kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we can of course continue to leave human rights concerns to the political level and exclude them from our trade policies.
a priority not a mere appendix to the goal of opening markets to european companies.
it underlines what is also clearly stipulated in the human rights review and in article twenty one of the lisbon treaty human rights should be the silver thread running through all our external relations in view of yesterday's adoption of the free trade agreement with colombia and peru i must add including trade
it is a very rare occasion that we have a plenary where we have two substantial human rights reports to discuss and to decide on.
we will not change much for the people in the relevant countries however and in my eyes this is the main objective of our policies and i hope we see the nobel peace prize as a challenge to become more principled in our human rights approach.
the treaties oblige us to make human rights a priority of our trade policy.
the annual report is a comprehensive document and perfectly summarises the european parliament's view on human rights developments around the globe.
in practice however we are totally inconsistent and ignorant in our approach.
we can continue to discuss the human rights situation at the end of our business meetings or issue a few press statements from time to time.
only a few days before catherine ashton's recent visit to kazakhstan the regime stepped up its clampdown on the political opposition banning opposition parties and shutting down opposition media.
yet catherine ashton's comments on the human rights situation simply amounted to box ticking and instead she emphasised the need for strong economic ties between businesses in kazakhstan and in the european union.
mr president how credible are the noble commitments in these reports to human rights if after they are passed the eu simply reverts to type realpolitik takes over and the economic interests of big business in europe take priority in external relations?
the eu stand in relation to kazakhstan and many other countries is entirely hypocritical and a slap in the face for those human rights defenders and independent trade unions fighting for human rights workers' rights and democratic rights.
vadim kuramshin one of the most outspoken human rights defenders in the country who previously was acquitted by a jury of all but one minor charge that the regime had fabricated against him was now sentenced to twelve years in prison on the very same charges.
those ties are dominated by multinational companies extracting exploiting and exporting the enormous wealth of natural resources out of kazakhstan.
mr donskis you have produced an excellent report and i commend the personal attention you have given to the issues of selective justice the proposal for a procedural mechanism in relation to the human rights clause and your proper concern about abuses in psychiatric institutions.
i also commend mr tavares and the contact group you have initiated which has strengthened parliament's active role in support of human rights. i commend the presidency speech this afternoon and celebrate with the presidency the fact that europe has acted in the un to co sponsor the resolution this year on human rights defenders and to help build the successful coalition in support of the resolution for sexual orientation and gender identity and has taken the lead in proposing the international commission of inquiry on syria.
however it has taken too long for the council to agree the common position on icc referral for syria. we must now act urgently to build international support in order to enact it at the level of the security council. the eu must also honour the commitment and the strategy to promote human rights without exception and that means ending the relative silence in relation to violations in the gulf and in central asia.
as i said last year culture change has to happen in the external action service and this is only just beginning. my proposal for human rights criteria in the professional performance review of staff should be enacted. currently in the process of drafting this parliament's report on business and human rights having recently returned from being chief observer at the elections in sierra leone and next week leading this parliament's human rights mission to bahrain i take great personal pride in contributing to this parliament's and this union's human rights efforts. but in the week of the nobel and of the sakharov prizes president those we celebrate in this debate are the people inspirational people who are human rights defenders and who keep human rights defenders alive in countries and in situations around the world where they are in greatest danger.
what we support is the position as it was before which is that before anyone could be extradited the british judge had the right to review the primary evidence.
mr president mr donskis is quite rightly concerned about selective justice under the guise of the rule of law but of course only in new and transitional democracies.
in a number of eu member states it is possible to be jailed for stating one's views on immigration or expressing an opinion on academic subjects.
nearly all tyrannies inside and outside the eu pretend that they are adhering to the rule of law but in fact they have passed laws which are tailor made for their political opponents. france is probably the worst culprit in the eu where the incautious choice of a word detail or debate might lead to prosecution
as might the posing of an unfavoured analogy or comparison between events.
ms le pen is the latest victim of such a prosecution.
i particularly like the emphasis on freedom of expression and religion having long championed christian minority rights in the communist and islamic worlds. i also welcome the further engagement of the high representative in promoting shared values.
but my group still remains unconvinced by the need for an eusr for human rights given the current involvement of member states and the external action service already in this area.
perhaps however mr lambrinidis who i see over there in office will convince me otherwise.
in addition i particularly support the universal protection of human rights defenders and journalists in the report and feel very strongly about countries subject to repeated human rights resolutions of this parliament such as pakistan iran belarus north korea and once again china where insufficient attention is being paid to the plight of the tibetans.
the further deterioration of human rights in russia is also of ongoing concern.
however there are a number of passages in the report which are simply too prescriptive in particular those relating to human rights in trade agreements the icc the un security council cia rendition and asylum and immigration which fall outside the scope of the eu's competences.
in the tavares report we have similar concerns also about being too prescriptive in its approach to the role of the delegations of this parliament in monitoring such matters which while well intentioned risk overburdening the committees with bureaucratic regulations and costs.
but the thrust of this report is generally positive and something which my group will welcome.
the ecr is fully committed to promoting fundamental human rights in the world. however these occasionally need to be balanced with other interests.
we also recognise that we cannot always impose our values on other cultures and the definition of universal human rights is often contested particularly when concerning the death penalty and abortion rights.
these two in particular remain conscience matters for individual members of our own group.
it would not happen in any other parliament in the world.
the decline in fish prices in recent years is directly and substantially caused by competition from imports of both wild and farmed fish.
this at the same time as imports of shellfish and fish have become increasingly available.
however the contradiction comes that as we seek to remove these subsidies european policy allows fish imports of unregulated fishery and aquaculture products that undermine the sustainable and economically viable fishing industry we strive for.
we need fish imports but i would contend that these should not come at any cost.
mr president commissioners first of all i want to thank the rapporteur for his report.
on the one hand my colleagues want to stop our fishermen receiving any subsidy.
on twenty four july two thousand and eight in response to the economic crisis facing europe's fishing fleet the eu fisheries council approved temporary and specific measures aimed at promoting and restructuring the fleet.
the value of nethrops or langoustines sold by my fishermen in northern ireland to other parts of europe plummeted.
mr president i rise again to suggest through you to the conference of presidents that someone needs to get their act together.
we have a fisheries sector that is neither ecologically sustainable nor economically performing well.
we need robust fisheries that ensure sustainable exploitation of the resources while allowing our fishermen their families and the communities involved to make a decent living from their activities.
i hear your concerns about unfair competition from third countries and the absence of a level playing field in terms of social conditions environmental and sustainability requirements and health protection laws. let me tell you that this same concern was voiced by all the member states which took the floor at the last agriculture and fisheries council.
so here we need an answer.
while we are changing the rules for european fisheries in the context of our cfp reform one of the biggest challenges we will have will be precisely to do our best in order to secure a level playing field for all products placed on the eu market. in this respect for instance
we should all work together to fully and effectively implement our legislation against illegal unregulated and unreported fishing.
i would also like to say that we remain committed to promoting the respect of all international principles and instruments of good maritime and fishery governance by our partners as well as their responsible behaviour in terms of environmental protection and social conditions.
i strongly support your call for an increased coherence of our policies.
we need to work together with a global and integrated vision.
yet one third of the eu market is still supplied by an eu sector that represents jobs and this part of the social fabric of many regions in europe.
with reference to wto negotiations we are paying particular attention to the ongoing discussions on subsidies. it is our view that we should always be able to support environmentally friendly and innovation oriented initiatives of our member states.
it shall also support market supply and stability and review provisions of marketing standards and information to consumers.
they want to know where the fish was caught or raised; also they want to know whether the products respect the environment and whether they have been fished sustainably.
the commission is ready to work on legislative initiatives aiming at giving consumers the information they need.
the commission is fully committed to achieving the objectives of the strategy for the sustainable development of aquaculture as we have already discussed in the ep report.
the commission is aware of the particular nature of the fisheries sector and its importance especially for coastal communities. this sensitivity is taken into consideration in the implementation of the common commercial policy.
i would like to highlight that the eu's trade policy has to reconcile the diverse interests of the various parts of the fisheries sector affected by the policy including producers processors and consumers. the commission's goal when pursuing its trade policy for fishery and aquaculture products is to achieve a balanced result between among other things an adequate supply policy the situation and interests of eu producers and the demands of consumers while taking into account potential development policy
we all acknowledge that the eu is strongly dependent on imported fishery and aquaculture products to satisfy its market demands represented not only by consumers but also by the processing industry.
given the existing trends and potential increase in dependence the current reform of the common fisheries policy is a good opportunity for the eu to reinforce the economic performance of the sector and its ability to compete globally.
in the context of free trade arrangement negotiations the commission has taken is taking and should take into account the complex nature of the eu's fishing sector during market access negotiations and ensure there is a balance between the diverse interests affected by trade policy as i have just mentioned. in the context of these global trends in international trade the commission will strive to secure the necessary time for the adjustments that will need to take place
taking into account the pace of the ongoing common fisheries policy reform.
let me briefly refer to one of the main suggestions included in the report which is the possibility of detaching fish products from nama in the framework of the dda.
at this stage of the discussions besides being very difficult to segregate fish products from nama other approaches such as a specific negotiating group could result in the eu coming under enormous pressure to further liberalise its market.
the commission takes due note of the draft report's call for the responsibility for the negotiation of fishery and aquaculture products to be transferred from the trade commissioner to the fisheries commissioner.
according to the principle of collegiality which governs the commission work all the members of the commission are jointly responsible for decisions and actions taken.
this also means that the trade commissioner and dg trade who are responsible for negotiations of fishery and aquaculture products do not act alone but negotiate in close cooperation with the maritime affairs and fisheries commissioner and dg mare and with their direct involvement at all stages of the negotiations.
the commission wants to reassure the ep that the specific needs of the fisheries sector are taken into consideration in the course of trade negotiations. indeed the commission defends the interests of the eu sector in trade negotiations and takes into account its sensitivities as far as possible even when faced with strong pressure from our trading partners.
the eu is firmly committed to promoting both labour and environmental standards in the context of trade negotiations with third countries in parallel to market opening for example in the framework of a sustainable development chapter included in our trade agreements or in a number of international fora where these issues are addressed such as the un fao and regional fisheries management organisations
you do not have any credibility.
and mr barroso here at the g twenty he stood up at the press conference and said that we do not need any lessons in democracy said the unelected president of the european commission.
the wheels are coming off. this european stability mechanism your new bailout vehicle is doomed before it starts. we have legal challenges in ireland and in germany.
yes on that friday morning breakthrough' was cried and indeed mr van rompuy parroted the word this morning breakthrough'.
there is also a massive crisis of leadership.
it is not credible.
as the rolling stones might say the nineteenth nervous breakdown and that is reflected i think by the funereal mood in this chamber this morning.
i mean he went on to say that the eurozone's problems had been caused by unorthodox practices in north america. you have made yourselves an international laughing stock.
with every one of your predictions it goes on getting worse. i am sorry sir you do not have the presence the credibility or the standing for the international markets to believe that you can provide a solution.
we did not repeat what happened in the first half of the last century when sixty million people died.
in time it is possible if we turn this around that people will look back on europe and say that was a golden era.
i want to see please more emphasis on growth jobs and hope.
mr president i welcome the steps towards banking union which came out of this meeting.
this is not easy when you need unanimity but this makes the case for more europe not more intergovernmentalism.
when you have got a fish on the line you need the right breaking strength.
if you try to land the fish too soon the line breaks and the fish gets away.
what we need right now are the skills of a fisherman not of a publicist.
i welcome also what was said by president van rompuy when he spoke about mastering this step by step.
so far we have done very well in that regard.
the berlin wall came down and we incorporated those member states into the union.
the biggest financial crisis came our way and we dealt with it.
when the dust has settled the small print is read and the details are finally discussed i fear that the outcome of this summit could be far less seismic than many in this house want to believe.
however as is usual in these things already the deal seems to be unravelling.
perhaps they relieve the immediate pressure points but it was hardly the game changer that the irish prime minister claimed.
however i find it slightly ironic that the same people in this house who want to bash the bankers and propose a financial transaction tax to punish the bankers at every opportunity are the same people that are perfectly happy for the risks and profligacy of those same bankers to be transferred on to the backs of taxpayers through these bailout funds.
the lack of competitiveness of many countries has not been addressed. the possible mutualisation of debts has yet again been avoided.
one says to the other ok let's be honest with each other';
it is about a federal europe by the back door.
the great irony of it is that this very tool that was intended to unify the peoples of europe is in fact now driving them further apart because it was always inevitable that permanent fiscal transfers would be required from the north to the south with germany acting as the paymaster of less competitive countries.
the mediterranean countries want germany to underwrite their debts.
it is a fundamental issue of accountability of government to the peoples in their own democracies.
even for these few small concessions it seems that italy had to hold the proverbial gun to germany's head.
that would be a political disaster for the euro's cheerleaders but for some countries it remains the least worst option and a possible way out of this crisis.
let us not pretend that even this relatively small shift in german policy was arrived at with great harmony.
relying on the esm and the efsf is no long term solution to this crisis because they are not bottomless pits of money with the power to grant our every wish.
it is for the eurozone to reduce in size so that some countries have the ability to devalue their way back to relative competitiveness.
this is not a small point that should be brushed under the carpet;
it was also inevitable that we would see the supranationalisation of economic policy effectively rendering national democracy defunct within the eurozone.
i am reminded of the story of the two politicians.
in reality what we saw in the council highlighted that even for countries in the euro the mentality is still one of maximising national interests.
when we look under the surface of last week's summit we find that in reality the decisions taken were of course just another set of short term stopgaps.
using the bank recapitalisation and buying bonds may give spain and italy some breathing space.
initially the markets responded positively on friday finally perhaps they had seen some signs of life from eu leaders.
countries like finland and the netherlands are challenging the new roles for the bailout funds that they seemed to have agreed to in the summit on thursday night.
however closer integration should preserve the unity and integrity of the union of twenty seven and its single market. agreed initial measures some would say half measures should evolve into full measures of banking fiscal and political union.
advanced integration of seventeen at the expense of the disintegration of twenty seven is not an acceptable solution.
we should avoid being satisfied with half measures for a half union.
measures addressed to the eu of seventeen only some would say half union solutions should evolve and be open for all members at least those which are willing.
we should not accept the logic of differentiation and a two speed integration of the eu.
we need an inclusive not exclusive format.
this is in stark contrast to the position taken by your leader prime minister cameron. it would be good in terms of accountability to your public for you to say the same thing here that you say in london. the reality
others. this is exactly the wrong
history. and we should not forget that the european project was made precisely to avoid the divisions of the past and the demons that existed in european
countries of europe and some of us have been countries for many many centuries have had the greatest moments of glory and very dark moments in our
it would be a mistake a complete mistake to try to divide the euro area from the rest of the european union.
the simple fact that the commission makes proposals does not in itself lead to quick agreements.
it is false to say that the conclusions are only one way.
in fact this european council addressed at the same time short term measures and a vision for the future and tried to combine the need for stability with growth.
it is in this context that we should analyse the results of this european council. regarding growth as the commission has been stating we need to combine structural reforms at national and european level with investment and
this is not the way to do things in europe either we win together or we will be defeated together. what we need is a strong european
now. i think it is better not to wait until october and then wait until the end of the year to take action.
is it days is it weeks is it months?
do not wait until the end of the
apparently a number of member states today have another opinion mainly finland. my question to you is what has been really decided now?
because already today if you look at the markets you can see the effect of this attitude.
fund; secondly a real integrated budgetary framework including eurobills and a redemption fund this crisis is not over if there is not at least the beginning of a redemption fund and a partial mutualisation of the debt; and finally democratic transparency and accountability.
the spanish spreads had gone up again to four hundred and ninety one by mid morning that is almost five hundred basic points so we are not out of this crisis.
well i think that we wasted time at the beginning of this year.
launching the first phase of project bonds this commission proposal that was initially received with great scepticism has now been approved; and redirecting a certain amount of structural funds towards supporting in particular smes and young unemployed people. indeed the unemployment situation in europe is by far the most worrying and urgent issue we should be able to address. at the same time there is the recognition that we have important work to do to realise the full potential of the single market particularly in digital and network industries.
we must in particular explore all that can be done on the basis of the existing treaties as a matter of urgency.
regard. secondly we reached an agreement to waive the seniority of future loans for spain's financial sector recapitalisation under
as i have said before this is a defining moment for europe and indeed the sense of urgency was very present throughout the european council even if different governments were under pressure for different reasons.
this of course is not the end of the efforts that need to be made. legislation needs to be proposed adopted and implemented.
year. and it has endorsed this aspiration collectively even if it is clear that not all member states will want to be part of the ultimate outcome of the process.