kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
but now having listened to you today i think that you have actually made the argument and the case for full origin labelling for meat in processed foods.
consumer confidence in our food supply was naturally incredibly damaged by the horse meat scandal and not just by the scale of the food fraud but by the complexity and the length of the food chains revealed.
the vast majority of consumers as we have heard from many of the speakers want to know where their food comes from and it is important that we do not stall on this issue.
the arguments on cost do not stack up.
in ireland we have demonstrated this we have a scheme processed foods are labelled by country of origin and in fact food producers are opting into the scheme and retailers are demanding it so in fact it is good for business to have country of origin labelling.
over the last three years members of the commission have visited national parliaments more than six hundred and fifty times.
we have put forward a more strategic effective and proportionate approach to our infringement policy to allow us to deliver on our policy priorities.
we will continue to provide parliament and the public at large with information on the followup given to complaints and parliamentary petitions in our annual reports.
as the number of infringement procedures initiated by the commission was still at a high level in two thousand and fifteen i would strongly urge the member states to look into this and into their performance when it comes to implementation of eu law.
the treaties guarantee all citizens the right to petition my committee on the difficulties and problems that they face in their everyday life.
we must remember that the application and the implementation of eu law is ultimately the responsibility of the member states.
in two thousand and fifteen we received one four hundred and thirty one petitions.
the most common concerns remain within the areas of the environment justice fundamental rights and the internal market.
thirdly it shows that the eu is crucial in securing the wellbeing of its citizens where the nation state fails or ignores its responsibilities.
we must ensure that the rights and the opportunities offered by eu legislation are maximised to benefit all the citizens of the union irrespective of which member state they happen to live in.
mr president the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon would give us the full obligation to implement the right to good administration and i am extremely disappointed to hear once again from the commission as we heard that the commission still remains to be convinced about the need for a unified law on administrative procedure.
in its resolution of fifteen january two thousand and thirteen the european parliament called for the adoption of a regulation on a european law of administrative procedure to legally guarantee the right to good administration by means of an open efficient and independent european administration.
not only does this enable poor non transparent and inconsistent administration it makes it difficult for citizens to understand their administrative rights under union law.
despite this increase the procedures remain opaque rules unclear and the people do not know what their rights are or if there is a remedy.
yet in a union under the rule of law it is necessary that procedural rights and obligations be clearly defined and complied with.
in other words alongside the expansion of administrative procedures the eu has failed to ensure that the procedural rights that are affected will be adequately protected.
it remains the case that the union lacks a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of administrative law.
the principle of legality as a corollary to the rule of law requires that activities of the union's administration are carried out in full accordance with the law. with the development of the competencies of the european union citizens are increasingly confronted with the union's institutions and procedures in their daily lives.
the right to good administration requires that administrative acts should be taken by the union's administration pursuant to clear and accessible administrative procedures which guarantee impartiality fairness and timeliness.
however despite the fact that the motion for a resolution was adopted in plenary by an overwhelming majority parliament's request has not been followed up by a commission proposal.
last year i asked my colleagues in the committee on legal affairs to draft the regulation together with me if the commission would not do it and we did it.
it called for the commission to come forward with a comprehensive legislative proposal.
second the possibility for the complainant to meet the representatives of the commission in order to present his her argument;
the report is right to point out that besides monitoring violations and deficiencies in the application by member states of existing eu legislation the commission is also bound to act in previously omitted legislative areas in order to give effect to treaty provisions.
this is especially true for cases where definite failures can be observed in the compliance with the founding values of our union.
for example there is still no secondary eu legal framework to protect and guarantee the rights of national minorities living in the european union even though this is an area where the eu is very active in relation to third countries. as one academic pointed out in the eu minority protection is still an area destined for export and not for domestic consumption. such loopholes in eu legislation are very clearly visible not only when member states act against the spirit of the treaties but also when citizens expressly point out
issues in petitions or citizens' initiatives.
in this sense it was definitely regrettable that the commission only agreed to register the minority safepack european citizens' initiative when forced by a judgment of the eu tribunal.
the implementation of eu law is a priority but so is acting on such long standing omissions with clear negative consequences on the lives of millions of eu citizens.
remember that tobacco is a terrible addiction and smokers need all our help and support to kick the habit.
this is a good resolution and obviously in ireland where we are well advanced in this legislation we are fully supportive.
they are so vulnerable and it is so sad to see that they are exposed to this danger.
but this is two thousand and nine and there has been a huge acceptance that what we did was good for workers good for employers and good for the public health system.
this morning i took the healthy option and walked into parliament and i was dismayed to see in cars young parents with children strapped into the back smoking cigarettes.
those who chose as others may say not to kick the habit should carry on with what they wish to do without doing harm to others and understand fully the harm that they are doing to themselves.
but i do not think the decision should be taken at european level.
i do not think we should be calling for binding legislation to apply to every member state.
decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level and in this case that is the member state or indeed the regional government as in scotland the first area of my country to go smoke free.
it is so easy to disregard the principle of subsidiarity when we think we are doing good.
in this case i think we are trying to do good but with the lisbon treaty now adopted we should be bending over backwards to respect that principle.
no country is immune from domestic violence.
may i close by signalling once again my appreciation of the european parliament's role in keeping this important issue on the international agenda.
in that regard and in view of two thousand and seventeen being the year of european action on ending all forms of violence against women we will continue our efforts to promote the eradication of domestic violence and to support its victims within the eu as well as beyond our borders.
the european union expressed its concern about this bill right after it was voted by the parliament and before it was signed into law by president putin.
in two thousand and ten and two thousand and thirteen the committee under the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women found that russia failed to implement these recommendations and urged it to give priority to this issue.
the law was passed just weeks after the decision by the russian ministry of justice to list the anna centre as a foreign agent'.
we need to work on education and on good laws so that violence can be eradicated from family life.
they also go against its responsibilities as a member of international organisations.
the ratification of the istanbul convention would also be a very positive step.
most countries in europe are taking measures to stop domestic violence and raise awareness of this serious violation of human rights.
we now repeat our call on russia's institutions to reverse this law and to respect international human rights standards implementing in full the recommendations of the united nations committee on the elimination of discrimination against women.
while no country is immune from domestic violence unfortunately not even in the eu the russian federation has always lacked comprehensive measures to prevent violence against women and children.
it reverses some amendments to the criminal code adopted by the russian parliament itself in two thousand and sixteen which treated violence against relatives as a criminal offence.
the recent law adopted by the parliament and signed by president putin reduces battery within the family' from a criminal to an administrative offence for first time offenders and it weakens the sanctions.
there can be no excuse for domestic violence.
social norms can change but we need to work hard for this to happen.
russia is one of only three members of the council of europe that have not signed the istanbul convention that is the council of europe's convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.
the anna centre is a russian ngo renowned for its work on combatting domestic violence including its reporting for the united nations and the council of europe.
in two thousand and six the united nations committee on elimination of discrimination against women recommended that russia adopted specific legislation on domestic violence stepped up its efforts to protect victims of violence and promoted gender equality.
that have lost legal protection from domestic violence to show them solidarity.
it is even absurd to think that this kind of abuse by a loved one would not cause permanent damage to the victim.
domestic violence is violence.
it is not a private issue it is a crime and it has to be treated as such.
traditional sexist maxims never justify this violence.
these are universal values under the united nations charter.
it is not the west versus russia.
or is it about ideology patriotism nationalism a way to disempower women?
we are not interfering in domestic affairs but standing up for humanity.
russia is a member of the united nations and the council of europe and should behave as such first of all by signing and ratifying the istanbul convention on violence against women.
it is a message to all victims of domestic violence to all russian women and to all women all over the world we do not care about your concerns and we do not care about you.
that is why the european answer to this message should be we do care;
we care about any form of gender based violence.
not only will we adopt the best legislation against domestic violence starting with the ratification of the istanbul convention by the european union as well as all member states but we will also provide support and funding for women's shelters support for victims and women's empowerment starting with the she decides' fund.
the perversity of domestic violence lies in its intimacy and its loneliness the shame that surrounds it the fear of sharing the house with the abuser and the undeniable hope that maybe just maybe tomorrow it will not happen again put the victims in the most vulnerable position. a bruise is not a sign of love or respect or happiness.
fourteen thousand women die every year in russia at the hands of their husbands. they all started with just a bruise. what can we do now? would political dialogue be able to reverse this legislation?
to stop the fight against domestic violence is a very essential part of pro russian propaganda which emphasises the so called traditional values.
we know what that means traditional values' means that women are not allowed to decide on their lives and that they are subordinated to men.
i do apologise for the confusion.
for paragraph two we want to add the words at the end of the paragraph as well as deliberate impoverishment arbitrary taxation and land confiscation'.
and appeals to the members of asean and in particular the thai chair and relevant international organisations to work on a permanent solution to this long standing problem';
but the important thing is to declare a no fire period' which is the wording in the co chairs' declaration.
madam president i am asking for a last minute change to the wording of the oral amendment if the house will allow because we have now managed to establish what the confusion was in the joint resolution.
it now transpires that the official text from the declaration of the co chairs which includes the european union uses the wording which is strange but nevertheless they use it in writing no fire' period.
the importance of preserving and protecting the civil society space has become more evident in our time where fundamental rights and values are under high pressure.
we will not hesitate to take action when measures are taken in violation of member states' obligations under the treaties and the charter of fundamental rights as we have already done in the case of hungary.
as we can see in several states elections are not the only sufficient proof of a democracy.
we are monitoring such developments at national level touching upon the role and functions of civil society organisations.
this is also a timely moment for the new ideas to feed ongoing reflections on the future eu multiannual financial framework.
all actors have a role to play be it at national european or international level and we are fully committed to playing ours.
we also continue to provide concrete support including capacity building and funding to raise awareness encourage advocacy and foster the enforcement of fundamental rights and we are currently mapping gaps and needs to identify how to further empower civil society and other independent human rights actors such as national human rights institutions. this takes up a specific request from the european parliament on the basis of which we are about to launch a feasibility study.
we are in contact with civil society partners with the council of europe and with the eu agency for fundamental rights to reflect on how to build on and complement existing research surveying experiences on how the space for civil society is evolving.
it includes funding cuts stringent regulatory frameworks lack of involvement in policymaking or smear campaigns affecting public perceptions of the credibility and legitimacy of civil society organisations and those that fund them.
we take very seriously actions by public institutions aimed at deliberately shrinking the capacity and position of action of civil society organisations or attempting to control delegitimise or stigmatise their work.
a strong civil society is heavily needed.
indeed civil society is unfortunately facing pressures in many parts of the eu.
i would like to hear what the council will actually do to ensure and i am coming to a conclusion to put this on the agenda and discuss it.
that means that we should even have the courage to fund our own opposition if necessary.
this is actually what presents a threat to democracy it is not ngos that we disagree with but actually silencing parties that we disagree with.
i have a couple of questions for the commission and the council.
secondly regarding the litigation fund that was adopted in the budget by parliament last year i would really like to hear the commissioner confirm that it will be set up quickly and that it will actually be a litigation fund and not watered down to a kind of general ngo fund as some people would like.
will you also start infringement procedures against poland?
to the council i very much welcome your words but they are of a very general nature.
will you put on the agenda the situation in hungary the situation in poland the situation in romania?
that is a bit difficult in thirty seconds because of the wide range of measures that have been taken to harass and intimidate ngos restrict their freedom of manoeuvre and registration requirements the government for example giving priority to events organised by organisations that are friendly to the government at the expense of other ngos.
this is for example the case in the work of the european union high level group on combating racism xenophobia and other forms of intolerance the eu forum on the rights of the child the eu forum on migration and integration and many others.
they are irreplaceable in raising awareness of fundamental rights among rights holders and in supporting their efforts to exercise and defend their rights.
it represents and supports democracy human rights the rule of law social justice and pluralism.
as for the council's work for several years already there has been a tradition of regular contact and dialogue between the presidencies and civil society. in the programme of the bulgarian presidency we have committed to realising a presidency which is open to citizens. both in the process of preparation and conducting the presidency we strongly rely on cooperation with civil society and the non governmental sector as their intellectual imagination
the report also contains good practices that are being used to address these challenges.
this work was recently concluded with a report.
the agency is closely cooperating with civil society and has initiated work on a better understanding of the challenges and positive experiences of civil society organisations in the european union.
it contributes to the effective and inclusive policies and engages in initiatives to further social inclusion participatory democracy and governance both in the european union and also in third countries.
to fulfil their task civil society organisations must be enabled to carry out their work. as for external relations the council reaffirmed that civil society organisations are both actors of governance and development actors in their own right.
only recently in october two thousand and seventeen in its conclusions on the application of the eu charter of fundamental rights in two thousand and sixteen the council stated that civil society organisations serve as a watchdog and play an important role in promoting and implementing fundamental rights on the ground.
there are many examples of policy fields where civil society is regularly consulted and integrated by the union in the decisionmaking process.
how can we do it?
in real democracy people are encouraged and invited to participate in decision making.
for ngos publicly known people who are affected by hatred online.
this is the real threat to democracy and i think that it is our role to fight against it is maybe too activist but to be very vigilant to monitor the situation and to give support where it is needed because silencing
thank you very much and let us work together to stop the shrinking of space for civil society.
i also have an expert meeting and i invite those who are interested in this issue to participate in this debate because i think that it should be our common work.
the fund i am very much for creating such a fund.
i have nothing against digital development.
it is a factor which we should think about and maybe do something about.
populists hate civil society because they love a strong state and unfortunately in part of our society there is now the demand for an ever stronger state because there are people who promise they will do everything to facilitate things for you to guarantee you a happy life.
mr president shrinking space is a trend that can be observed globally. for instance in israel the situation of human rights defenders and civil society organisations has severely deteriorated in the past few years.
in addition to systematic human rights violations by the state of israel in the occupied palestinian territory the israeli government has now launched a violent crackdown against civil society.
the recent ban on bds supporting organisations from entering the country is an additional attack on freedom of expression in israel and although i am not in favour of a total boycott of everything israeli i find it very important that the organisations that do support it are able to say it.
i have been personally targeted by some of these right wing attacks on freedom of expression. ngo monitor has targeted me and my staff because i called them out and exposed their far right anti human rights agenda.
ngos human rights organisations critical media and trade unions all work to hold governments to account to protect people's rights and to protect transparency.
but we are increasingly witnessing a shrinking civil society not just in third countries but within the eu itself.
i was an eyewitness to the police brutality that was meted out on catalans as they attempted to exercise their right to vote not to mention the arrest and imprisonment of civil activists or the shuttingdown of their websites.
other eu countries are using governmentfunded smear campaigns and restrictive legislation to shut down organisations campaigning for fundamental rights.
in my own country peaceful protesters were consistently demonised by the government and in one case criminalised for their actions.
my appeal to commissioner rehn and mr trichet tonight is that they ensure that the timeframe for aid and the targets for deficits and debt are such that the social objectives of europe are taken into account as well as the need to ensure that ireland's capacity to grow its economy and create jobs is not undermined.
will you confirm also that you fully understand that increasing ireland's.
madam president commissioner rehn and mr trichet have given us more information here this evening than the irish government which has misled us and lied to us for months. they have been more concerned to defend their historical legacy than to defend the future of our people's livelihoods and indeed ireland's and europe's currency.
it is therefore important that leaders in the g twenty seoul summit last week very clearly and strongly committed themselves to abstain from competitive devaluations of their currencies.
compared to the beginning of the year the euro depreciation in real effective terms amounts to around seven.
to redress stress in the banking sector a comprehensive range of measures including deleveraging and restructuring will need to be taken to contribute to ensuring that the irish banking system performs its role properly in the functioning of the overall economy.
and is currently working towards achieving the ambitious deadline of june next year which i appreciate and welcome.
in the context of a slow recovery in advanced economies and large capital flows to emerging economies many countries have aimed at weakening their currency or at least resorting to competitive non appreciation.
in real effective terms the euro is currently close to its long term average following an overall depreciation this year from an overvalued level at the end of last year.
a sensible thing that the coalition government can do is to stop throwing good money after bad.
madam president my constituents in london simply cannot afford the gbp two hundred and eighty eight estimated per family as their part of the contribution to the seven billion bail out of ireland.
but worst of all they joined the european single currency.
the first step in solving their problems is to leave the euro;
the longer it takes to leave the euro the worse the consequences of the exit will be.