kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the european union should be playing a much more active role in finding a solution to the crisis that the country is currently facing.
an inclusive and transparent dialogue bringing an end to the violence led by a strong european union offers a viable solution.
one of the main elements of this european building is common social policy.
uk air traffic control has welcomed the publication of the uk government's airspace and noise policy as a first step towards modernising united kingdom airspace including i might add that for drones.
in contrast the european union strategy is beset with problems associated with fulfilling aspects relating to other european union policies not least emission limitations. i could not support a strategy which would prove a drag anchor on the united kingdom's lead in this critical area of expertise.
robots will play a significant role in our future life and we have to start to think about the important elements of this new reality.
be fully attributed.
mr president the first rule of government is to protect the people of your country but in brussels and paris and in germany the governments of europe and the european union failed
as innocent people were murdered by terrorists both home grown and those that used schengen and the open border system to infiltrate europe and kill those people.
you have criticised people like myself on this side of the house who suggested before merkel made her monumental failure of opening the doors to germany that you should have checked the people coming in.
but this report still does not go far enough.
so a couple of weeks ago i met a robot.
as science fiction hasn't yet become science fact i also met experts from the world class cranfield university in my constituency.
we discussed rapid changes in the workplace with more automation safety issues as people work more closely with robots and the ethics of self learning robots.
i have seen at first hand the speed this sector is moving and as technology moves quickly it is important that legislation keeps up which is why i voted in favour of today's report.
i am still quite sad at the negative outcome of the former vote which we lost and it will mean for twenty years no transnational list no big move forward for transnational democracy in europe with elections.
thank you for the question.
we lost unfortunately an important vote.
but here we have a lot of practical proposals on how to improve transparency and democracy and for this we still deserve a proper and constructive answer from the council.
so here is our question dear council dear commission we would like to know what is the intention of the two other institutions especially of the council regarding the reform of the eu electoral law?
the parliament is composed of seven hundred and fifty one members its role as co legislator has skyrocketed and still the rules governing the conduct of european elections are those established forty two years ago.
the european union comprises twenty eight member states.
this is part of the new method proposed by president tusk in october two thousand and seventeen allowing a frank open and constructive discussion.
therefore we need to consider that we have two options either focus our efforts on the topic with respect to which agreement seems most likely or face the risk of not having any result for the forthcoming ep elections.
fourthly as regards our concrete steps and timetable the presidency has considered all available options. the council has dedicated in depth attention to the parliament's proposal and several successive presidencies have been engaged as you have already mentioned. these are not issues on which it is easy to find a compromise and i recall that the treaty requires unanimity.
we will reflect on any further next steps as soon as we have a full view of the situation.
the presidency has consulted with member states regarding the deadlines for having the changes approved in accordance with their constitutional requirements and for adopting the necessary domestic measures in time for the two thousand and nineteen european parliament elections.
secondly at the same time we need to be aware that the issue at hand goes to the heart of the constitutional electoral traditions and the organisation of the political life in member states including the respective electoral laws and freedom of association.
taking into consideration the willingness to achieve progress the presidency intends to continue with discussions focusing on the least controversial provisions.
first of all let me assure you that we all share the sense of urgency in view of the forthcoming ep elections in. two thousand and nineteen any changes to the electoral law would need to be ratified by the national parliaments.
the presidency will continue to seek consensus wherever possible.
for this reason it is very important not to prejudge the forthcoming leaders discussions.
while member states share the objective of increasing the interest of the voters and the european character of the elections these realities also need to be taken into account.
mr president ladies and gentlemen dear colleagues first i would like to underline my consent on the urgency given to the electoral law reform in order to make the future two thousand and nineteen elections more transparent democratic and truly european especially considering that in some member states modifications to electoral law have to enter into force twelve months before the elections.
after these two meetings the presidencies met with the two corapporteurs in order to give them a comprehensive overview and a clear state of play of the discussions. the first meeting took place in january two thousand and seventeen and the last one in december.
they also share the view that there is a need for increased transparency and awarenessraising regarding the european character of the european parliament elections.
let me also recall that this file will require unanimity in the council. finally you should also know that we share the concerns about the deadlines for the approval of the amendments to the electoral law in accordance with the member states' constitutional requirements and about adopting the necessary domestic measures in time for the two thousand and nineteen elections.
we need to pursue our work on this to explore the possibility of a compromise that might be acceptable for
in their view harmonisation should only be pursued in case of strict necessity and after a rigorous examination of the added value it will bring. on a more positive note let me underline that after several months of discussions in the working party we were able to identify in a preliminary way a package of provisions on which an agreement in the council would seem currently the most likely.
i welcome this opportunity to update parliament on the state of play on this important issue.
let me first stress that the member states are very much supportive of the general aim of the proposal to enhance public interest and voter turnout in the european parliament elections.
but the member states also stressed the importance of respecting their constitutional and electoral traditions as well as the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. the proposal has indeed raised some concerns in this regard. member states have also been pointing to the autonomy of the political parties and the divergences in national systems in this respect.
in november two thousand and sixteen and december two thousand and seventeen coreper was involved and held an indepth discussion on these very sensitive issues.
further the commission has invited member states to put into place integrated housing policies in order to better meet housing needs and thus prevent homelessness.
first it calls on member states to foster social inclusion through providing quality affordable and accessible essential services including social housing and thus reinforcing the message of the two thousand and eight recommendation on active inclusion.
second member states are offered eu support to develop a methodology for reference budgets enabling a decent standard of living.
the recently adopted social investment package for instance contains a number of relevant provisions related to housing.
waiting lists for council houses grew longer and millions were spent in emergency accommodation of a temporary nature.
in the meantime the infringement case is still there and as you know infringement cases are matters strictly between the member states and the commission and therefore i cannot discuss the details of the case.
on this basis the german government issued new legislative proposals just three weeks ago on twenty five january.
secondly there is at this stage no specific eu legislation on road charging for passenger cars only for heavy goods vehicles.
this is the reason why the commission was able to react only a week after the adoption of these laws by starting an infringement case.
the commission had two main concerns relating to discrimination against foreign users. first the one to one vehicle tax compensation of german vehicle owners and second the excessively high prices of shorter vignettes purchased mainly by foreign vehicleowners.
it will also represent a major step in delivering on our low emission strategy adopted last summer.
the commission indicated repeatedly that it would continue as is often the case during infringement procedures to try to find a solution without having to go to court and on one december minister alexander dobrindt and i were able to announce publicly that we had reached a political understanding
this includes of course the principle of non discrimination based on nationality and yes i still stand for that.
i am very pleased that the german authorities recognised the need to amend the two laws to meet the following principles. firstly the german vehicle tax law should be based on environmental logic and avoid one to one compensation of all german owned vehicles. secondly
so let me be very clear foreign drivers cannot be discriminated against.
the infringement case will be closed if and only if the commission is convinced that the german laws do not discriminate against foreign drivers.
on the way forward.
thirdly the commission has been in discussions with the german authorities on their road charging reform for several years.
this would ensure equal treatment of all vehicles passenger cars and heavy goods vehicles and better services to users related to payment of tolls especially for cross border traffic.
the launch of the infringement case did not stop discussions with the german authorities.
i know this issue has stirred up a lot of emotions in germany as well as in neighbouring countries and this is why i would like to focus today on facts.
the launch of this infringement case had the immediate effect of germany suspending implementation of the pkw maut.
i am fully aware of the concerns of neighbouring member states which believe that the amended german pkw maut and vehicle tax law may still be discriminatory but it is way too early to reply to these concerns as the new laws have not yet been debated and voted on in the german bundestag.
it is not the aim per se to bring member states to the european court of justice.
i look forward to seeing the resolution and hope that the debate today has been informative in this regard.
when this has taken place the commission will assess the law and will take a final decision on the case.
as i said earlier we believe that one way to avoid discrimination is to apply charges and taxes based on different criteria for instance on environmental performance and the infrastructure use of vehicles.
let me once again reassure you that the commission as guardian of the treaties will ensure that there is no discrimination based on nationality.
we want to take decisive steps towards decarbonisation promoting a wellfunctioning fair social and efficient internal market favouring innovation digital solutions and investments.
you also speculated that the talks with germany were kept secret.
there is no doubt about that.
the political understanding which was reached between minister dobrindt and me in december specifically addresses these same breaches.
regarding the commission apparently changing its position allow me to comment on that as well.
when taking further steps in the infringement procedures this was also publicly announced and on the day of the political understanding this was announced in a press conference by mr dobrindt and myself.
is the commission satisfied with the outcome?
i would also like to say very clearly that all infringement procedures are managed by the commission in the collegial manner.
let me also stress that in the absence of eu legislation on charging and vehicle taxation for passenger cars we have to ensure that article eighteen of the treaty on non discrimination is respected.
it is also positive that the german authorities agreed to amend their legislation as requested by the commission.
i am very attentive to the voices of member states.
for you as it has been for me.
i was very clear in that press conference about the position of the commission.
this should ensure a fair treatment of eu citizens and should incentivise the use of cleaner vehicles but at this point i cannot speculate on the final outcome of the law.
i have been listening to them and this underlines the need to establish as soon as possible an eu wide system for road charging.
therefore it is positive that germany is moving towards road charging for passenger cars as many other member states have already done in the past.
the commission did not change its position at any stage of the process.
but let me say that the commission has been as transparent as possible in its proceedings including with public statements.
any debate on road charging has to be placed in this perspective.
i would like to underline that the commission always and consistently acts as the guardian of the treaties.
infringement cases are matters strictly between the commission and the member states in question. it is usual practice for the commission to have bilateral discussions with member states in order to find solutions and germany is no exception
but also let me stress once again that the commission will not close the infringement procedure until german legislation has been satisfactorily amended in accordance with eu law.
before i conclude please allow me to restate what is at the heart of our forthcoming road initiatives.
i would like just to stress that currently the infringement procedure is not closed but on hold to allow time for revision of the law. this practice has been used before in different cases and i see no reason why it should not be used in this case. let me reply to some of your many questions and concerns.
this is precisely what we expect from the new german law. and what about the claims made by neighbouring member states?
we also share the concern voiced in the report that certain fundamental rights notably the right to freedom of expression and information the right to privacy and the protection of personal data may be violated as a result of unlawful or arbitrary surveillance censorship the unlawful interception of communications or the collection of personal data in particular when carried out on a mass scale and not for legitimate purposes.
we need to promote the development of democratic oversight capabilities in order to monitor activities by intelligence and law enforcement services lest these are used to suppress dissent and free speech.
this same message can also be found in the digital single market strategy recently adopted by the commission.
nowadays given the increasing importance of ict in our daily lives and the expansion of internet access and access to mobile telephony the promotion of human rights online and offline and the linkage between new technologies and human rights are key to our endeavours towards promoting human rights and democracy worldwide.
the eu is committed to assisting human rights defenders civil society activists and independent journalists to use icts to fight for freedom. the eu is also active in defending media freedom and pluralism and has launched two new independent projects within the framework of the european centre for press and media freedom with the support of this parliament.
it is very important to ensure that our response to terrorist attacks does not impact negatively on fundamental rights notably freedom of expression and information and the right to privacy.
icts have helped to promote freedom on a global scale and preserving the benefits of freedom is a shared responsibility for all of us the private sector civil society governments international organisations and individuals.
the european union has also adopted sanctions to prevent authoritarian regimes using technologies to crack down on human rights defenders for example in the case of syria.
this is firmly anchored in the eu guidelines for freedom of expression online and offline and we are highly committed to promoting these guidelines in our relations with third countries.
in addition to country specific sanctions the eu is reviewing its export controls to prevent exports of sensitive technologies that could be misused in violation of human rights.
that is also why the commission is very supportive of and welcomes the appointment of the united nations special rapporteur on the right to privacy.
the commission and the external action service are working together towards this goal.
as ms schaake writes in the report there is indeed a need to mainstream the impact of technologies on the improvement of human rights in all the eu's external action.
the european union stands therefore ready to reiterate its commitment to promote unhindered uncensored and non discriminatory access to icts.
the projects will address media freedom violations in the eu and neighbouring countries and promote action to support threatened journalists complemented by digital training.
the european security agenda adopted by the commission this year has made clear therefore that the commission will strictly test any security measures for compliance with fundamental rights while ensuring their effectiveness.
the report contains a number of very timely pertinent and often challenging ideas and recommendations for action. the commission appreciates the strong call to the eu to step up its efforts and strengthen the link between human rights digital freedom development internet governance trade and security.
the eu is committed to promoting human rights in all areas of its external action.
this requires us all to unite in our efforts to protect fundamental rights.
we therefore share the european parliament's view that icts are key in safeguarding and fostering human rights and fundamental freedoms.
it is about imposing our western values upon third countries as a condition of trade with developing nations.
however i would like to draw your attention to paragraph seventeen of the report.
i believe that we must take great care to avoid unnecessary censorship particularly of the internet although i personally believe that is best achieved through national governments rather than through eu diktat.
in addition i would like to thank the people from all over the world who have shared their input and suggestions.
they can advance access to information freedom of expression and association but the documentation and sharing of human rights abuses or uncovering of corruption have benefited too from mobile phones and access to the open internet for more people.
disaster relief aid efforts election monitoring they increasingly rely on technologies to help emancipate and empower people.
however technological systems can be and are also misused as tools for human rights violations through censorship mass surveillance tracking and tracing of individuals unauthorised access to devices jamming interception and a lot more.
so besides technological specifications the context in which icts are used determines to a great extent whether these tools advance or violate human rights what country which user or buyer and what legal safeguards or democratic oversight are in place.
these contextual aspects should be assessed carefully in eu policies.
more transparency and accountability in the market of the most intrusive and damaging technologies is key both for security and for human rights.
this is too often presented as a false dichotomy between security and freedom or actually justifying restrictions to peoples' rights and freedoms in the name of advancing security when in fact they should reinforce each other and at the very least eu made systems should not be sold in an unrestricted market.
without smart policies proliferation of these systems is inevitable and in fact i am sure that we here in the eu institutions the european external action service struggle to protect our own people our own diplomats and our own information from the very same systems that we are discussing here.
intelligence services criminal networks hackers with bad intentions all can buy and use intrusive technologies that are made in europe.
the credibility of europe's foreign policy is undermined directly when an italian company unjustly gets a licence to sell to sudan or russia or when a french company sells digital keys to open any door even the ones we may think are protected or locked by passwords or much stronger measures.
but much worse human rights defenders in mexico azerbaijan colombia egypt turkey iran or russia should be protected by eu policies and not harmed with the help of eu made technologies.
in concluding eu policy should mainstream human rights in the way that technologies are designed and used and mainstream the role of technologies throughout all human rights policies and this report presents many concrete ideas.
one of the strong recommendations is that there should not be a ban on encryption technologies or requirements to hand over the keys. instead we through our eu policy should train and equip journalists human rights defenders and others facing repression and violations with the knowledge and the tools to protect themselves and their communications.
europe has the opportunity and should have the ambition to be a global leader in ensuring technologies benefit human rights and this is only possible if we lead by example.
it is both and' it is both an advantage for people to communicate and spread knowledge of human rights violations but it has also become something of a trap for people who defend human rights.
mrs schaake has produced an excellent report which we have to defend in the vote.
i think we should be ready to recognise that the complicity of some enterprises including some from the eu area has greatly damaged our reputation by creating serious human rights violations in iran in uzbekistan in belarus and in other countries and i am talking about some telecommunications providers that is astellia sonora nokia siemens.
i think we also have to defend the point in the report which says that the service providers and the network providers should publish reports about their connections between themselves and oppressive regimes.
accessibility to culture is underpinned by the united nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities yet fewer than five of the books published in europe are available in a format which is accessible for blind and partially sighted readers such as audio or braille.
i urge the council and the commission to find a way to endorse the treaty as soon as possible.
this enormous lack of accessible mother tongue and foreign language literature deprives blind and partially sighted people of their right to education information and social participation. the few books that are available cannot be shared across borders in europe and the rest of the world until the treaty is ratified and due to the different copyright laws across the eu this has not yet happened.
making this a specific competence of the eu will speed up the process of ratification and i urge the council and the commission to consider this route.
despite that the process has been overshadowed by a deep division of views over the legal basis and the nature of the competence of the european union.