kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
but when did this parliament become judge jury and executioner for those who held a point of view different to their own?
a debate has been held in our justice and home affairs committee and much discussion takes place again quite rightly in this forum.
the people of hungary and the people of europe do not want to see important issues related to fundamental rights and the rule of law reduced simply to another opportunity for political point scoring in this chamber.
but i asked myself in this context why are we here today?
this house is a platform for examination for debate and we hope sometimes for solutions.
member states have a right to debate issues even issues not included on the list of pre approved topics of certain people in this room mr pittella.
this should not be from whichever party but from every one of us. as greens we even criticise our own governments so this is also not about left or right.
i would like to talk about this immigration questionnaire which you mr orbn have been putting to your citizens and which is really promoting prejudice and anti european sentiment.
this should not be a debate about left or right it should be a debate about fundamental rights and values in this european union.
this is about basic values in this common european union.
mr weber and you have talked about the significant economic growth that your country has had but why then have around five hundred zero people left your country over the last couple of years trying to find a job or even a better life in other eu member states?
well it is a european issue.
but i have to tell you that what he is coming to do here is simply to continue the provocations that we have heard these last months in hungary and outside hungary.
a national consultation?
the answer is already in the question it is not necessary to answer the question.
or another one number three!
you say yes we are only doing a national consultation on this migration project'.
it is not an issue for member states it is an issue for the whole european union and the whole of european civilisation.
that is your right but at least the people know where the epp stands now. there is no more doubt and to be clear alde rejects the policies of mr orbn and his government.
i know commissioner timmermans that you say that fundamental rights the rule of law cannot be measured or quantified but i think they can.
the council's non statement for me signals the moral bankruptcy of the council and the fact that you are completely detached from the treaties.
has the commission undertaken a legal analysis of its compatibility with the charter of fundamental rights and has it checked how it sits with the agreed asylum and immigration policies of the european union?
i much agree with your very critical blog but i expect more of the european commission.
i reject it completely my group rejects it completely.
yes colleagues we can have a debate about the death penalty and it can be very short.
it has no place in europe it has no place in egypt it has no place anywhere in the world end of debate. but the death penalty issue is just a distraction from a much more serious issue and that is the immigration questionnaire.
the commission has a duty to act.
so what will the commission actually do?
now the situation in hungary only underscores the urgent need for a mechanism to monitor the state of democracy the rule of law and fundamental rights in all member states because and there i agree with you mr weber we need a mechanism to fill the gap between weak legal tools on the one hand and the nuclear option of article seven on the other hand and that is why my group the alde group has proposed a democratic governance pact and i know that in other groups people are also considering mechanisms for the enforcement of fundamental rights because we urgently need that.
epp you may choose critical words but you are squarely behind prime minister orbn and his policies.
two we will not hesitate for one second in such a case.
as you know the treaties do not foresee suspending or withdrawing the membership of a member state of the european union.
in general the commission considers that public consultation can be an important tool of governments and other public authorities to develop policies that can count on support of the population.
it will only feed misconceptions and prejudice.
the commission will continue to monitor the situation closely and i thank the european parliament explicitly for its continued support in these important matters.
but in doing so we should never lose sight of our fundamental values and of the need to preserve a pluralistic and diverse society based on mutual respect and equal treatment of every single individual.
we need political leaders who are willing to explain eu policy to the citizens in an open fair and balanced manner and who will stand firm for joint and common european values.
article two of the eu charter of fundamental rights prohibits explicitly and clearly any person from being condemned to death or executed.
as far as the commission is concerned there is no doubt that the reintroduction of capital punishment would be contrary to the eu's fundamental values.
let me start with the debate launched by prime minister orbn on the reintroduction of the death penalty.
the mechanisms of article seven relate to the values referred to in article two including human dignity and respect for human rights.
a reintroduction of the death penalty by a member state would therefore lead to the application of article seven of the treaty of the european union.
however if the hungarian government were to take steps to reintroduce the death penalty let me underline that the commission is ready to use immediately all the means at its disposal to ensure that hungary as well as any other member state complies with its obligations under union law and respects the values of the union enshrined in article.
president juncker stated on thirty april that prime minister orbn should immediately clarify that it is not his intention to reintroduce the death penalty. if that were his intention and i quote it would be a fight'. the commission has in the meantime understood that the hungarian government does not have concrete plans to take any steps to introduce the death penalty and that prime minister orbn has assured you president schulz that the hungarian government will respect and honour all european treaties and legislation.
we cannot and should not close our eyes to the sometimes serious challenges posed by migration in our societies.
the european union and its member states are developing common answers to the current challenges as europe is based on mutual respect solidarity and sincere cooperation.
however and i repeat what i already stated earlier a public consultation based on bias on leading and even misleading questions on prejudice about immigrants can hardly be considered a fair and objective basis for designing sound policies. framing immigration in the context of terrorism
depicting migrants as a threat to jobs and the livelihood of people is malicious and simply wrong.
this is the only way we can make progress together in europe.
on the public consultation on immigration announced by the hungarian government the second subject let me make the following comments.
however article seven provides for a far reaching sanction mechanism specifically designed to ensure respect for the fundamental values of article.
if any country in the european union votes to restore the death penalty well they have the right to vote that way but they cannot be a member of the european union at the same time that is very clear for me.
freedom of expression is our common fundamental value but it has its limits.
i have not heard in this debate today that anyone in this room disagrees that the right to work the right to a fair trial and the right to free and fair elections are not among the european union's core values.
i believe we shall continue our debate until we convince each other even if it does not happen today. as i have already mentioned i speak as the presidency of the council and therefore in the name of all twenty eight
since the subject of today's debate has not been discussed in the council my choice of words is very limited.
as i said at the outset the european union is a union of shared fundamental values equally binding on all eu institutions and member states. the abolition of the death penalty is just one example.
we cannot forbid anyone from having a debate but at the same time we hope that the outcome of this debate will reconfirm the commitment to this fundamental principle.
it is a fundamental condition for eu membership.
of its members. it is a difficult task.
at the same time there should be caution when choosing the means for defending our own values.
extreme measures may not produce the expected results.
extremist speech is forbidden.
prime minister orbn has been very clear about this.
those values are values we share in the european union and you participate in the debate because you know full well that we are entitled to address each other about these values.
and they could do that because the dutch people and many other europeans in one thousand nine hundred and fifty six knew that the desperate people fleeing from hungary needed a place to go and they opened their hearts they opened their homes they opened their societies and this is an example that we should follow.
we should help them stay in the countries where they belong.
that is also being part of the community of values that is the european union.
i respect everybody who wants to make it a debate about party politics but for the commission it is not and i am sure that many in the alde group would be surprised to be categorised as left wing today but this is a completely different matter.
it is part and parcel of being members of the european community of values that we do address the internal situation in each other's countries.
where in the proposals of the commission the migration proposals that we have presented do we propose to have freedom for all economic migrants to come here?
this debate is about the rule of law.
on the contrary we want to have a much firmer policy so that people who do not have the right to asylum must return where they came from.
where prime minister in the proposal of the commission does the commission propose to have an open door policy for migration into the european union?
first of all of course it is very important and interesting to hear of the economic success of hungary and i know prime minister orbn is a formidable campaigner who has won some of the most astonishing election victories and therefore has a huge democratic mandate. but neither economic success nor democratic mandate
and if we have the issue of quotas it is in very very limited very serious cases of a very serious crisis in a situation where a very very high number of asylum requests are indeed attributed as they are because they come in this case from syria or eritrea where we know that these people are fleeing war and conflict.
you cannot use an electoral victory or economic success as a sort of condition to say we do not then have to observe the rule of law in a member state'.
well my political question is if you never intend to make a proposal why then have a debate?
but we are also advocating a humane approach in full accordance with values we share.
these are people or children of people who had to flee communist oppression when the soviet union crushed hungary's wish for liberty in.
and indeed we need to do something to prevent masses of people coming to europe who do not have the right to asylum.
it is one of the values mr orbn fought very hard for when he was in opposition against the communist regime before the end of the european divide because that is when i got to know him and indeed he was a liberal at the time.
i make this point so strongly because i do believe that the only way forward in the migration debate is to be honest and clear about each other's intention and each other's plans.
i think of the country i know best my country of origin the netherlands nmeth szass tth these are now dutch names.
what is then the reason for the debate?
values prime minister that you fought for as a young man when your people and country were being oppressed by communism.
but this quota idea is for a very very limited number of people and it would help the debate honestly if we did not make a caricature of the proposals of the commission because it would also help to have the european public better informed of what we intend to do.
so my plea from the bottom of my heart to the hungarian government is and to everybody else do not make a caricature of the plans of the european commission because we are on the same page in terms of fighting illegal migration.
these are now names of sometimes the most successful people in dutch society.
but my respect would be bigger if the proposals of the commission were not put forward as a caricature as has been done by prime minister orbn today.
can weaken the position of the rule of law in any member state of the european union.
and finally if we have a debate and i salute prime minister orbn i respect the fact that he comes here because he knows exactly what is going to happen here; he comes here he stands for his position he defends it and i as a democrat respect that.
that is part and parcel of the commission's proposals.
so i am interested in hearing the stories about economic success and electoral success but it is neither here nor there in this debate frankly.
we should do it with respect i fully agree with you prime minister but you cannot be excluded from debating the situation in a member state simply because you are not a national of that member state.
secondly this debate in my perception is not about party politics.
where do we do that?
you cannot say nobody from an outside eu member state can talk about the situation in my country'.
we should help them stay in the region where they belong. and this is all part of the commission proposal.
let me end on this talking about the very very difficult case of refugees.
thirdly i am all in favour of freedom of speech it is one of the fundamental values we cherish.
the second is freedom for those people who live in countries like hungary to be able to make their own decisions as to what government they wish to have to govern them. i have heard nothing this evening that has really changed that view.
he says it is time to conclude the debate on hungary.
i have to say clearly to mr verhofstadt that we should never have started this debate in the first place.
at the end of the day sir that is a matter for me and that is a matter for the electorate of my country in the same way as it is a matter for the electorate in hungary and they have spoken clearly enough about whether they approve of the leader they have.
the european union is not only an economic and political union providing its citizens with an opportunity of freedom of movement and a single market.
these fundamental values are set out in the treaties and reflected in the charter of fundamental rights of the european union.
these rights freedoms and principles are also enshrined in the european convention on human rights to which all eu member states are party.
as you know the council has not discussed the situation in hungary.
however i would like to recall that the presidency and the council as a whole attaches great importance to ensuring that eu fundamental values are fully respected throughout the union in all policies.
does that mean that you do not believe in a full democracy?
the eu has now been fined nearly usd two hundred million by the world trade organisation and been forced to drop its illegal tariffs all because of the protectionism that lies at the heart of the eu in this case protection of french colonies. may i say that this very banana which i bought today in the european parliament supermarket is illegal!
it does not conform to eu rules in terms of the length the width and the straightness of bananas.
as you can see it has got a mixed reaction not surprisingly.
i think it is very important to take that on board because the primary responsibility of any body country or union is to take care of its own producers first. only in that way can you actually extend the hand of friendship to others.
so we have to be very careful.
i hope our institutions will continue to work together in such a positive way. i support the work of the un especially in the areas of peace and security and human rights and i hope they will welcome the recommendations of this report.
on monday thirty march two thousand and seven ireland signed this convention but nine years later people with disabilities are still awaiting the ratification of this convention.
also we have a situation in ireland where young persons with disabilities cannot access a european programme called the youth guarantee.
all other eu countries have now ratified this convention; we are the very last.
i know that the independent alliance have included the convention in the programme for government and i applaud this but i am saying that we need action now.
the convention itself has a rightbased approach and people with disabilities in ireland have to be able to vindicate those rights.
i have lodged a complaint with the european commission but right now we could change this in ireland and ensure that young people with disabilities who are on disability benefit or on disability allowance can access the youth guarantee the same as all other young people.
the fact that today we made a decision to object to the use of four health claims on caffeine is very important.
why is it important? it is important because we felt as meps that these claims these health claims would be misused and abused in particular by the energy drinks industry. we have been doing some work on the energy drinks industry in this house on the issue of how they have been marketing their products to children
and we know from many local authorities across the countries that we work within that there are issues about consumption of energy drinks amongst young people.
the word claims' is not really what we should be looking at.
that is why it is so important that we are discussing this today especially in relation to young children and indeed their parents who want to give them the best possible food. there are too many claims now that if you take this drink or that drink you are going to be faster and stronger and a great sports person so they consume more than they should be consuming and that is another issue the actual volume.
we have always expressed our readiness to address in the framework of confidence building other issues of concern which may be of interest for iran for example cooperation in the area of counter narcotics.
on that basis the board of governors adopted by overwhelming majority a resolution that expressed increasing concern on the iranian nuclear programme. i hope that the work that we do demonstrates our commitment to efforts aimed at achieving a diplomatic solution to the iranian nuclear issue the second part of the twin track. i have written to dr jalili my counterpart
honourable members know that for a number of years serious concerns have been expressed concerning the lack of cooperation from iran in resolving these outstanding issues including those that point to the military dimension of its nuclear programme. the iaea report of november two thousand and eleven presented findings on its activities
we have several un security council resolutions but in spite of them iran continues to violate its obligations.
i take every opportunity to reiterate this message to the iranian side most recently in my discussions with foreign minister salehi and in parallel by using my contacts with third countries particularly turkey to pass the message to iran that the door remains open for negotiations through this confidence building process which could be launched as soon as iran demonstrates its readiness to do so.
oil exports count for about eighty percent of iran's exports and seventy of government revenues.
and since it was strengthened in october it now includes sixty one people.
oil. this will maximise the effect of the sanctions.
so by specifically targeting this important source of revenue we are strongly increasing the pressure on the iranian government whilst avoiding as far as we possibly can negative effects on the iranian population. we do not stand alone in this. un sanctions continue to be in force.
this relates in particular to ongoing oppression of the political opposition but also to the increasing use and excessive application of the death penalty.
by doing so we have ensured that the eu and member states will be able to have the time and means to adjust and ensure the continuity of their energy supplies.
it was an important step.
these measures are designed to specifically and significantly affect iran's financial capacity to pursue that nuclear programme by curtailing its revenue from crude oil exports.
it showed eu unity and eu leadership.
the sanctions on oil are of particular significance because of their effect on the revenue of the iranian government.
finally i just want to mention that we also continue to have grave concerns about the human rights situation in iran.
the prohibition is taking place in a phased manner allowing us to adjust to the new situation and a review has been built in to take stock of the effect of the measure in the course of the coming months and address any problems that may arise.
in reaction to the repression and the dramatic increase in executions there has been since april two thousand and eleven an eu sanctions regime against iran addressing the human rights situation. it targets specifically those people complicit in or responsible for these grave human rights violations
we now need to convince as many like minded countries as we can in particular those who import iranian oil to take similar steps and consider reducing their import of that
on thirty one december two thousand and eleven the united states decided to strengthen further its sanctions against iran targeting in particular the iranian financial system and revenues from different sources including from oil exports.
a prohibition on the supply of equipment that could be used for oppression is also part of our sanctions. so i believe that our approach is the right one continuing our pressure on iran continuing to push for negotiations and i look forward very much to hearing from honourable members on this issue.
it does not cooperate fully with the iaea and it accelerates the expansion of its nuclear programme. in early january it started operations to enrich uranium to a level of near twenty at the underground facility at qom a site controlled by the military.
as i indicate on all occasions we are committed to maintaining this pressure on the iranian authorities to comply with their international obligations and it is a key element of the twin track approach along with the e thirty three process which as you are aware i lead.
relating to developments of military nuclear technology.
setting out proposals which would allow iran to gain benefits in the nuclear political and economic field but despite reminders i have so far received no response to proposals to enter into a confidence building process based on reciprocity and a step by step approach.
if the eu votes for sanctions it exposes itself as bankrupt not merely financially but morally too.
meps who voted for sanctions against iraq over those non existent wmds might have meant well but they helped to murder hundreds of thousands of iraqi children who died through lack of food and medicine.
it is a new target iran but the main victims will be the same children because a successful oil and banking embargo would make it impossible for iran to buy enough food and medicine for its population.
we are very clear that what we are seeking to do is to persuade the regime that it needs to come to the talks.
it. it is all done within the security
my concern is straightforward. it is to try to find a way in which we can keep them completely safe and give them a future.