kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it is regulated by the hague convention of. one thousand nine hundred and ninety three so why do we need additional eu regulation that applies narrowly only to one part of the world?
i have said it before and i'll say it again international cooperation beats supranational government every time.
of course immediately one runs up against the fact that most cross border adoptions are not limited to eu member states.
madam president now here is a subject with an apparently cross border aspect. adoptions do take place across national borders and it seems sensible to have a framework.
there is a lot of adoption that takes place from outside the eu. and here's the good news it regulated by an international framework;
i suppose it is conceivable that there are some gaps that need to be filled in. but again countries could surely opt in on a bilateral or multilateral basis without needing to involve the entire bureaucracy of the european union?
this is extremely relevant for ireland as it clarifies certain rules which would impact on our fishermen who are such hard workers but have been affected greatly by eu legislation.
in line with the principle of lifelong learning the future of the eu may henceforth be bolstered by teams of creativity competence and entrepreneurship.
the budget increase towards this scheme reaffirms the high political and economic value of erasmus and i hope to see this scheme continue to grow from strength to strength and especially be availed of by more irish people to improve their language skills which need improving from an irish context and also the erasmus aspect which now encompasses sport.
we cannot put children at risk by loosening the strict adoption procedures in place by imposing a poor one size fits all european regulation.
no decision on adoption should be taken before the biological parents have been heard.
it is not exactly as though there is a domestic banana industry in the european union that requires protection.
the reason we have these restrictions is well intentioned.
we think we are sticking up for largely former french and british colonies in the caribbean the ones that produce the little squashy bananas if i can put it that way rather than the big long straight ones.
but we're not doing those territories any favours. we are keeping them in a sense of dependency we are preventing them from expanding into other areas diversifying their economies and competing in world markets.
and as a price for doing this we are slightly pushing up prices in europe taking a little bit of money out of the pockets of our consumers which would otherwise be spent on stimulating the economy at home.
so everybody ends up being a loser from these restrictions.
it would be easier by far to have free trade rather than these rules which are bananas.
so why do we need to have a sport policy?
it was the kind of thing that the comecon states used to do in the cold war to treat sporting success as a symbol of national virility.
the judgment can also help to ensure an effective regulatory framework for international conservation and management.
the european union and its member states stand by iwc resolution two thousand and fourteen five adopted in two thousand and fourteen according to which no further whaling permit should be granted without prior international review including by the iwc scientific committee.
the presidency will ensure that the european union and its member states are well prepared for the upcoming meeting in october.
let me also be very clear about the position of the council.
up to this day japan has failed to present sufficient evidence to justify its whaling activities with regard to its new research programme and a justification of lethal sampling in particular is far below standard.
including by a revision of the current review system annex b.
strongly committed to the protection of whales.
two thousand and fifteen these serious concerns will be expressed again in a meeting in october and we acknowledge that an effective conservation and management regime can only be established through joint efforts and by initiatives that promote mutual trust and cooperation between all the members of the international whaling commission.
we have conveyed our serious concerns in view of the expert panel findings and the conclusions of the scientific committee and our position has not changed since june.
as already said and i think you mentioned this very important point at the international whaling commission meeting in september two thousand and fourteen we regard the judgment delivered by the international court of justice in march two thousand and fourteen concerning whaling in the antarctic as a definitive interpretation of the convention and we believe that the principles of the icj judgment should be fully incorporated into the working practices
and in a broader sense i think you mention exactly why this is so important the protection of biodiversity and marine ecosystems.
this brings all whaling operations under iwc control.
we regret that japan had not consulted with its partners before engaging in such activities which are not in line with the icj ruling.
in our view the judgment clarifies the legal framework for scientific whaling particularly when it comes to assessing the necessity of having recourse to lethal methods of sampling where non lethal alternatives exist.
the overall objective of the eu is to ensure an effective international regulatory framework for conservation and management that currently is a significant improvement in the conservation status of whales in the long term and that brings all whaling operations under iwc control.
in addition the introduction of cetaceans into and export from the eu for primarily commercial purposes is banned under our wildlife regulations.
in december two thousand and fifteen the eu and its member states joined new zealand australia the usa mexico and south africa in a diplomatic dmarche towards the japanese authorities against the decision to issue special permits under its new scientific whale research programme in the antarctic ocean
the issue of scientific whaling will be again on the agenda of the iwc at its next meeting which will take place in slovenia in october. the eu will continue to take a strong position on this subject and to work with our international partners to press for decisions within the iwc that lead to better conservation of whales worldwide.
for the hunting season.
in addition we are deeply concerned by the fact that the new japanese programme has been launched without due recourse to the concerns expressed by the iwc scientific committee in line with the clear criteria identified by the icj defining whaling for the purpose of scientific research. regrettably our diplomatic initiative did not result in reconsideration of the decision by the government of japan.
for many decades now japan has been conducting so called scientific whaling under the special permit provided under the international convention on the regulation of whaling. the eu welcomed the two thousand and fourteen landmark judgment delivered by the international court of justice ordering the interruption of the japanese research programme in the arctic in the light of its scale methods and limited scientific output.
the eu has also clearly positioned itself against commercial whaling at the international whaling commission and strongly supports the moratorium on commercial whaling as an essential measure to protect whale stocks that have been decimated by decades and decades of
as you know we have made this dmarche earlier.
we conveyed our serious concerns in view of the expert panel findings in two thousand and fifteen and our position has not changed in that respect. the only way we can work on this is an effective conservation and management regime through joint efforts and by initiatives that promote mutual trust and cooperation.
i continue to be very concerned that japan has also failed to present sufficient evidence to justify their whaling activities.
the issue of scientific whaling is discussed at the meeting of the scientific committee which just started in bled.
we are looking ahead now to the meetings that are going to be held soon on this issue.
we stand really ready to engage with all partners at the iwc sixty six while reiterating the importance of respecting international obligations and our opposition to the conduct of so called scientific whaling outside iwc control.
and most people can afford other types of meat.
consumption has been falling for years and most japanese do not even eat whale meat at all.
therefore just as eating habits have changed so should the practice of whale hunting.
nor can the killing of hundreds of whales each year be credibly justified by scientific research purposes.
madam president as i stated before the commission will continue to work to ensure that any future solution on whaling within the international whaling commission leads to a better overall conservation of whales worldwide and ultimately to a sizable reduction in the number of whales being killed under whatever whaling regime commercial or scientific.
the eu and japan are currently negotiating a strategic partnership and a free trade agreement.
we would however be mistaken to take for granted that the divisions the xenophobia the nationalism the populism of sixty years ago are entirely gone. our debate today shows that we continue to fight them every day
mr president dear colleagues thank you for this unfortunately still very topical debate. we have recently celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of the rome treaty.
and in your countries.
democratic europe stands for these principles and does not forget.
it also takes leadership responsibility democratic duty citizens' vigilance. honourable members i count on you to carry the words and intentions of our debate today further in your actions and interventions here
sixty years of a union of peace and prosperity built on the ruins and ashes of war and division sixty years of democracy and freedom.
we have the laws at european and national level to protect our fundamental rights but we must also practice the spirit of this law in our everyday language and actions.
our fight is not over.
the commission rigorously monitors the application of this legislation.
the eu high level group was set up in two thousand and sixteen to foster discussions and synergies between member states civil society and other key stakeholders with a view to improving responses including guidance on how to train police and judicial authorities on hate speech and hate crime and
this is why the commission has been stepping up its efforts to assist member states to build the capacity to ensure the effective implementation of the law but also to support targeted measures to prevent and tackle intolerance in practice.
the recent guidance communication on tackling illegal content online adopted by the commission in september also provides key impetus for further progress in this area.
this includes the work of the eu high level group on combating racism xenophobia and other forms of intolerance.
in the past couple of years nine member states have made amendments to their respective criminal laws in order to bring them in line. the commission will continue to work on reducing the remaining gaps in national legislation but laws are only as good as they are effectively implemented in practice.
under the framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law the member states must ensure that public incitement to violence or hatred including through the use of nazi and fascist symbols and slogans is criminalised under national law. national law enforcement and judicial authorities are responsible for investigating and prosecuting any such instance.
third if you ban a symbol representing a certain ideology the proponents of that ideology will just invent a new symbol which resembles the old one just enough to be understood but not enough to meet the definition.
second we would never reach an agreement on which destructive ideologies are bad enough for the symbols to be banned.
symbols such the swastika or the red star are universal motifs and have different meanings in different cultures.
it is even more difficult to define expressions.
the ideology underlying these symbols is hatred of democracy and the idea that force is a legitimate means to achieve power encouraging conflict in our society. this stands in a stark contrast to the values of the european union yet how easily do we tolerate fascists in this house!
we also need to really work at changing the mindsets at having more integrationist policies;
if you look around this house there are very few people who are symbols of diversity. i think it is important if we are going to change that mindset that we try and address that within the eu institutions.
now in my country and in my region of west midlands hate crimes have spiked as a result of the referendum the brexit referendum.
thirty it has become a norm now across the eu to attack migrants and the places of their worship yet it still remains not very well reported and only one in five people actually report the incident or get any conviction.
they can comfortably use the funds of an organisation whose destruction they seek and whose values they sneer at.
and this is not just confined to the member states it is also important that we really set an example here.
they include among others public incitement to violence or hatred public dissemination or distribution of propaganda material and images.
accordingly the responsibility rests with all of us politicians teachers civil servants students parents and if needed also judges and prosecutors.
our role and on this i know i can count on your support is to remind ourselves of our responsibility for what we say.
but all these countermeasures would be in vain if we forget the important role of education and youth work and more precisely the need to develop democratic resilience media literacy tolerance critical thinking and conflict resolution skills in the learning process.
for this reason freedom of expression has its limits.
in june two thousand and sixteen the council invited member states to ensure the effective transposition and implementation of the framework decision and other relevant hate crime laws at national level. in addition it asked member states to develop effective methods to report and ensure proper recording of hate crimes.
there might be several reasons explaining this worrying phenomenon but let me be clear on this there is no justification for it.
we are therefore obliged to take all incidents of that kind seriously and never ignore them.
mr president honourable members commissioner
this shows that some of our citizens have not learnt from history.
you have invited the presidency to speak on behalf of the council on the topic of an eu wide ban on nazi and fascist symbols and slogans.
as we know this can be very dangerous. those who forget mistakes of their own history risk repeating them.
on a positive note the eu has adopted specific legislation on combating intolerance and hatred.
this discussion is important for several reasons. first of all reports from the eu agency for fundamental rights the council of europe and the organisation for security and cooperation in europe confirm an alarming increase of intolerance and hatred in europe.
secondly we notice an increasing use of nazi and fascist symbols on social media platforms but also in public both online and offline.
as for the steps taken in the council the estonian presidency and the previous maltese and slovak presidencies have done important work to tackle these issues.
i refer in particular to the two thousand and eight framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.
to sum up we have different tools we have knowledge education counter narratives but also condemnation of any form of anti semitic or anti muslim violence hate speech or discrimination.
we also welcome and support the ongoing eu level dialogue with major it companies to address hate speech online also through the implementation of the code of conduct launched by the commission for this purpose.
no one can close their eyes or ears and pretend not to see injustice discrimination or hatred. i would like to conclude by stressing how important it is to prevent our societies from becoming dominated by hatred.
words and symbols have power including the power to harm.
i have already mentioned that social media is one of the main vehicles enabling hate speech to go viral.
according to this legislation specific offences exist when directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race colour religion descent or national or ethnic origin.
what i wanted to point out is it would be very difficult to make a definition which would ban the nazi swastika but not the swastika in other contexts used in different cultures in different times and places.
we have a legal framework in place which needs to be effectively implemented in practice but we need to support the laws with targeted measures to prevent and tackle intolerance such as education public debate and counter narratives.
this is a fantastic export market.
the change of government in argentina with its president saying that it is his priority his government's priority to reach out to europe and to work with us has created a new momentum.
i hope the council will make the mandate public because that is the line of the commission as you know that all mandates should be public.
because of the crisis of the agriculture sector we will follow this very closely and it is also because of that we are trying to open more markets in order to give more possibilities to our agriculture.
madam president honourable members i think all of you agreed that these negotiations with mercosur have dragged on for quite some time and i fully agree with that.
as regards the agriculture sector we are of course very aware of the crisis in the agriculture sector in the european union but i think we need to be correct on the figures sixty of our agricultural imports from mercosur are soya and feedstock for our own cows and pigs and the fta would eliminate taxes tariffs on this issue making it less expensive for farmers.
we actually have a trade surplus when it comes to pigmeat and dairy with mercosur and more could be exported through fta.
once it is there and once we have received the mercosur offer we will share it with you and we are also working on this general analysis.
but something has happened that opened a new unique window of opportunity.
there are more than two hundred and fifty million people opportunities for european businesses such as the car sector machinery chemicals pharmaceuticals luxury goods wines spirits and also in the agricultural sector for instance fruits vegetables dairy processed food etc.
we are now facing the possibility that we can finally take those negotiations forward after so many years engaging with countries with whom we share so much history so much culture and so much friendship. it is important for cultural political geopolitical reasons and also for economic reasons.
we quite rightly insist on those standards in the eu.
whatever the figure is it is hugely significant and we know from previous experience when the ifa and the irish farmers' journal went to brazil that eu implementation of equivalence of standards leaves a lot to be desired.
finally commissioner can you confirm what commissioner hogan said that beef will not be included in market access offers which will be presented to mercosur this week and can you guarantee that there will be no.
so on point four of the question i would like you to give more detail about how you intend to take into account the potential threat to the agricultural sector.
across many sectors there are real problems and you eluded very well to the realities of so many deals happening and the need for an overall view of their impact.
you know timing is everything and it is so in trade agreements.
i think what worries us is that the initial offer was to come forward with a very we believe generous concession to the mercosur countries on agriculture and if that was a potential opening offer my fear is what would come afterwards.
it is really hard to believe whether we are being told the truth on what are the red lines.
where does climate change fit into all of this?
they are not it is not fair.
but the problem that we have is that it is really hard to believe where the european union is going with these trade negotiations.
different standards which cost us more.
also where is the joinedup thinking within the european union?
we have now been told by commissioner hogan that beef is off the menu.
now competition would be fine if it were fair competition. the type of competition they are referring to is one where one of us runs a race with a pile of bricks on our back and the other one gets to run with a fan at their back.
however while the principle of these trade deals being pursued by the commission may be sound in practice many feel that agriculture is being used as a bargaining chip and kept to the end of the negotiations and i refer to the ttip aspect of that as well even though that may have gone on the back burner a bit
we want to make it worse. i think that this is not good enough and we have to cry stop'.
seventeen years have passed and we have still not reached an agreement.
the commission and the member states must be fully committed to securing an ambitious deal with mercosur but we must also deliver within a realistic time frame.
for me it is unbelievable that the european union does not have trade agreements with these important economies such as argentina or brazil especially as we have advanced in negotiations and upgraded our trade agreements with many other countries in the region.
but after years of inaction we can feel now a fresh wind blowing.
i look forward to hearing positive news on the exchange of offers so that we may continue to use this chance to move forward in achieving a final agreement.
if we miss the current political momentum i call on the commission to come back to this house and begin a discussion on a new strategy to advance our trade relations with the mercosur countries even if that were to mean bilateral negotiations with those countries individually.
you have our full support commissioner to negotiate this deal but we cannot be negotiating with a seventeen year old mandate for ever.
in the meantime some of these countries have even been taking protectionist steps against exports from the european union. so let me come back to the reason for opening these negotiations. mercosur has a population of two hundred and eighty six million it is the fourth largest trading bloc in the world and it represents an important economic bloc both in the region and globally.
there are many real economic benefits to be gained for european businesses in the mercosur members' markets which encompass our major trading partners in the region.
we finally have the political momentum on both sides to move forward in these talks.
this exchange has been carefully prepared on both sides given the importance of moving the negotiation process forward because there has been a long history to this and now we need to look forward.
we have set out with the uruguayan minister a very ambitious agenda for the rest of this year so we are both aiming to advance the negotiations quite rapidly.
the eu is aware and the commission is aware that we have strong offensive interests with mercosur but there are also some specific defensive interests in the agricultural sector.
in addition as has been announced by commissioner hogan the commission is also conducting now a general study of the cumulative aspects and impacts of the different free trade agreements on our european agricultural sector and we expect conclusions later this autumn and will of course share them.
there will be some parts of investment covered in the services and establishment chapter but no specific chapter on this.