kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
in this respect the commission will work with the new authorities on the implementation of the compact as well as on the preparation of an economic reform programme.
but it has to be noted that the primary responsibility for progress lies with bosnia and herzegovina.
first of all putting in place measures for building a functioning market economy also undertaking measures for strengthening the rule of law and the reconciliation process and strengthening administrative capacity and enhancing the efficiency of institutions at all levels.
i will proceed by mentioning the most important ones.
we called on the leadership to maintain the positive momentum by developing an initial agenda for reforms in consultations with the european union.
first last year's protest in bosnia and herzegovina underlined the fragility of the socio economic situation and highlighted the issues that are of direct concern to its citizens. in this regard let me list here some fields where the eu also expects concrete reforms on the ground.
i would like to recall that the council in its conclusions of fifteen december two thousand and fourteen expressed serious concern that the country remained at a standstill in its eu integration process due to a lack of collective political will on the part of the political leaders to address the reforms necessary for progress. the eu expressed its readiness to provide help and support
with regard to the commitment undertaken by bosnia and herzegovina the council recently concluded the process launched seven years ago by adopting the decision on entry into force of the stabilisation and association agreement.
in its conclusions of last december the council set out its conditions for reforms to be made by bosnia and herzegovina in order to be able to proceed with the conclusions and entry into force of the stabilisation and association agreement.
progress on the implementation of the agenda for reforms including the compact for growth and jobs would be necessary for a membership application to be considered by the european union.
however in line with our approach for all enlargement countries including past eu enlargements the commission reiterates that the european union has no competence regarding the internal structure of a state.
this is essential if the country is to make further progress towards the european union fully benefit from the funding available under our preaccession instrument and properly implement the eu acquis.
we specifically share parliament's view that the new authorities should undertake serious reforms in line with their commitments not only to the eu but also towards their citizens. at the same time the commission also expects the country's leaders and institutions to agree on an effective coordination mechanism on eu affairs.
while there are various models amongst eu member states unitary federal decentralised what matters is the capacity of a country to meet all its obligations as a future eu member.
the sd group very much welcomes the long awaited entry into force of the stabilisation and association agreement set up for one june.
transparency in the process of planning and implementing reforms is crucial and civil society must be included in the reform processes.
the media civil society and the judiciary should together provide robust scrutiny of the government of the day.
economic prosperity is however only possible if it is based on a democratic and inclusive society.
the concerns are increasing separatism by serbians and activities by islamic militants.
today we can claim that this year has been important for the eu relationship with bosnia and herzegovina.
i am glad to know that the first results have been obtained with the adoption and endorsement of the written commitment to undertake reforms in the framework of the eu accession process and subsequently with our decision to finalise a stabilisation and association agreement.
i want to reiterate that we stand ready to provide further support and assistance to help bosnia and herzegovina move closer to the eu but the hardest job lies ahead of the country's leaders.
the country needs to strengthen the rule of law and the fight against corruption and organised crime and these are not abstract priorities.
they expect tangible actions higher living standards and modern effective and accountable public institutions.
but when we look at where we stand today i think we can be positive because things are moving again and in the right direction.
now it is up to the country's institutions and leaders to implement and deliver.
boxing out the ruling elites has maintained the status quo on many levels only succeeding in further isolating the bosnian people.
they are the ones who need reform for their country to grow and prosper.
however they are in a predicament as they have limited options available to them in order to achieve change via the polling booth.
fortunately efforts to breathe new life into the process championed by my country the united kingdom have proven successful.
it should be noted that the european asylum support office can be instrumental in these intra community transfers by facilitating the exchange of information on such transfers. moreover the office can help by coordinating the deployment of officials from other member states to member states under particular pressure.
on which work is most advanced.
these proposals deal with reception conditions for applicants for international protection the so called dublin regulation and eurodac which were all presented in december last year as well as the proposal for establishing a european asylum support office
the nature of the proposals and the complexity of the issues they deal with mean that the examination is not yet complete at all levels of the council.
since its purpose is to ensure its financing of the support office both instruments should be adopted at the same time.
i would in particular hope that we can make early progress on two proposals whose scope is more limited.
the idea is that this is an office which is there to support member states in improving we would say the quality we know some member states have a difficulty with that concept of improving the quality of delivery of decision making on asylum requests but also this office aims to
assist in developing consistency across member states as well as supporting those countries which find themselves under particular pressure at various times either through continuing mixed flows of people coming to those countries or for other reasons.
we have heard already from some about the problems caused by the lack of consistency between member states in their decision making on asylum claims and this has certainly been part of the background to the difficulties which are there with the dublin system.
but what we want to see is this improvement and part of what this is about is providing training.
from within the member states themselves but also from the unhcr and indeed relevant ngos.
we thought at one point we might have got a first reading agreement on this but time and indeed our desire to pull together the package of measures looking at the european common asylum system mean that we have not got that far.
but we have had considerable discussions between the shadows and also with the council on this and this explains certain of the amendments before us at the moment certain of which are technical in terms of bringing in things which are normally in the regulation which were omitted in the original proposal.
for parliament the role of unhcr within this asylum support office is absolutely crucial.
we are looking at parliament being involved quite closely in the appointment of the director looking at the fundamental rights agency perhaps as our model on that.
the other sticking point is as jeanine has indicated in her introduction on the dublin system the question about how much we can actually look at member states cooperating as it were from a starting point which makes that obligatory rather than voluntary.
we are pleased that the council has indicated it could well accept our amendments concerning training itself and indeed bringing in external expertise for example in terms of interpretation where necessary.
that is a real shame in all senses of the word.
we hope that we can get this office up and running as soon as possible.
maybe as that confidence improves we will see member states less worried about the fact that they might have to cooperate in an obligatory way to fulfil obligations.
i welcome the commissioner's clarity about the different missions of the asylum support office and frontex.
they are very different things with very different purposes although of course the cooperation and the delivery are important within them.
one of the aspects that has been touched upon has been that of information about third countries the countries of origin of those seeking international protection. of course this is one of the things that the asylum support office will be looking at how to pull together that information from a variety of sources in a more standard format and perhaps a format where people will have greater confidence
that the information is not being used politically.
i think it is something of great wonder to many of us how one country will accept people from chechnya as refugees with quite a high acceptance rate whereas another country close by will not accept anybody from chechnya.
many of us find this absolutely impossible to believe when the same information is out there.
we have a shadow on the eurodac and lambert proposals and i feel that we have had excellent cooperation in building a package which is both realistic and implementable and which takes great care over transparency.
for example on the eurodac issue the sensitive issue of asylum seeker fingerprinting we have had improvements in the way fingerprint data is used and on enhancing the role and clarifying the powers of the european data protection supervisor.
on the lambert report establishing a european asylum support office we believe this is a critical step forward in making cooperation between member states relating to the common european asylum system a reality.
we want to see greater transparency and accountability as i think the rapporteur is also striving to do.
we want to see the appropriate involvement of the unhcr and ngos and i have added amendments which bring forward good levels of european parliament scrutiny in the system. i understand what the commissioner says about the speedy resolution and building of the european asylum support office but accountability and transparency and quality of asylum information is also very important.
to work well the european asylum support office must produce the most useful transparent and objective information regularly scrutinised.
i am also concerned about the inclusion of drugs policy within this programme.
examining the proposed regulation i wondered why this further training was deemed necessary and i wondered what evidence there was to suggest that the training of other professionals and practitioners such as probation officers court interpreters and bailiffs would or could contribute to a further enhanced eu common legal culture.
at a time of austerity the eu intends to spend a significant amount on training this wide range of legal practitioners.
i ask these questions because on the face of it it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that furthering and encouraging lawyers and judges' knowledge of eu law is a good thing but the budget for this programme is also substantial at nearly eur three hundred and seventy eight million.
it was our initial understanding at the beginning of the parliamentary process that the drugs policy element would be excluded from the programme because there are a number of other well tried instruments available at eu level to deal with this matter including the eu drugs strategy.
as a practising lawyer with almost forty years' experience i know that lawyers and judges are already trained to a high level and there are a number of programmes already in place catering for the continuing professional development of those in the legal services and professions in national states.
agreeing on funding is just the beginning of a long and complex process.
you are about to give your agreement to the compromise text so that we can start implementing the two thousand and fourteen budget without any further delays.
we should not forget that the key stakeholders for the implementation of the policies supported by both programmes are mainly civil society ngos and networks and they are waiting for us so that they can start to work.
our intention here is of course to have synergies with the daphne funds aimed at preventing violence against children young people and women.
policies promoting equality combating discrimination fighting racism and funding roma inclusion are in this programme as are citizenship and data protection legislation. the promotion of gender equality and children's rights
i hope they will serve their purpose.
web portals like e justice and other modern ict tools should be made available to citizens and businesses to facilitate access to justice in a cross border context. the exchange of good practices and mutual learning between member states can also encourage trans border cooperation and enhance mutual trust.
they will back our policies with financial means for the upcoming seven years and they have also managed to settle the difficult issue of delegated and implementing acts.
this is modest yes but it is good news for those who promote a change in the areas which tend to be neglected in times of financial constraint.
and it is good for the construction of a true european area of justice because it will promote judicial cooperation both in the areas of civil law and criminal law covering also some drug related aspects and having a very wide spectrum ranging from contractual law and insolvencies to procedural rights and victims' rights. training and capacity building for practitioners
covering justice rights equality and citizenship.
once again thank you and congratulations to the rapporteurs and to the presidencies for the good texts.
is a very important aspect of the programme especially training of the judiciary across europe.
will be funded by this programme.
we already had one in england under our constitution our common law protected by such things as the presumption of innocence habeas corpus the trial by jury and under the bill of rights.
two thousand and fourteen instead it intends to opt into the thirty five worst and most dangerous.
instead he is going to hand to the eu on a plate powers that endanger all our traditional centuries old liberties and freedoms.
these are now being superseded and overridden by the eu creating its own system of civil and criminal law.
all of these rest on the idiotic doctrine of mutual recognition which says that any eu legal system is equal to any other eu legal system.
the british government had the opportunity to opt out of one hundred and thirty five of these measures in mid;
mr president eu mutual recognition instruments in criminal justice can only work effectively efficiently and fairly with common standards that give judges lawyers and citizens the confidence that fundamental rights are being respected throughout the eu.
i guess this echoes that of his party colleague the uk justice secretary.
however better training and support for judges and lawyers is required to make this work fairly.
we know that we have the legislation on the statute books much of it directly of course relevant to employment but we know that in the world of work itself there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of a real understanding of what equalities mean for those whom we are serving but also for our colleagues.
certainly in terms for example of disability we know that at the moment it is virtually impossible for people with disabilities to really be fairly treated in the workplace. so that was a major issue for us.
but i was also working on this for my political group and there i think that given that it is international human rights day talking about this programme is extremely important.
we know too that hate speech is on the increase whether that is against people with disabilities or people of a different skin colour or background or sexual orientation.
so we really want to see some work done on that.
we know that a lot of the national organisations which exist under the current legislation are seeing their budgets dramatically cut.
as has been said this also encompasses the old daphne programme and again organisations are seeing their support cut at the moment but domestic violence is increasing at a time of crisis.
we know from other work we have done in this parliament about the difficulties for example in providing real legal guardianship for children within the european union.
so we can see that this programme might well also be able to help deliver something very positive for our children.
mr president the general objective of the programme is to develop further mutual recognition by promoting judicial cooperation in criminal and civil matters.
it all sounds rather splendid until of course the difficulties are examined. there are enormous differences in substantive law and trial procedure between member states and even within them.
however there are also differences in legal culture between the common law and continental systems with particular reference to freedoms to act. the starting presumption in common law is that persons have the freedom to do whatever is not prohibited by law.
the starting position in many continental countries is that rights are created by proclamation and can be easily defined.
whilst even in common law systems they can be defined negatively and repressively the jury system is a safeguard against legislation and prosecutions that are considered to be unreasonable.
we can see how this difference manifests itself in practice many continental countries restrict freedom of expression in an extreme obsessive and quite insane way.
this can assist in future policy making and allows for a real transfer of learning and good practices. the programme on rights equality and citizenship will contribute to the further development of an area where equality and the rights of people are promoted protected and effectively implemented.
these are rights which are enshrined in the eu treaties the eu charter of fundamental rights and in various international human rights conventions.
the programme seeks to promote non discrimination and the prevention of racism and xenophobia the rights of persons with disabilities equality between women and men combating violence against women and children the rights of the child data protection citizenship rights and consumer rights. the programme on justice will contribute
to the further development of a european area of justice based on mutual recognition and mutual trust.
it focuses on promoting judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters judicial training and facilitating access to justice and supporting initiatives in the field of drugs policy.
these two funding programmes cover a significant range of policy objectives and a large number of tools and measures for their implementation.
they are sufficiently flexible to correspond to changing needs and policy priorities over the next seven years.
the programmes will ensure consistency complementarity and synergies with the previous funding programmes and with other instruments in other fields.
the two programmes are relatively small.
they mainly benefit public authorities local authorities and small non governmental organisations working on issues of the kind which i have just set out all of them issues which have a direct impact on individual citizens.
it was only achieved recently but it is the result of positive and constructive cooperation between all the institutions involved.
i can assure members that once you have voted on the two regulations tomorrow the council will do its utmost to ensure that they are adopted before the end of the year.
these are important acts which will ensure the flow of funds for a range of measures which will be of direct benefit to europe's citizens.
i would therefore like to thank once again the rapporteurs and all those who have made it possible for us to reach an agreement.
once the regulations enter into force the commission can begin to prepare for the implementation of funding programmes early next year and we can quickly begin to see the impact of the programmes across a range of areas.
negotiations are being finalised regarding the cybercrime directive and the newly adopted proposal on the harmonisation of confiscation laws is about to be negotiated.
in addition to rendering eu policies effective through the introduction of criminal law measures the treaty establishes ten euro crimes' that are both serious and have a cross border dimension justifying the need to legislate common minimum rules on definitions of offences and sanctions.
for instance our criminal law communication also supports the idea of simpler language to guide eu legislators when they draft criminal law provisions.
this expert group will be a forum to discuss the challenging and difficult questions which arise when the eu considers criminal law measures and advises on the best way forward.
it will be composed of experienced academics and practitioners in the field.
putting in place a coherent eu criminal policy requires further reflection and discussion on many legal issues.
this was our aim in the commission to summarise for the first time the principles guiding legislation on criminal law so as to strengthen the enforcement of eu policies under the new legal framework of the lisbon treaty.
clear and transparent rules on when to use european criminal law are crucial and we fully share the view of the rapporteur that any legislation at eu level must fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
because of that it is crucial that we ensure full respect of the rights guaranteed by the charter of fundamental rights and the european convention on human rights for all eu criminal law legislation.
eu criminal law to strengthen the enforcement of eu policies is only needed in selected areas but it can provide significant added value.
we have seen this for example in the context of environmental crime where two important directives were adopted in two thousand. and eight and two thousand and nine these were the first instruments adopted on criminal law in the ordinary legislative proposal.
it links in perfectly with the communication on eu criminal policy that the commission published last september and i am really glad to see that this communication has achieved its goal in launching a debate inside and outside the institutions.
all these initiatives have so far contributed to the development of treaty provisions contributing inter alia to a pragmatic interpretation of the concept of common minimum rules in both areas and they are important frames of reference for further development of criminal law at eu level.
we fully share the approach set out in the resolution.
the european commission has just set up an expert group which will meet for the first time in june and we will be happy to report once they have met.
madam president this report confirms what i have been warning my constituents in london about and the british people generally for some years which is that the eu intends to create its own system of criminal law.
this project is already very well advanced and very comprehensive and i have written about it in a report of my own freedom security justice?
we do not need an eu system of criminal law in england.
we have something called the common law which has taken a thousand years to evolve.
a british citizen can now be sent off to any corner of the european union on the strength of a piece of paper with vague accusations.
the english and scottish courts have abdicated their duty to protect their own citizens from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.