kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
at the summit the commission agreed to maintain or to restore the stock to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. the subsequent proposal by the commission was drafted in close cooperation with the pelagic rac which had originally put forward a proposal. egg surveys for horse mackerel have been conducted every three years since. one thousand nine hundred and seventy seven however the data collected was insufficient to allow scientists to make a full assessment of the health of the stock.
however i understand that the danish presidency is currently pursuing a proposal put forward by their predecessors before christmas.
i appreciate that all parties are working together in good faith in an effort to progress on this important dossier.
they are understandably upset that their efforts are being frustrated by a failure to implement the plan a situation which is being blamed by some on the ongoing game of ping pong between the eu's institutions namely this parliament and the council. the development of long term management plans is the way forward for europe's commercial fisheries.
however this plan is now being fast tracked.
the absence of such a plan was one of the reasons given for the imposition of a ten cut in irish sea herring for two thousand and twelve although i must say that this was also a moveable argument over the course of these negotiations in the weeks and months before it.
i hope that the positive scientific assessment on irish sea herring together with the advice contained in the plan will be reflected in a mid year decision to increase the tac to a level reflecting the current state of the stock.
the return of unwanted fish that are likely to survive the counting of other unintentionally caught adult fish towards quotas and the selling of accidentally caught undersize fish for pet food and fishmeal are all reasonable proposals within the context of the common fisheries policy.
when it comes to community aid to the fishery sector our fishermen such as those in whitby hull and grimsby do not receive fair treatment.
for as long as we remain in the eu the total allowable catch figures and the number of days at sea allocated to the uk must reflect the fact that we provide a massively disproportionate amount of the total fishing grounds and the stock of fish.
our default position is opposition to any common fisheries policy.
if environmental and social sustainability is to be achieved i think that decentralisation has to be at the top of the agenda and that returning real management power to fishing nations would ensure that those with most to gain from successful conservation would have for the first time the incentive to make it happen.
however it has become iconic in terms of the log jam that has developed between this house and the council.
i absolutely agree with the interpretation that commissioner damanaki has placed on this.
we are in accord between parliament and the commission on the correct legal basis and our approach to this particular resolution but this has been jammed now for over three years.
since the introduction of the lisbon treaty we have had no movement at all from the council and chris davies is absolutely right in saying we are looking to the danish presidency to sort this out.
i think for that reason we would ask the council to bring forward a roadmap for how they are going to deal with it and also to ensure there is enough flexibility at member state level not to have a dramatic rise in terms of standards in one and a dramatic drop in another.
however we are concerned about a number of aspects particularly in relation to the lack of urgency at council level to deal with the directive.
if we do that we can make progress.
of course the commission had no implementing rules to ensure a common approach. as the commissioner pointed out with the advent of the lisbon treaty and obviously the development of the internet and the way the world has moved on since it needs to be updated.
there seems to be certain movement on the regulation but not enough on the directive.
yes i think that is a very important point because we have to have consistency right across the board.
i fear that if it is not completed by the end of next year with elections pending in two thousand and fourteen it might be very difficult to make much progress if there is too much left to be done in. two thousand and fourteen
firstly i would like to reconfirm that for the commission progress on this very important issue means that we are going to negotiate both the regulation and the directive as a package. we really mean it.
all the agreements and proposals that have some relevance to this data protection issue.
we would like to overcome it.
and second to offer european businesses a future proof and technologically neutral data protection regime.
we must now make rapid progress to reach agreement on the package on the table.
for the commission progress means that the regulation and the directive continue to be negotiated as a package.
we can ensure a high level of protection for individuals' data whilst respecting the specific nature of the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
in particular the revised eu data protection framework can now cover both cross border and domestic processing of personal data.
this would reduce differences between the legislation in member states.
the status quo may not always facilitate the smooth exchange of information between member states. the rules set by the pre lisbon framework decision that the proposed directive aims to replace are limited to cross border processing.
in practice police and law enforcement authorities may not have always distinguished between cross border and domestic processing.
it is not always feasible to draw this distinction in the daily work of a policeman or of a court.
for instance a single national database used in the law enforcement field may contain personal data that were both collected nationally and received from another member state. it would be inefficient to create two separate databases in such situations;
it would also be inefficient to apply two different sets of data protection rules within a single database.
the proposed directive aims to cover both domestic and cross border processing.
this has been a longstanding request from parliament.
the proposed directive also contains the same protection principles as those enshrined in the regulation.
this also echoes parliament's request to extend the application of the general data protection rules to the areas of police and judicial cooperation.
key elements enshrined in the draft regulation are also introduced in the proposed directive such as data protection by design and by default; the appointment of data protection officers;
the obligation to notify personal data breaches;
and the extension of the powers of the commission to adopt adequacy decisions for international transfers to third countries.
these novelties emphasise the importance of robust protection rules in instruments allowing for data exchange.
let us never lose sight of the fact that the protection of personal data is a right enshrined in the union's treaties and in the charter of fundamental rights.
this is why the new data protection rules will have to be taken into account in sectoral instruments in particular in the area of the former third pillar.
once a directive has entered into force the commission within three years will have to review and possibly amend other acts adopted by the european union which regulate the processing of personal data by law enforcement authorities.
but i would like to add one element and that is that the directive for us is a precondition for further police and justice cooperation and that is something that the council should understand because the council too has wishes.
it wants to proceed as we do in the area of police and justice cooperation.
but how can police and justice exchange data if there is no adequate data protection? so i would strongly advise the absent council to proceed quickly with the directive and i would like to go a little bit further than my colleagues;
if the council wants us to adopt further measures in the area of police and justice cooperation i can think of a few interesting dossiers eu pnr investigation order and what have you. they had better speed up their work on the directive.
i would also like to remind the council that the predecessor of the directive the framework decision which is currently in force was actually voted down by this house. unfortunately that was pre lisbon.
but we do not consider that the current framework decision is adequate so whatever the council comes up with it will have to be a good deal better than what is currently in force.
secondly we will work very hard to align the directive with the regulation because we are disappointed that there are two instruments rather than one and we will work very hard to try and ensure a single harmonised level of data protection for all use of personal data.
do i feel lucky?
mr president speaking as rapporteur for the eu pnr agreement and as a shadow on a number of other european policing measures i see this directive as essential in increasing the confidence of european citizens in the work that law enforcement agencies carry out.
it is only through applying the highest standards to policing and justice that we create a democracy which has the faith and trust of all its citizens.
therefore i hope this directive achieves two main goals that of protecting civil liberties and lives but also that of creating mechanisms which allow for the safe exchange of law enforcement data.
in order to address the needs of such a system i believe that a common sense approach is the best way forward.
but certainly i would stress to other members of this house that this directive cannot be a solution for everything and every other law enforcement measure current or future.
we must lose no time in pressing forward with our work and it is our duty to protect european citizens as a result.
we are creating and extending a bureaucracy and bureaucracies always set out to justify themselves by showing both the massive scale of the problem and the need for more complex solutions. you can see it in this report and in the proposed legislation.
it is no more than a proto agency right now but as ever it will grow and it will grow.
mr president this is essentially a commercial problem and if action is needed then it is a situation crying out to be addressed by the private sector acting in its own commercial interests under the law.
what we have here is the usual manifestation of the commission's proposals because it will be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
you would think that an office like this would be put in an established commercial centre or a place associated with innovation entrepreneurship and growth but it is placed on the costa blanca.
it reminds me of the famous song oh we do like to live beside the seaside oh we do like to live beside the sea' because come on let us get real we are once again seeing taxpayers' money being thrown at jobs for the boys' corporatism.
but instead we get this report which has all the hallmarks of everything which is worst about the eu and the commission in particular because it is going to be done using taxpayers' money.
it will never ever be brought in at a saving to the taxpayer. it will become eventually as all these things always do another bureaucratic monster.
it states facts which can only be conjecture. it is telling that you cannot be precise or even necessarily in the right ballpark when assessing grey economic activity.
that would be a real impact assessment not the usual commission approach of assuming what it seeks to prove.
certainly from my group's perspective we were at the forefront of ensuring that smes play their part in this and that their interests are protected fully as well.
therefore it is absolutely essential that we have a body like this in place that is able to advise us and give us guidance as to where we need to be moving next.
well a big part of our growth agenda can be fulfilled from the potentials that we have in innovation and what our thinkers right across the european union are doing in the creative industries.
of all the briefs that i have been involved with since i have been in this parliament by far the biggest challenge for me has been the whole intellectual property debate and the biggest part of the challenge has been trying to keep up with the game because by the time we have legislated and moved to where we feel we need to be at the whole agenda seems to have moved on.
one only needs to look to see how economically we need to grow at this moment at time.
by two thousand and sixteen we expect there to be three billion internet users globally and the internet economy will reach usd.
we therefore need to make sure that we have the correct policy portfolio in place so that we are able to exploit this new and expanding market and that the observatory is well placed to be able to assist us to do that.
mr president today we are discussing the european observatory which will help to provide independent data and facilitate the exchange of good practice in the very real area of counterfeiting and piracy.
firstly i am glad to see that the initial proposal from the commission has undergone a number of changes within parliament and the council especially when it comes to the governance model.
the office should be taking into account the existing information obligations on member states relating to intellectual property infringements.
i have submitted amendments that will allow the observatory to focus on all types of ipr infringements.
another important issue is to have the office support the activities of national authorities as well as private industry but it should provide observations not strict recommendations to member states.
i am indeed relieved that we in these difficult financial times are able to save the taxpayers money by efficient use of financial and human resources and at no cost to the eu budget. with the governance model in the final proposal being much more satisfactory and the description of the tasks and responsibilities of the observatory now being more concrete i am now happy to vote in favour of the final report.
he certainly does not speak for the british position on this.
i just wanted to inform honourable members that we are ready to assist those states concerned.
however the purpose of the sanctions is to achieve that change.
it is important that it be understood here and that it be understood by the country and especially by the people.
i want to be very clear here using the example of iran.
the purpose of these measures is to bring about a change of policy or activity in a country in a government in entities or indeed in individuals.
we want the restrictive measures that we impose to be properly understood. we have to be actively engaged in communication about our sanctions including with the country that we have targeted and with its population.
they also as you equally recognise have to be tailored to the specific objectives of each restrictive measures regime. the uniform and consistent interpretation and effective implementation of these measures is essential if we are to ensure that they are effective in achieving the desired political objective and that is directly related of course to the adoption of similar measures by third countries.
they have to be rightfully transferred to the new state and that is very complex.
when countries and regimes fail in their objectives in terms of either their commitments internationally or as we have seen in syria their ability to support their people and when indeed they turn to violence against their people we are obliged to act both morally and i believe internationally because of the positions that we hold.
the purpose of the sanctions on iran is to persuade them to fulfil the obligations that they signed up to in signing the non proliferation treaty and to allow the inspectors to do their work and convince us of iran's desire to have only a civil nuclear power programme if that is what they wish
indeed the european union together with the world bank is planning a workshop in tunisia bringing the relevant experts together to provide help and to support them in getting back the assets that rightly belong to the people of tunisia.
it may bear my name but it is the result of collective effort on a cross party basis.
one of the most important tools we have in our foreign policy toolkit is that of the sanction or restrictive measure and this report aims to make our current policies on restrictive measures coherent and consistent.
it recommends that all external restrictive measures be matched by an equivalent approach towards the activities of authoritarian leaders when they come within the union's borders.
by allowing them to act with impunity within our borders as we currently do we undermine our foreign policy and yet we currently allow them to shield their often dubiously acquired gains within our banking systems.
we offer them the incentive and the capacity to continue with corruption and the exploitation of their people and their resources.
the main focus of this report is to advocate a consistent approach to authoritarian leaders that is in tune with our values and visions.
we recommend updating our policies to make them more proportionate more targeted and more humane and to use the new tools given us in the lisbon treaty to create a multi instrument strategy to be coherent and effective.
it seeks to prohibit them from holding financial and material assets within our borders commits us to a more rigorous adherence of travel bans so that they cannot travel within our borders for non humanitarian purposes and asks member states to prosecute those within the eu suspected of assisting them in circumventing sanctions policy.
we need to be careful to use the measures in such a way that they do not harm the general population or the development of civil society which could help in the processes of change.
down to the last individual because the smallest minority is the individual. my thinking is influenced by aristotle's emphasis on the individual. our prosperity in europe is the result of the consciousness that no one should be above the law.
the myanmar authorities' failure to fulfil these essential state functions must spur the international community to act.
as in eighteenth century prussia those at the mercy of the myanmar authorities must be able to stand up and say that there are judges in berlin.
however there are still millions who are stateless and persecuted every day because of it.
these are the messages that myanmar and any other country in this region and the world must be reminded of. i am proud of this house honourable colleagues because we seized this noble opportunity to focus across the political spectrum on the absolute essentials
as a proud british conservative i uphold a rich tradition that champions the cause for the small state both in number and regulatory functions.
under the age of five across the south and south east asia region have not had their births registered and are at risk of becoming stateless.
stripped of property rights and denied access to health education and the right to start a business.
enhanced political and economic relations with europe go in tandem with individual freedoms and the rule of law.
of life liberty and the right to happiness.
we must recognise the progress made in indonesia cambodia and vietnam.
it was the magna carta in the early thirteenth century and the contributions of thomas hobbes and john locke on the social contract that paved the way forward.
the raison d'tre of the state anywhere in the world is to defend protect and enforce the rule of law so that each and every individual is genuinely free. people of all ethnic religious and cultural backgrounds must have their unalienable rights protected
these programmes aim to raise awareness of the issue assist stateless persons and support governments in addressing the problem.
also in extreme cases it can lead to conflict and displacement.
let me give you some concrete examples of our action in south and south east asia.
where whole communities are affected we can witness poverty and marginalisation and as a consequence significant humanitarian and development needs.
first we underline that in preventing radicalisation we must search for the best possible models of european practice on so called foreign fighters'.
that is why the import of what i am saying today is please treat the european parliament as your partner in dealing with the eu security strategy.
in fighting violent extremism and terrorism we should use our existing tools effectively before creating new tools and in doing so we should not undermine the very fundamental values that terrorists wish to violate.
we also welcome cooperation with it companies and civil society and law enforcement authorities through an eu forum to develop tools to counter terrorist propaganda online and in social media.
in doing so we could not have envisaged in just how important a context we would discuss the need for increased cooperation of the highest quality to ensure the security of our citizens and to ensure we get the balance right between tackling terrorism on the one hand and ensuring that those same terrorists do not disrupt the freedoms we enjoy.
we never say that this is going to be easy but we welcome new structures within europol called the european counterterrorism centre and the effective work that it is already doing.
we fully understand that the union's internal security has become more complex asymmetric and difficult to predict but equally we understand that there has been more value placed on cross border cooperation data sharing and cyber security.
secondly the importance of cross border access to information and in particular the european police record index system.
we want to be practical in this house and our practical priorities for this parliament in terms of existing and new measures are firstly to update the sis ii system to make compulsory alerts of persons convicted or suspected of terrorism and to help member states implement travel bans at national level.
for these very good reasons you will find full commitment and partnership in the eu security agenda.
in monitoring the internet for content which may lead to terrorist attacks we must stick to the rule of law so as not to end up in the grey zones of censorship.
the resolution that we present is full of ideas from members of this parliament who have great experience spanning many years of dealing with terrorism and dealing with many reports in this house both legislative and nonlegislative.
so what is parliament contributing in terms of the commission's priorities for a modernised security agenda at this critical and sensitive moment?
i know that in dealing with this resolution we have had many shades of opinion and political differences but the most important thing that i want to say as chair of this committee is that the expertise both in terms of security and in terms of fundamental rights and understanding of data issues is very rich in this
it is always the case that member states provide the first response in terms of internal security but it is now absolutely clear that cooperation across borders of the european union and cooperation in the priority areas of counter terrorism cyber security and related organised crime have taken on a renewed importance.
two thousand and fifteen we suggest possible solutions to the most sensitive and difficult security challenges for example online terrorism threats and online radicalisation.
the digital revolution brought us tremendous possibilities and advantages but it is also abused by criminals.
organised crime not only uses technological digital developments;
research and innovation can be the successful source for new forms of security;
what we need now is a clear schedule on how to implement all of those solutions as soon as possible. in the implementation we should respect the division of competences what should be done by the union and what should remain as national competences while being more open to cooperation.