kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
without the agreement we do not have weaker safeguards because the safeguards that are there are provided by existing us legislation and will still be there even if we vote down this agreement.
even if push' is in place as it is today pull' is still being used.
yes politics is about compromises but certain things are not negotiable like fundamental rights and eu law.
however the united states is our most trusted third country partner whose security vulnerabilities and recent history cannot and should not be ignored.
despite that certain individuals and certain groups in parliament do not trust the judgement and legal authority of the commission.
we should also ask ourselves what the alternative is twenty seven bilateral agreements no legal uniformity or clarity for air carriers no rights of redress for our passengers? no those are neither good nor acceptable alternatives to this house. members here who do not see this agreement as necessary
must explain that to their electorates but i and my group will be voting in favour in the knowledge that at the end of the day whilst it may not be perfect this agreement is an integral and vital tool in the fight to ensure safety and security for all european citizens.
i disagree with the rapporteur. these improvements are significant.
neither can we ignore the proven success and value of using pnr data in the prevention and prosecution of terrorism and of the most serious of crimes in many of our european countries.
a negotiation between two sides two parties two countries or two allies will never result in a perfect agreement and we cannot and should not expect that.
you dance with each other.
no it is not an ideal agreement.
in particular i find the declaration that she has offered very valuable.
madam president i just wanted commissioner malmstrm to know not only how much the alde group appreciates her work but also that it has persuaded a significant part of the alde group to vote in favour of the agreement.
i do not understand the whole question.
i think this is absurd.
i went to get a cup of coffee a few minutes ago.
that is what i believe. i attended a meeting in the united kingdom which was arranged by mr kirkhope with officials from the home office. it is not as though all the colleagues on her committee were not prepared to give her as much information as possible and to assist in this report but ten years down the line rapporteur some of the comments that you have come out with this morning i just find totally nave.
we are not stupid.
do you think the rest of the people in this chamber do not believe that it is very important that our human rights and our information is not kept securely?
of course we do.
we do not need lecturing from people like you but what we also know is that our governments and politicians have to make tough decisions sometimes and it is not always easy.
of course you do not.
following nine eleven the use of pnr data has been a vital tool not only in the usa but also in the uk in investigating the seven seven bombings in london as well as in locating international criminals across the globe. i along with my ecr colleagues will urge this parliament to support this agreement and to accept that a strong deal has been negotiated which will support
i have to tell the rapporteur that at thirty seven zero feet the terrorists do not really give a toss about what we like or what we do not like or what questions we want to ask or what we do not want to ask.
they have no morals and most of the time they have no justification for taking human life.
they want to make a statement.
it is really quite basic information.
i would like to know whether she has actually read the agreement and the objections against it. can she please answer the question on how public health immigration policies and customs controls have a bearing on aeroplanes at thirty seven zero feet above the ground?
it constitutes the only legal and binding framework for the transfer of eu us pnr data.
mr president speaking for the sd group we will be having a free vote.
in the end two out of three of the critical key concessions were included.
that is in my view satisfying when we look at the agreement as a whole.
our group had three critical aims.
it is international.
it may be not everybody's but that is where i believe they would put their priorities.
but the other citizens of the free world with whom they have dealings.
that is my experience of the united states.
i can say with some certainty that although i am not american i do know a lot of legislators in the united states as does sir graham and i am pretty confident that the united states legislators would decide to do whatever was necessary to protect not only their own citizens
i recognise that many members still have questions and think this is a difficult decision.
norm. now it becomes the
year. in the absence of the agreement there would be no binding international rules to protect the passengers'
this is an international agreement.
thirdly because it is difficult to see any alternatives which would better serve the interests of eu passengers and air carriers.
in article four the agreement clarifies how pnr may become relevant when passengers travel to or from the us. in this regard the agreement merely clarifies that pnr may in accordance with its scope and purpose be processed to identify persons who require further examination. this does not constitute a further purpose for the processing of pnr data. article
take. the commission has presented to parliament and the libe committee a draft agreement from
for example pnr has played a pivotal role in cracking some recent cases of terrorism the mumbai plotter david headley the new york city subway plotter the times square plotter and we have all read about the atrocities that could have been perpetrated in these cases.
this provision aims to clarify that domestic powers are not affected by the agreement in cases where other offences are detected in the course of using pnr.
changes. we went back to the us and achieved a lot of those changes on purpose limitation scope retention periods and other
two thousand and seven it is a clear step forward from the draft agreement that the commission presented to the libe committee in may where we asked your advice.
in the context of the joint review and evaluation mechanism set out in article twenty three of the agreement and without prejudice to other matters that might be raised in this mechanism the commission will seek detailed information and pay particular attention to the respect of the provisions of article four of the agreement.
eu law. this brings me to my final point on the absence of better alternatives.
i would therefore like to read out the declaration on behalf of the commission the commission considers that the agreement sets forth a precise description of purpose and scope clarifying the purposes for which pnr will be collected and used. the definition of terms and the detailed description of the uses of pnr in article four ensure that the purpose limitation of the agreement is in line with relevant eu laws on the protection of personal data and privacy.
it also contains a detailed provision on administrative and judicial redress under us
this is a good example of how the new lisbon treaty works the three institutions working together with very clear signals from the european parliament and the council so that the commission could be very clear in its negotiations with the americans.
it also reflects the concerns that you expressed in your resolution two years ago and respects fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.
a human being must always take the final decision. new rules on data security are included to prevent data being lost or disclosed to the public.
finally there are provisions to ensure that the agreement is correctly applied.
so this would leave us in legal limbo with potential lawsuits by passengers and a very difficult situation.
the agreement clarifies and strengthens passengers' right to access correct and where relevant delete the pnr data stored in the us databases.
in that regard we did a good collective job in pushing the us to make further concessions.
be? it would be damaging for the transatlantic relationship because this data will be collected anyway and we would lose a very important chance to influence us policy on the use of that
norm. pulling' is very exceptional and its use will be logged and of course checked thoroughly by the commission.
data. secondly we would leave the air carriers in a very difficult situation because they will be required to transfer the data but there would be no legal basis in the eu for this transfer.
the purposes for which pnr can be collected and used are limited to the prevention detection investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and certain transnational crimes.
secondly this is a major improvement to the existing agreement from.
more specifically the commission will review respect of the uses of pnr under article forty one of the agreement and request information on any cases in which pnr has been used either for the protection of vital interests of any individual or where ordered by a court under article four of the agreement.
further negotiations with the us are not a real option so what will happen if you vote it down
years. the aviation industry has assured the commission that air carriers are prepared to make the necessary investment in that timeframe.
i fully respect that and am ready to respond to all your questions.
four explains that the agreement is without prejudice to domestic law enforcement judicial powers or proceedings where other violations of the law of indications are therefore detected in the course of the use and processing of pnr.
this clarification does not affect or extend the purposes for the use of pnr.
points. we now have an agreement that fully respects
it strengthens reciprocity and security on the eu side by obliging the us to share leads derived from pnr data with the law enforcement authorities in the eu.
data. there are also clear rules on the resolution of disputes between the eu and the us and on suspension and termination of the agreement.
let me outline some details of this agreement.
only for terrorist offences would the data be used for fifteen years as under the existing agreement and an important new element pnr data will be depersonalised six months after it is sent by the carriers making those data elements which can be linked to an individual passenger invisible.
cases. in the current agreement push' is not the
finally and most importantly we would fail to protect the interests of the more than forty eight million passengers flying from the eu to the us every
you said we are not here to hear lectures from your side.
well let me tell you something your citizens have elected you to hear lectures from our side just as i have to hear lectures from your side. what i do not accept from you is that you tell us here that we have forgotten the deaths of.
i would never tell you that.
i am not the only person saying that the agreement violates this right and eu legislation;
many say it is a better agreement than the previous one which only means it is less bad than the previous one but it remains an agreement with severe consequences for our fundamental rights.
i respect the fact that the american authorities and lawmakers are interested in their citizens' rights but i believe that we are entitled to care above all about the protection of our own european citizens' rights. it has been said that without this agreement our air carriers will violate eu legislation on data protection
because if they want to land in the usa they will continue to transfer data.
but you must remember that the agreement obliges the air carriers to implement the push' obligations in two years which means investing a huge amount of money in equipment and software to transmit all data to the us authorities in real time.
what if some of the air carriers are not able to implement this obligation?
they will allow the extraction of data by the american authorities directly from their computers.
i have never believed that a bad law is better than no law.
mr president concern for protecting our citizens against acts of terror is something we share with our partners across the atlantic. clearly we must work together in this endeavour but we must do so on the basis of mutual respect.
with all his experience in this area does he believe that if we were to ask the united states lawmakers to vote against their own laws and the principles on which those laws are based and to assist us in such a way they would agree to do so?
however we need to face the fact that the united states is a sovereign country entitled to demand the information it deems necessary for its security from those approaching its airspace.
i am convinced that at this juncture home affairs commissioner malmstrm has negotiated the strongest possible legal guarantees on behalf of the union and our citizens. for all my reservations in this context a rejection of this agreement would not prevent the flow of data to the us under bilateral agreements which would offer our citizens little by way of guarantees of data protection.
he rightly points out that there needs to be a legal base for the transfer of passenger data so i wonder why this house has not reacted to the fact that for three and a half years now data has been transferred to canada in the absence of any legal base and that under the us secure flight programme data is being transferred from europe to the united states for flights not going to the united states while this house does not seem to care.
why is it that we want a legal base in one case and not in the other cases?
there is also no doubt that the united states will go to any length to obtain what it seeks and that is where our problems lie because we are dealing with an executive agreement in this particular case.
as sorry as i am for myself and also for my group without whom i have to vote today i cannot give my consent to an agreement which does not change what currently happens because it cannot do so.
madam president i would just say to the last speaker if you want to quote me then quote me accurately. you know perfectly well that that was not what i said in terms of the citizens' understanding of what pnr was.
so if you want to use a cheap shot let us use it outside the chamber shall we?
as far as lawyers and opinions are concerned i as a lawyer am used to giving opinions.
i am not always certain that my opinion as an individual lawyer will be followed any more than i believe that any particular set of lawyers has got some kind of monopoly on correctness and appropriateness.
my view is that the commission's lawyers are the main lawyers that we should be looking at in this particular context because it is the commission as guardian of the treaties that has to actually enforce matters on behalf of us all in relation to the international agreements that we conclude.
however we have to be extremely cautious in allowing our freedoms to be removed because once they are gone it is very hard to restore them.
we also have to ask if we have any particular reason to trust our governments.
once it is enacted we need to be sure that its scope cannot be widened at the whim of government.
this kind of legislation should never have been proposed by the commission in the first place.
it probably comes under the jurisdiction of international law.
we will not vote in favour of the motion as we do not accept the legitimacy of the european court.
i just want to seek clarification on the issue of proportionality as opposed to purpose because i think that for many people especially those who are not lawyers it might be disturbing to think that giving up some of our privacy and data protection rights might be proportionate to the noble aim of preventing terrorism.
i would also like to thank the declaration office and my staff whose hard work made our job that much easier.
they are the youth of today on whom the future depends.
i do not believe that mediation can simply replace a court procedure; it is an alternative but in order to become a real alternative it has to be known and as has been rightly said it has to become a cultural choice.
something for the commission in the text article ten requires us to make publicly available information on the competent courts or authorities communicated by the member states.
this can also be achieved through appropriate training information and awareness raising along with the introduction of incentives to make mediation interesting for the parties.
on the basis of this information we would then reflect on future steps to increase the cases to be mediated in each country and to achieve what we call a balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings.
the commission considers that after one year only of application of the directive by the member states we need to give more time for evidence and experience before concluding whether the directive has been met or not.
in litigation there are only winners and losers but there can be partners if you go to mediation.
so cost savings in both legal and management time for individuals and businesses make mediation a particularly attractive case.
two thousand and eleven the good news is that all member states have announced the measures transposing the directive.
consequently we have requested that the individual national reports which will be collected as part of the ongoing study should also provide specific information on the existing relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings in the member states.
in this context we are also collecting extensive information regarding the transposition and use of the directive by member states.
best practice in mediation shows that across europe there is a seventy success rate with mediation cases and indeed this rises to eighty if parties voluntarily opt for mediation.
so the mediation directive is a big opportunity for small businesses.
on the one hand we have an increasing body of literature and evidence showing us that even at a very modest success rate mediation can generate significant and measurable savings in both time and costs.
so from a legal standpoint the eu now has a responsibility to act promptly to ensure that those fundamental goals are being met.
on the other hand however we have a disappointingly low number of mediation cases throughout the eu and this i believe is not what the commission parliament and the council intended.
does the commission take the view that the requirement for a balanced relationship implies an obligation on member states to set and attain a minimum percentage of cases to be mediated in each country at least perhaps as far as cross border disputes are concerned?
in article one we drafted the directive's primary goals as being to facilitate access to alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes by encouraging the use of mediation and indeed by ensuring a balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings.
and if so what steps is the commission thinking of taking in the event that a minimum percentage is not set or met?
the need to do so is particularly urgent at a time of recession at a time of austerity at a time when member states should be concentrating on promoting time saving and cost cutting dispute resolution.
in particular how does the commission intend to make sure that the balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings is actually attained?
yet only one of parties are taking up the mediation option.
i am very encouraged by the proactive approach that the commission is going to take and i will as my colleagues have mentioned be interested in hearing those responses.
the training awareness and incentives are a core part of how we are going to be able to take this forward.
we have to do better as a european union to strengthen the international legal protection.
as regards the promotion by the union of the prevention and repression of such international humanitarian law violations the council adopted its cfsp decision in two thousand and eleven under which the union and its member states must raise the issue of the widest possible participation in the international criminal court in negotiations or political dialogues with third states groups of states or regional organisations as an essential means of promoting respect for international humanitarian law.
two thousand and fifteen two thousand and nineteen at the thirty second international conference of the red cross and the red crescent movement the union quite rightly reiterated its commitment to advocate strongly and consistently respect for international humanitarian law.
when it comes to specific situations the council for example in october last year addressed the situation in syria and called upon all parties and will continue to call upon all parties to stop all forms of indiscriminate shelling and bombardment against civilian areas and structures such as hospitals and schools. concerning syria and iraq in view of the third kuwait pledging conference the eu and its member states have expressed their concern regarding grave violations of international humanitarian law including attacks against schools medical facilities markets and other civilian areas.
without a doubt the council shares your deep concern regarding violations of international humanitarian law including those relating to medical and educational facilities.
regarding yemen the council in november two thousand and fifteen stated that ensuring accountability for humanitarian law violations is an important part of the process to achieve a lasting settlement of the current conflict.
the council noted in december in the council conclusions that the world humanitarian summit should produce practical outcomes and specific commitments made by all relevant actors in particular as regards safeguarding humanitarian access and respect for international humanitarian law. we
the council continuously monitors situations undertakes action and will continue to act accordingly.
it also reiterated its call for the independent investigation of all alleged violations.
in the context of the world humanitarian summit's global consultation common messages were also agreed.
let me stress that once more that we should never forget what international law is all about.
it is about human beings men women children families and we cannot and should not lose sight of humanity in our foreign policy.
definitely look forward to discussing summit preparations at your next plenary in may.
as you know promoting compliance with international humanitarian law is a clear commitment by the european union including the council.
finally violations of international humanitarian law are targeted by many of the restrictive measures imposed by the union against third states in the context of its external action for example syria yemen libya burundi and other third countries.
two thousand and nine the union's support for compliance with international humanitarian law is also reflected in the action plan on human rights and democracy for.
two thousand and fifteen also on this occasion the council called for the protection of medical facilities to be ensured at all times and on many other occasions the council has discussed the situation in libya south sudan sudan iraq nigeria and ukraine and addressed the specific situation of yet again educational and medical facilities.
we need immediate and effective concrete action in order to tackle these war crimes so we need first of all to block the flow of weapons towards the belligerents.
one of the pledges made in that conference by the union and its member states regarded attacks against medical personnel or patients.
however we should not forget that the twenty eight eu member states make up only a small portion of states participating in the conference.
we should never forget what international law is all about men women children families.
that is why i said earlier this evening that it is crucial to stay true to our founding values.