.
much of the violence against human rights defenders has taken place in the north caucasus against the background of growing instability.
innocent civilians law enforcement personnel and government officials have lost their lives in the ongoing struggle in the region.
the next eu russia summit is another opportunity to continue these discussions.
this must be complemented by exchanges among experts. the regular eu russia human rights consultations offer an opportunity to broaden the scope of these discussions and the range of interlocutors with whom we discuss human rights issues.
the safety of human rights defenders must be the first concern.
we urge the russian authorities to make every possible effort to ensure that those who work on shedding light on violations of human rights are able to do so without fear of violence or intimidation.
these abductions and murders are only the peak of what results from the deterioration of the human rights situation in russia where independent voices including lawyers journalists and other activists face increasing violence threats and unjustified prosecution. human rights violations in russia and especially in north caucasus can no longer be ignored.
we cannot be so naive as to believe that super powerful russia with one of the strongest intelligence services in the world is not capable of finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice.
we all regardless of our political colour have to understand that impunity for attacks against human rights defenders will contribute to more violence and a growing culture of lawlessness.
we know that the crucial thing that is lacking is a will to do that everything'.
it is not an urgent case and it is not even a breach of the rule of law' case. furthermore it comes at a terrible moment when brazil is facing the worst natural disaster in its history.
madam president the many threats to our security mean that it is vital that we continue to look into new ways to prevent crime and we should grasp the opportunities offered to us by the digital age.
but people are also concerned about government access to their data and misuse of that access and the impact on their privacy.
this directive strikes the right balance between clear guidelines for law enforcement agencies on the one hand and the importance of protecting people's privacy on the other.
for progressives in the european parliament it was key to make sure that this directive goes hand in hand with the one on pnr which allows us to share flight data the aim being to ensure that we have more tools to track terrorists without forcing the rest of us to give up our fundamental rights and privacy.
following the attacks in brussels it is even more evident that we need measures and we need to work together to ensure that information sharing between european countries operates properly.
we need to give intelligence agencies the tools to track terrorists.
by voting in favour of the pnr directive labour meps proved wrong those on the right and the eurosceptics who had been misleading the public with a smear campaign claiming we had been blocking progress on this.
today we voted for a directive that allows us to gather and share flight data of potential perpetrators of terrorist attacks between all the eu countries while making sure people's privacy is protected through a strong directive protecting personal data.
the answer was obvious the terrorists because if i am traveling from dublin to beirut new york sydney wherever why should i be afraid if the authorities have that information?
so what the european parliament secured today is a key update in data protection legislation that is vital to make these rules fit for a digital age.
the right to be forgotten parental permission for a child to open a social media account and the need for consent before processing personal data these are all incredibly important.
it shows that this parliament is acting in the interests of consumers giving them greater control over their personal data enabling them to make the right choices and the right decisions for themselves and for their families as well.
the goods of organised crime.
it really contributes to the development of the internal security strategy.
we fully share your view that the internal security strategy should be a shared agenda for all the institutions and the agencies with clear roles and responsibilities and a common goal.
the security of citizens is at the heart of all our efforts.
the internal security strategy provides the best platform to respond to security threats encompassing both policy setting and operational cooperation which is now taking shape in a cycle on serious and organised crime.
implementing the internal security strategy is about keeping promises on the five objectives.
there is no ranking between those objectives which are fighting and preventing serious and organised crime terrorism and cybercrime management of our external borders and building resilience to natural and man made disasters.
we have achieved quite a lot since the first publication for instance the report on confiscation of goods the establishment of the radicalisation awareness network the proposal on eu pnr and the proposal to establish a cyber centre.
we are also preparing for the end of this year reforms of cepol europol and eurojust which would as you call for improve the cooperation between police agencies but also on a national level.
this second report will assess the state of play of the previously promised actions including the policy cycle but we are also looking at the opportunities that security can offer in responding to the economic and financial crisis because of course this is also key in establishing an environment where people investors and companies
feel safe and secure.
we are here again in the shadow of more people and oil workers of different nationalities including eu citizens being abducted by terrorist groups such as is in libya.
terror groups remain in effective control of cities on libya's mediterranean border and as the situation evolves thousands of people are at risk of being displaced and will flee the terror and violence in any way they can.
our citizens are concerned and demand an adequate response from the eu.
i would appeal to all of you to put partisan considerations aside.
let us work towards helping to find concrete solutions for the crisis in libya and let us not wait until our seas have again become the deathbed of so many hopes and dreams.
i understand that the title has changed and that the liberals have changed their position but the substance is still very complicated and we still want this to be discussed first in the committee on employment because it is a very important and complicated discussion.
but i agree with mr milana that we must also strive to get our non eu partners on the same road to sustainably resourced management in order to achieve a level playing field and avoid disputes or at least settle them peacefully which is not always very
diagonal and regional strategies and initiatives.
this is the only way to go forward.
for example we are taking an initiative now and we would like to see how we can promote further the revision of the gfcm. we need the revision;
we need to enhance this organisation.
we need an improvement of data collection as a basis for sound scientific advice and the use of regional fisheries management plans and mechanisms to fight illegal unreported fishing.
the commission will continue to play its role as guardian of the treaties negotiator and coordinator but member states and partner countries must also do their part to achieve sustainable exploitation with a low impact on the environment.
the establishment of exclusive economic zones is a competence of the member states who should also work together on sea cooperation amongst themselves and with partner countries in order to improve resource monitoring enforcement and coordination.
i am currently reflecting on a possible initiative to encourage member states to make the maximum use of their rights and obligations under the exclusive economic zones regime in order to enhance sustainable management of natural resources and to boost
we need such an initiative in the mediterranean. in conclusion i welcome this important report and appreciate the recognition of the commission's role in promoting a more solid and structured dialogue with third countries. i reassure you that the commission will do its utmost to improve governance resource management and enforcement in the black sea and the mediterranean.
mr president like all those who have spoken i am aware of the extent of the crisis in our agrarian sector.
any member who represents farmers knows that.
but the crisis is a product of our existing agricultural system the common agricultural policy which has had calamitous consequences for farmers in my part of the united kingdom.
and not only for farmers for our consumers for our taxpayers and indeed for the poor of the third world who find that their markets are denied and that they then have surpluses dumped on them.
we were gradually moving in the european union away from the system of direct support that had such deleterious environmental and economic consequences and now we are rushing back in.
i can tell you that in the united kingdom people have clear memories of how the milk quota system worked.
anyone who thinks that the european union is going in the direction of doing less and devolving power need only look at today's vote.
i would like first to comment on the first two proposals and then to turn to the third proposal on the issue of the further development of criminal justice within the eu.
i would like to underline that the procedure put in place by the two future regulations is devised in such a way as to ensure the integrity of community law. before authorising the negotiation of an agreement the commission will check that the envisaged agreement does not render community law ineffective or undermine the proper functioning of the system established
the commission will also check that the envisaged agreement does not undermine external relations policy as decided by the community.
as far as regional agreements are concerned the procedure established by the proposal in the area of the family law will apply to the amendment or renegotiation of two already existing conventions between the nordic states.
the procedure established in the two proposals is based on a high degree of trust and cooperation between the member states and the commission.
as the proposal in the area of applicable law is largely identical to the proposal in the area of family law it goes without saying that the amendments made to the first proposal have been taken over in the second proposal even though that proposal is not subject to the codecision procedure.
the council very much agrees on the importance of mutual recognition as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the eu. we consider that it should both be broadened by adopting other legal instruments in the future and deepened through a more effective implementation
i think the european parliament is putting down a firm marker regarding its ambitions for a european criminal justice area in the future with the twin ambition of bringing criminals to justice and upholding the rights of defendants and victims.
the report rightly highlights key issues like the need for monitoring implementation of legislation; boosting the training of judges prosecutors and defence lawyers;
the european arrest warrant is an effective instrument for bringing criminals to justice and i strongly regret that the british conservatives opposed it.
however we must ensure and governments must ensure that european arrest warrants are not misused for trivial issues like pursuing people who stole a pig or did not pay a hotel bill.
nor must it be abused for fishing expeditions for questioning rather than the proper focus on return for charge and prosecution.
so the member states must show they deserve that trust by having high quality legal systems and respecting for instance the european convention on human rights and strasbourg court judgements. we cannot have people returned via european arrest warrants to an eu country who are then sent back to a third country for torture.
if defiance of strasbourg happens then the fundamental rights safeguards in the european arrest warrant must be invoked.
we must also try and ensure that the quality of criminal justice legislation is better in the future.
eu wide justice and high legal standards are crucial for our citizens when they travel work and set up businesses in other countries and when people have to try and explain themselves in a foreign language.
it is high time that we made sure that anyone caught up in the criminal justice system of another member state was made aware of their rights and obtained proper legal assistance interpretation and translation.
i hope they are going to change their minds in the future.
madam president in recent years we have witnessed an ongoing campaign to suppress freedom of religious expression. christian nurses have been disciplined for offering to pray with patients and only today lillian ladele a christian registrar who was told to perform civil partnerships or face dismissal has lost her case for religious discrimination at the court of appeal in the united kingdom.
equality laws have failed to protect christians indeed quite the opposite.
an amendment to the equality bill to protect the religious liberty of churches was voted down in the house of commons two weeks ago amid accusations of interference from the eu commission.
the commission in their reasoned opinion argued that the uk needs to narrow the religious liberty safeguard in its employment laws.
i say shame on the commission.
there must be a recognition that people have faith and have the right to express that faith.
christians ought to be protected and not punished by the law.
what you are saying in your resolutions is that the rights of a national state are above the rights of individual citizens.
it is our job in this house to protect the rights of citizens not the rights of states.
secondly if we consider as you claim that this is not a matter for the european union i would like to understand why these matters are included in the copenhagen criteria and why we demand from candidate countries that they respect the separation of church and state when we cannot demand that of our own member states.
thirdly colleagues if you say that the european parliament is not competent to talk about these matters i wonder why we are competent to discuss matters like the shape of cucumbers but not the fundamental rights of our citizens.
would it not be incomprehensible if we at the same time refused to accept the authority of the court of strasbourg?
we cannot explain that to our citizens.
let the judges do their jobs.
we may have an opinion we may like the ruling or we may not like it but we should not interfere in their work.
my group the alde group the european liberals is the champion of a europe that is for all citizens.
alde believes in a europe of diversity where everybody has the right to their own conscience their own religion and even the freedom from religion.
the states not the courts the states must ensure an environment where all citizens can live freely according to their own conscience.
they should be protected by the state and i think the situation is very serious if they feel the need to go to court in order to defend themselves from the states.
colleagues reject the epp and ecr resolutions.
we know that passenger rights is a very important subject and one in which this house has taken a great interest.
the proposals before us contain a number of welcome initiatives for bus and coach passengers especially for the disabled. but as always with this type of report we see a one size fits all' approach in that what works for aviation and the rail sector is applied to a wholly different structure. some examples of
this problem include how to inform passengers of their rights and also liability levels which in parliament's view could mean companies having to pay the costs for example of funerals before any liability has been determined.
such proposals will certainly increase the cost to the consumer.
there is also the question which has been referred to of exempting purely local services which i personally support.
the very nature of bus and coach travel is very different to other sectors.
to impose prescriptive and costly obligations on these businesses will do nothing but force prices up or restrict the number of routes on which people can travel as it becomes uneconomic to maintain these services.
i would like to reaffirm the importance of this legislation for each and every citizen travelling in europe which includes every one of us here.
major controversial issues are the scope of applications;
the provisions on liability and assistance to meet the immediate practical needs of passengers in the case of accident;
unfortunately it was not possible to find an agreement and the commission regrets that. a strong vote by the plenary in favour of a high level of protection for bus and coach passengers would be a good sign. personally i want to stay optimistic and think that compromise in conciliation is
still possible.
mr president what we have before us today are the final two pieces of the passenger rights jigsaw covering maritime and bus and coach dossiers.
however the failure as yet to agree a formula on bus and coach travel is disappointing but we will carry on trying in the intermediate period to have an agreement.
therefore an agreement or deal which does not include buses and coaches is a pretty worthless and incomplete deal. we cannot accept the exclusion of the vast majority of bus and coach services from the scope of this regulation.
we cannot accept the weakening of the rights of people with reduced mobility also in this regulation. and we cannot accept that this mode of transport is any different to any other. our rapporteur has done a good job in trying to find a compromise in this area.
the council have done nothing to facilitate any agreement and as usual have spent most of that time dragging their feet.
it is interesting that when passenger rights are on the agenda the council gets very negative and it is left to parliament to carry the banner for passengers.
parliament has a good record in defending passenger rights despite being faced by abuse by a certain airline chief and numerous moans and groans from transport operators. at the end of the day parliament will not tolerate abuse of passengers by operators;
it will not tolerate discrimination;
it will not tolerate certain sectors being left out.
we need to support our rapporteurs so that we can go into battle with council through conciliation with a very strong hand.
this commission has paid very close attention to the role which expert groups play in our policy making.
and we have laid down tougher internal rules in order to make sure that these groups carry out their function in full transparency and accountability exactly as asked.
let me stress just one thing because this is very basic.
expert groups provide very useful contributions to the work of the commission in many different policy fields of which many are highly technical and of a specialised nature.
but i think it is very important to recall that no matter what advice is given by expert groups they have a purely advisory role.
whatever their advice may be the responsibility for any decision or measure adopted remains the commission's and the commission's alone.
but when this commission took office we decided that the rules for expert groups needed to be reviewed so as to better reflect the commission's commitment to be more transparent and accountable. before adopting a new set of rules we listened to this parliament the european ombudsman and civil society organisations. after a full year of consultation and intensive preparation the commission adopted new rules in may last year.
we consider these new rules which are binding for all of the commission services to improve significantly the management the balance and the transparency of expert groups and we also consider that they provide a positive response to many suggestions made by this house and by the european ombudsman.
just let me give you a few concrete examples.
the new rules confirm reconfirm the commission's commitment to strive for a balanced composition of expert groups.
the commission's departments must do their utmost to guarantee a balanced representation.
it means maximum balance in terms of expertise interests gender and geographical origin.
the new rules also bring significant changes to boost transparency. we have set up a new register for expert groups.
this register is accessible for the public and provides more accurate information and more documents drafted and discussed by expert groups.
in particular the commission will henceforth publish the register calls for applications when it selects stakeholders' representatives as well as expert group members appointed in their personal capacity.
this is a major step forward and has been a long standing request from this parliament.
in other words we have made the selection procedures fully transparent and inclusive which ultimately benefits the balance of the composition of expert groups.
second registration in the transparency register has now become a precondition for stakeholders' organisations to be appointed to an expert group.
this means that where particular interests are represented in an expert group there will be full transparency as regards the nature of these interests.
third every document that an expert group produces must now be put on the register of expert groups.
minutes will have to be provided which makes complete and meaningful sense.
moreover expert groups can also decide to open up their meetings to the general public.
last but not least we have taken tough measures to avoid conflict of interest in expert groups.
under the new rules independent experts can only be appointed on the basis of standardised and detailed conflict of interest assessment based on the declaration submitted by these experts.
only if the commission services conclude that there is no conflict of interest may those experts be appointed in their personal capacity.
in addition all declarations of interest of independent experts are published in the register of expert groups.
the commission is committed to rigorously applying our new rules and we know of course that you will scrutinise us closely and we remain of course open to continuing the dialogue with this parliament as to how to improve and how to make sure that we follow closely this important matter.
i would like also to inform you that the commission agrees with nearly all the amendments proposed most of them resulting from the trilogue between the european parliament the council and the commission.