kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
lack of mutual recognition of testing on goods or professional qualifications is a key example.
the single market should be a partnership between countries and their governments should commit with their actions.
this is what this report is about.
why does an online betting company have to have an offline establishment to trade in another country?
it won't be easy but it's in all our longterm interests and i hope this report will provide a new impetus to tear down barriers and create a free single market that delivers for businesses both big and small for consumers and for workers.
now the term nontariff barriers' is wellknown in international trade but it's fair to say that we had quite a lot of discussion about what it is and what it isn't within this house and the definition was tricky to agree on.
we need more collaboration between member states and we've identified these gaps in the report with regard to goods but i think it's in services where there are real problems.
at the moment the single market works for big businesses.
as i've gone around my constituency from stratford to stoke small businesses tell me that they often find it much easier to trade with canada or the us than they do with france or germany. artificial barriers and red tape block the free movement of goods and services.
this fuels a feeling that europe is just for big business and not for the little guys.
at the same time consumers lose out.
so they give up and we lose that trade and then they watch big companies come in and take over that trade.
we need a proper single market that delivers for consumers and for all businesses.
they have the economies of scale and the wealth to get around barriers to trade that small companies do not they just give up.
it is trying to identify technical barriers to trade within the internal market.
why are there fees on global income for supermarkets in eastern europe which only hit foreign companies.
do taps really need to be tested twenty eight times to be sold in twenty eight different eu countries?
this isn't about harmonization but where there are problems we've got to highlight them and we found problems in a number of sectors including retail construction and professional services to name a few and we need to address them.
as we've seen with this report parliament is fully behind this objective and i hope the commission is too.
why is does a uk hairdresser with thirty years' experience have to train for four years to be a hairdresser in germany?
but protectionism isn't fair; it kills jobs it kills growth and it kills competitiveness and it penalises consumers.
it exists in a variety of sectors within europe and we would challenge third countries if they employed such methods.
we know the problem and we've been trying to solve it for years but we haven't looked at it from the perspective of international trade. it is sometimes forgotten in this house that trading in another eu country is still international trade and it involves different rules different regulations and different languages.
nor is it an ntb when governments legislate for legitimate public policy reasons but their actions should be proportionate.
we need a change in mindset in national ministries and we need better and clearer enforcement of single market rules by the commission.
i think that we are all clear that deepening the single market is the best way not just to improve the investment climate the business environment and the productivity of the eu economy but also to improve service to consumers and to our fellow citizens.
i think although we have successfully removed tariff barriers to trade across the european union it's right that there are still too many nontariff barriers in the way of the proper development of the single market and those are the focus of our work today and of the communication on the single market that we are set to adopt in june.
we will be taking action to deepen the single market for services and here i think that digitalisation offers great new opportunities.
i think the way to approach this is to identify the barriers that there are to crossborder sale of services identify those barriers one by one with member states and work out ways to address them.
i am looking forward to working with the european parliament in all these areas to take the single market further and to support competition to support investment and to support growth in europe.
it is fundamental to the single market but our analysis shows that providing services across european borders or setting up a branch or a subsidiary in another member state could be simplified further.
in my own area of financial services we are working to build a single market for capital in europe the capital markets union and at the heart of that project is the goal of channelling investment to projects that need financing.
so for example we will present an euwide action plan to ensure the mutual recognition of goods is respected we will revise the mutual recognition regulation and the goal is that more companies should know their rights and make the most of the opportunities that mutual recognition could create for their businesses.
the free movement of services is of course enshrined in our treaties.
we are developing the services passport which is a voluntary electronic procedure to reduce the burden for service providers who want access other member states' markets.
this will set out our approach to making sure that agreed legislation is consistently enforced across the eu and i agree with the importance of enforcement as well as a series of more targeted actions to make sure that the single market is working as well as it can.
we want authorities to be aware of their obligations and to apply mutual recognition properly and we also want to create a culture of mutual recognition that's based on trust and legal certainty across europe.
so to make it easier for companies to invest we will bring forward proposals to reduce nontariff barriers that complicate crossborder investment like differences in insolvency law for example.
i hope like the rapporteur that this report will give us impetus and some of the evidence as well that will help guide us in our work.
the commission estimates that more ambitious implementation of the services directive could add.
i was grateful to him for the way he set out his arguments in a way if i may say so that i found very convincing.
so it's a price worth having.
as he said about the importance as well of making the single market work for small businesses as a former small businessman myself that's a sentiment that i share entirely.
but the application of the european arrest warrant without proper procedural guarantees has in some cases led to the denial of justice because mutual recognition has not been accompanied by a solid basis for mutual trust.
andrew has been in prison in greece for six months awaiting trial on a manslaughter charge which seems to be based on mistaken identity and i am afraid to say police brutality to witnesses and i believe the european arrest warrant has been misused.
the member state initiative on interpretation and translation proposing the text which the council agreed on last october is less ambitious than the commission text and needs improving.
it is not just individual citizens who fear poor guarantees of rights; this also deters judges but also police and prosecutors from working together too.
thanks to liberal democrats the uk legislation implementing the measure says that the court must be satisfied there is no breach of the european convention on human rights.
that promise was betrayed by member states in failing to accept the commission's two thousand and four proposal for a reasonably wide framework decision on procedural rights and now a piecemeal approach is the best we can get.
the problem is not the absence of standards but the absence of practical respect and many member states find themselves before the strasbourg court for this reason.
now if all member states genuinely observed their obligations under the echr there might be no need for eu measures.
considering that the treaty on european union and now the tfeu obliges eu states to respect the echr this is shameful and unacceptable. so we do need an eu mechanism for enforcement which from now on will be provided by commission infringement competence and european court of justice supervision.
i happen to believe that the human rights assurance in european arrest warrants should be an explicit condition of extradition even if the commission hates that.
judges are currently asked to enforce the judgments and orders of courts in other member states without examining the facts and they will be subject to increasing criticism and public unease if there is no eu wide compliance with minimal procedural safeguards and defence rights for criminal investigations and prosecutions.
i am grateful that it was relaunched by the swedish presidency but it is only a roadmap on a step by step basis.
i hope the commission and council agree that the standard of directives guaranteeing fundamental rights should be high.
so we are concerned that the first measure does not demonstrate the highest standards. i hope we will be more ambitious and set a precedent for the next stages in building up procedural rights which after interpretation and translation are followed by other measures like legal advice right to information right to communicate with consular authorities and so on.
but it is question of balance and getting european arrest warrant plus' and thus justice all round through procedural guarantees to accompany simplified cross border prosecutions.
one of those cases is my own constituent andrew symeou.
mr president i frankly and fully acknowledge that these two oral questions tabled on one december last year have been overtaken by events but this debate is still worthwhile to acknowledge that the issue of procedural rights is fully back on the table after a regrettable absence of several years and to stress the urgency and priority of this programme.
is it your contention therefore that the european arrest warrant should be used only against terrorists and murderers and in cases of serious violent crimes?
to restate zola j'accuse ' i accuse the parties of the british political establishment their support for the european arrest warrant has put everyone in britain at risk of random arrest.
they are permitted three telephone calls and one shower a week.
and they are imprisoned only because of the european arrest warrant.
the european arrest warrant swept away at a stroke the safeguards against arrest established in britain over a thousand years.
they are separated and have no contact with each other.
i speak tonight because as has been mentioned two constituents michael turner and jason mcgoldrick are imprisoned in unit two of the central budapest jail in hungary.
they are allowed one family visit per month.
the european arrest warrant has replaced extradition.
two thousand and one our proposal would still be on a shelf gathering dust if it had not been for the events in new york five days later.
both are deprived of the company of loved ones.
two of my constituents are currently in detention in hungary awaiting trial. though their extradition was requested over a year ago and though they have been there for two months they have not yet been indicted and their trial may yet be months away.
cases like this give european judicial cooperation a bad name.
it has ruled out decisions based on political expediency to the extent that member states surrender their own nationals.
so why is it that until recently this has been stuck in the council's in tray?
this house insisted at the time that it should be accompanied by minimum procedural guarantees in criminal legal proceedings.
the commission made its proposals in two thousand and two and undertook to see speedy action.
they pour shame on the inaction of governments in council. the authors of this oral question are right they require europe's urgent attention.
it has vastly enhanced the rule of law on our continent but the european arrest warrant relies on mutual trust and there are too many cases where such trust is called into question by our citizens.
and yet both may be innocent of the crimes of which they are charged.
one has lost his job and his family's main source of income.
why has the commission not been waging war to see all of its proposals approved and not have them approved separately?
the eaw is destroying innocent people's lives.
they now cry crocodile tears in london over mr symeou's fate despite having been materially responsible for the common procedures that caused it and while here they work for more of the same legislation.
an existing common procedure in the form of the european arrest warrant has removed the centuries old safeguards against unjust arrest and imprisonment that the english used to enjoy.
mr symeou has been held for six months in the notorious korydallos prison without bail or prospect of trial. the political cynicism of the british liberal democrats is truly breathtaking.
the committee calls for the council to continue work in introducing common european procedural rights in criminal matters.
the common procedures are about lowering european legal standards and not raising them.
my constituent andrew symeou is just one of a growing number of people extradited without an english court having the power to consider the prima facie evidence against them and to prevent unjust extradition.
i said he helped us to speed it up.
it was never intended solely to cover terrorist crimes;
it was intended to cover all serious crimes.
those who oppose its use are those who effectively oppose the rule of law on our continent and the protection that the european arrest warrant gives to our citizens.
i also commend the council's contribution and commitment.
to be honest at first i was a bit surprised but in the end i am very thankful for this debate because it is obviously necessary to remind member states of their duty to remain sensitive to reflect history to be careful with words and to implement both the framework established in two thousand and eleven and
but let me end on a positive note by once again stressing the fruitful cooperation between the three institutions in defending the rights of europe's roma.
fundamental rights and decent life chances belong to roma and non roma alike. let us show that this is so.
whichever government a member state of the european union is ruled by it is indispensable to guarantee equal rights equal chances and the right to education to all citizens irrespective of their origin and to do everything to preclude any form of discrimination. this is not only the duty of the member states of the european union but also of the member states of the council of europe.
as mentioned we have already called on the commission to propose a post two thousand and twenty strategy on roma integration.
finally let me use this opportunity to raise my voice for those roma people who have been targeted injured or killed by far right groups in ukraine recently. colleagues the reality is that there are pogroms in europe in.
and to those politicians feeding hatred intolerance and fear in order to get votes and gain power what are you?
such governments use our democratic tools to crash our jointly built democracy our commonly set european values which we have worked on together for decades.
such governments want to register roma people so that they can deport them.
we have to decide if we want to keep an open democratic society or if we want to live in a europe of growing intolerance and racism.
we have already seen the horrific consequences of such political groups gaining ground in europe but it seems that our european memory is very short.
i will not comment on that anymore but really!
such governments incite fear hatred anger and make innocent people scapegoats and treat them as criminals.
fellow citizens we are at the crossroads.
such governments attack criminalise and exclude those who do not fit into their racially dictated boxes.
salvini has shown us what we can expect from a populist and far right government absolutely no respect for either national or european law. such governments say no to people in need and leave them to die in the sea.
the choice is yours and it is one with far reaching consequences.
i say shame on you!
where challenges arise because the presence of marginalised roma communities is placing particular strains on some localities the commission supports the efforts of local authorities to improve their social inclusion by promoting good practices and also of course the effective use of available eu funds. in its latest assessment of the implementation of italy's national roma integration strategy
public authorities must distance themselves from and actively rebut such discourses targeting roma and proactively fight against racist and xenophobic behaviour.
more importantly it must be clear that inclusion cannot be achieved by denying people's fundamental rights and violating human dignity.
statements associating anti social behaviour or criminality with people of a certain ethnic origin or nationality are stigmatising and totally unacceptable.
however not all the member states of the european union are signatories of these conventions.
this directive is applicable to all third country nationals for instance all persons who are not eu citizens staying illegally on the territory of an eu member state.
must be respected.
while all eu citizens have the right to move and reside freely within the eu this must be done within the conditions and limitations set out in eu law. as regards stateless persons member states are bound by obligations under international law.
two thousand and twenty but back to today's reality. it is regrettable to see that seven years later similar issues are re entering public discourse in some member states. the commission has always made it clear that the fundamental rights of eu citizens including free movement and non discrimination on grounds of ethnicity
respect for fundamental rights is a key european achievement which both promotes and gives concrete expression to mutual understanding openness and tolerance in european societies.
under the eu treaties for migration and border control purposes stateless people are considered as third country nationals and expulsion of stateless persons to third countries is possible only if carried out in line with eu law as set out in the return directive.
in particular the one thousand nine hundred and fifty four convention relating to the status of stateless persons and the one thousand nine hundred and sixty one convention on the reduction of statelessness.
the commission condemns all manifestations of racism and xenophobia as these phenomena are incompatible with the values and principles on which the european union is based.
they fuel racism and xenophobia they can contribute to the spread of intolerance in society and they are therefore very damaging.
the commission emphasised that addressing the issue of camps should be carried out within an integrated approach fully respecting individual rights and freedoms and addressing simultaneously the challenges in the areas of education employment and health. it is evident that member states have to be reminded of their commitment made in two thousand and eleven when the eu framework was adopted by consensus in the council.
equal treatment is not just an ideal but a solid principle enshrined in european law.
moreover the council supports the ambitious plans of the commission high level group seeking to develop with member states concrete practices and tools to improve responses to racism xenophobia and other forms of intolerance.
we all know that many roma in europe face deep poverty social exclusion and racial discrimination and we know we must do more to put this right. i am sure we all agree on one thing a europe that protects should especially protect those who find themselves in the most vulnerable situations.
it is part of the european pillar of social rights jointly proclaimed by parliament the council and the commission at the end of last year.
already in two thousand and six the council called on the commission to propose a post two thousand and twenty strategy on roma integration.
the framework we established in two thousand and eleven is due to expire in. two thousand and twenty the council stands ready to work further on this important subject.
the council has already adopted a directive that prohibits discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin.
in our joint proclamation we once again committed ourselves to the principle of equal treatment and opportunity regardless of racial or ethnic origin.
of course as you will understand it is not for the presidency to comment on public statements made by individual ministers in member states.
in this spirit seven years ago the council the commission and parliament jointly called for action across europe to improve the situation of roma.
allow me to add a personal note to this discussion as i am politically responsible for the mauthausen memorial the former concentration camp in austria where approximately one hundred zero people were killed during the second world war.
in addition the council has asked member states to develop effective methods to report and ensure the proper recording of hate crimes.
last but not least we should remember and commend the remarkable work done by the fundamental rights agency in this field and concerning roma in particular.
we also welcome and support the ongoing eu level dialogue with major it companies to address hate speech online.
i thank the council for its actions to get japan to stop these barbaric practices. the eu trades with japan and has ties with japan.
japan has plenty of other meat to eat and as the japanese have become better informed the demand for whale meat has plummeted but still japan continues to subsidise this killing.
it is truly horrifying that japan continues such practices with no sign of scientific reports;
if it must study japan should carry out non lethal research and stop killing highly endangered species.
what next then does the council plan to say to japan?
it justifies this under scientific research but the rest of the world has always seen this as an excuse to continue whale hunting for food. the icj ruled this march that there was a lack of scientific merit in japan's whale hunting programs yet since the court's ruling japan has announced another twelve year whaling program.
there are just no excuses for the killing of whales.
it is possible and rewarding and much more productive.
we and the international community must discourage these barbaric acts.
it is an important milestone for all contracting governments to the international whaling commission certainly when it comes to assessing the necessity of having recourse to lethal methods of sampling where non lethal alternatives exist.
we supported the adoption of resolution two thousand and fourteen five called whaling under special permit' which offers among other elements directions for the scientific committee to consider when assessing new and existing special permit research programmes.
japan has submitted a proposal for a new special permit research programme in the antarctic ocean which is currently being reviewed under what is known as the annex p process.
the european union and its member states have always favoured an approach that would preserve both the independence of the scientific committee as a scientific forum and the policy prerogatives of the iwc as the ultimate decision making authority under the international convention.
the presidency at that time on behalf of the eu and its member states expressed this view at the meeting of the international whaling commission held in september two thousand and fourteen in portoro in slovenia.
we should honestly represent our citizens' concerns make their voices heard and solve this issue once and for all.
second a renewed commitment to structural reform;
it also has a significant structural component which has lowered the potential growth of eu economies.
it will support strategic project and risk finance especially for