kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i also wonder whether the council and commission have considered revisiting last year's decision to grant albanians visa free travel to the eu in the light of the bloodshed which may of course generate more economic emigration to the schengen area if foreign direct investment dries up.
organised crime and corruption still flourish and the judiciary is too often manipulated by politicians.
there is no way albania can even begin to enact the reforms necessary to regain the eu's confidence in the current political environment of instability.
this instability may also now cause nato to reconsider its own enlargement policy albania having joined the alliance less than two years ago. nato leaders must now question whether albanian membership was granted too soon.
albania is a full member of the organisation of the islamic conference an increasingly powerful and influential lobby in the un promoting the interests of its members and voting as a bloc on human rights and foreign policy matters.
oic members include albania and turkey both of whom are signatories to the cairo declaration on human rights which cites sharia as the basis for human rights in muslim countries.
albania like turkey must now decide between embracing western values or whether to give primacy to those of sharia law which the european court of human rights here in strasbourg has deemed incompatible with european values though so far in my view albania's membership of the oic in fairness seems only nominal.
it seems to have been designed by the albanian leadership that they join the oic in order to attract middle eastern money rather than based on any strong religious convictions but of course this could all change in the future.
the president said this was unacceptable and invited mr bloom to apologise.
if he does not do so people will infer from that his attitude towards the democratic process.
they go far beyond what we would regard as acceptable in this house.
we will deal with it through the bureau.
now i want to move to the vote because i want to finish by.
i have a proposal to make.
i can ask the security services to remove mr bloom but i intend to put it to the vote. is it the wish of the house that mr bloom should leave?
those abstaining.
of this group.
i have no intention of apologising i have no intention of leaving this chamber you must have me escorted out sir!
mr president the reason for the anger and the noise is because we are not actually applying the rules of this place evenly.
the commission is willing to support the member states in addressing these issues of importance to parliament.
i declare that the european commission undertakes to keep the european parliament and the council fully informed on the possibility of a delegated act being adopted under the urgency procedure.
in this context i welcome the text stating that the directive will indirectly contribute to combating organ trafficking for example through the authorisation of transplantation centres the establishment of conditions of procurement and systems of traceability of organs.
the commission is willing to support the member states to address these issues.
living donation increases the number of available organs and i welcome the text strengthening the efforts to protect living donors as a means to guarantee quality and safety of organs for transplantation.
however in the spirit of compromise the commission can accept the additional clarifications proposed.
which are essential for ensuring the quality and safety of organs.
finally several amendments align the proposals to the comitology provisions of the lisbon treaty.
i would like to thank the rapporteur dr mikolik and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent work on the proposed directive on the quality and safety of organs.
let me recall that the key objectives of these two initiatives are to improve quality and safety for human organs for transplantation to increase organ availability and to make transplantation systems more efficient and accessible.
the six year action plan sets out ten priority actions to reinforce cooperation between member states through joint actions and the sharing of best practices.
i note the wishes of parliament to include in the action plan activities which could not become legal obligations in the directive under article one hundred and sixty eight of the treaty in particular regarding criteria for allocating organs recording the wishes of potential donors and issues
the proposal for a directive sets the legal framework for quality and safety requirements and the action plan focuses on increasing the availability of organs and the efficiency of transportation systems.
this is what the commission's proposal for a directive and the action plan are about.
i would also like to thank mr perello rodriguez for his supportive own initiative report on the action plan on organ donation and transplantation.
i am convinced that the text with the amendments proposed includes parliament's key concerns as set out in dr mikolik's report. allow me to comment on a few specific issues. i strongly support strengthening the principles of voluntary and unpaid donation
with regard to the directive i am very pleased that we are now close to a first reading agreement following swift and constructive dialogue between parliament the commission and the council.
moving on as regards the provisions dealing with consent systems and certification of death these issues are governed by national law.
however the scope of the proposal is limited to quality and safety as stipulated in the public health article of the treaty.
let me also raise another issue adopting a law is the first step.
i also welcome clarification that the principle of non payment shall not prevent living donors from receiving compensation provided that this is strictly limited to covering the expenses and loss of income related to the donation.
i welcome the possibility granted to the commission to adopt in clearly defined cases delegated acts under the urgency procedure in this regard.
parliament has always supported this.
there is an important red line that cannot be crossed and this line ensures that living donations can be made freely and with no financial gain.
it seems to be quite obvious that this is a much more effective system from the point of view of the number of transplantations made available.
we are all well aware of the figures thousands of people across europe require organ transplants every year. in light of this i am glad to see that we are going to make concerted efforts to boost the numbers of organ donor registers by encouraging different forms of registration schemes and strengthening our cross border cooperation so that the best matches between donors and recipients can be made.
for me the key issue is raising awareness and i believe these reports will help achieve this. can i also say that i am glad to see that we have highlighted in these reports the key principles that organ donation should always be altruistic voluntary and unpaid.
the answer is peak oil the point at which we have used the half of the world's reserves that were easy safe and cheap to produce and now rely on shrinking reserves which are increasingly inaccessible dangerous and expensive both financially and environmentally.
in recent months this reality has begun to dawn on among others president obama the british government and the german military. it is time for the eu to take its head out of the sand stop obsessing about climate change and study and address the real crisis peak oil.
using it as an excuse for yet another eu power grab will not stop us reaching peak or suffering its potentially catastrophic consequences.
instead of talking about symptoms it is time to get serious about the disease the fact that we have used all the easy oil and are still addicted to the stuff.
it is early days to look at the analysis of what happened in the gulf of mexico but from the evidence it already seems that if our technology which we have been using for two decades in the north sea had been used there we would not have had the oil spill or it would have been contained much more rapidly.
we must set up either a compensation fund or an insurance fund to which the oil companies themselves would contribute.
i agree when we say that we must have proper compensation for all those particularly in the fisheries sector who lose their livelihood because of an oil spill or any accident of this nature which heaven help us i hope does not happen in any of our waters.
we have got more than three hundred and fifteen deepwater wells i.
so do not let us suddenly slam the door on one of the safest and most secure industries that we have in europe when this year alone we have already invested gbp six billion in exploratory work in the north sea and off the coast of shetland.
however i listened carefully to what the commissioner said in his introduction and his comments and i agree with the commitments he gave that we need to improve standards we need to improve quality and we need to ensure that the eu can be a leader in this field and that we can export our safety systems around the world and make sure that others follow.
i support much of what is in the question that jo leinen has led on today but i do not believe that the open ended call for a moratorium is proportionate and is a sensible response to the challenge we face.
madam president the resolution is looking at one problem that of the risks of deep water drilling in isolation from the related problem that we are running short of easily accessible oil.
those who would stop or inhibit deep water drilling must explain how they would find an energy dense substitute for oil.
or would they be happy for future generations to be returned to a non industrial society?
there is no comparison between the risks of drilling in the shallow waters of the european continental shelf and the waters in the gulf of mexico.
the proposers of this resolution are quite right to be horrified by the environmental and other costs of the bp tragedy in the gulf.
number one is that the security and safety standards that we have must be rigorously applied so that accidents are prevented rather than having to be dealt with and certainly there are good standards at the moment which need to be applied everywhere.
people have spoken about a moratorium and certainly at this point in time it does not seem to me to be a feasible option because if we were to do that there is a grave danger that we could become like a rich man who decides to give away all his money and finishes up having to beg from those he gave his money to.
i hope that will happen in respect to the arctic area.
it is far more challenging and hostile than the north sea and to me it is a conundrum.
we as europe champion a move from an oil based economy and we champion renewables.
yet indirectly we are encouraging oil exploitation in the most vulnerable and fragile part of our globe where the consequences could be horrific.
having the us senate report on the use of torture by the cia in mind i would like to underline what i consider being one of the key messages of the useu joint statement of fifteen june two thousand and nine on the closure of guantanamo bay and future counterterrorism cooperation
i believe we need a continued political dialogue between the transatlantic partners on security and counterterrorism issues including on the protection of civil and human rights in order to combat terrorism effectively.
in times of global instability the transatlantic relationship is of unique importance and of strategic nature.
the united states play a crucial role in fighting terrorism around the world including here in europe. our cooperation on counter terrorism needs to be preserved for the shared benefits of citizens on both sides of the atlantic and in full respect of all fundamental freedoms.
joint efforts to combat terrorism must comply with international law in particular with human rights like the rights to human treatment free trial and the freedom from torture.
personally as a european i am ashamed that these practices in the past took place on european territory.
the counterterrorism actions of member states including alleged involvement in the cia secret flights are reviewed by the european court of human rights.
moving forward it is important to continue to ensure that counterterrorism policies fully respect human rights both at the european union and member state levels.
this means that the work of member states' intelligence agencies is outside the scope of the competence of the european union and its institutions.
is that a satisfactory situation?
at the time through an executive order he prohibited any form of torture or ill treatment as well as so called enhanced interrogation techniques' and secret detention.
we all know as well that there have been very serious concerns and differences in the past over certain aspects of us counterterrorism policies and the european union has engaged with the united states on these issues for many years on many issues from waterboarding to rendition all kinds of issues
we can only tackle terrorism if we stay true to our core values and the european union condemns all forms of torture and other illtreatment under any circumstances and works towards their prevention and eradication within the european union and worldwide as a priority of its human rights policy.
we share the views expressed by president obama at the time that these techniques are against our values and they do not serve the fight against terrorism.
it is important to highlight we are now in two thousand and sixteen that president obama formally ended the cia programme within days of taking up office and that was a very crucial decision.
therefore i understand some of your concerns that the council has not given follow up to the recommendations that are included in your resolution for the simple reason that the council does not have the competence to do so according to the european union treaty.
in the past the court has condemned the practice of illegal renditions on european territory in at least one verdict. other inquiries are still pending so there is a solid judicial framework.
i want to express on behalf of the council that same shame today but the council has to act within the competences that are conferred on it by the treaty. but this is not the end of the story and i am sure that the commissioner will also go into some of the aspects regarding her competence. it does not mean that the activities of individual member states that take part in unlawful activities are without scrutiny. eu member states are bound by the european convention on human rights and the eu charter of fundamental rights.
i fail to see that point and i am disappointed by it as well since i have said here on behalf of the council how important i think it is that we learn from what has happened.
it is important to note that because we are still today fighting terror and terrorism and therefore i think all the research the investigations the reports that have been made were extremely important to enlighten us about what happened at the time. i have said also in the first part of my declaration what the view of the council is ranging from
secondly i have mentioned also the fact that we have a certain competence.
i think that accountability has to be done.
i think there has never been any council decision being made as you said that we would cooperate with the united states on cia rendition flights that is simply not true and i would like to see where that has been decided.
i think we have a legal framework.
i tell you here that we cannot change the competences of the european union and its institutions; maybe some of the political parties would like to have that but i cannot change that.
the only declaration that has been made was after nine eleven to cooperate as all of us did with the united states in the fight against terror.
i think it has to be investigated.
i hope maybe that can enlighten nevertheless at the late evening a little bit this debate that it does not go on moral high ground or finger pointing but in something that really brings us further in the fight for accountability on these events that have taken place.
the way we look at the policies of president obama to correcting what has happened before including the so called enhanced interrogation techniques secret detention and the like.
i understand the quest for accountability.
i would like to be informed on this because you mentioned this in this debate.
the fourteen irishmen underwent horrific interrogations from which they never recovered.
it was torture.
torture techniques used by the cia and the bush administration were due to the european court ruling which concluded that the fourteen irishmen known as the hooded men suffered inhumane and degrading treatment but not torture.
so that gave the bush administration cover' to use the five torture techniques. but the british government told lies to the european court and the british secretary of state has now been compelled to give further evidence.
hundreds more like them have been tortured by the cia. the rapporteur is right.
this is a positive obligation which derives from the european convention on human rights and this has been recalled recently by the european court of human rights.
the practices referred to in the report of the us senate on the cia detention and interrogation programme constitute serious violations of fundamental rights.
the two agreements with the united states one on extradition and the other on mutual legal assistance entered into force on one february.
the eu us agreements on extradition and judicial cooperation as well as other relevant eu legislation against terrorism must be implemented and applied in a manner fully compatible with the charter of fundamental rights.
they should establish responsibilities and enable the victims to obtain compensation for damages.
the treaty does not give the commission any competence to lead investigations into the actions of national intelligence and security services.
if it is true as minister koenders says that national security is a purely national matter then i would like to understand why it was that the member state governments back in i believe october two thousand and one collectively decided to allow cia flights in european airspace.
when it is about accountability and about responsibility all of a sudden it is a national matter. no i think that if the governments at the time had the courage to take that decision collectively then they should now be accountable and responsible collectively as well and not hide behind these arguments.
but we will keep discussing this until justice is done.
no impunity in the european union because that minister koenders that is shameful.
they have tried everything in their power to stop those processes.
they collectively decided that but now they are hiding behind the argument that it is a national matter.
i very much agree with you.
in italy for instance state secrecy was used to block the judiciary and as a result innocent lowlevel officers were convicted while top culprits are protected.
in my country portugal all cover up efforts were made to protect mr duro barroso who as prime minister abetted the cia renditions programme as i reported in detail to the general public prosecutor.
but their work must not be hampered by politicians and their political principles to the degree where we are put in danger.
the human rights of terrorists must never be allowed to trump the right to freedom and safety of innocent citizens.
this parliament has repeatedly condemned the cia's secret detention and extraordinary rendition programme which resulted in multiple human rights violations including the use of torture and other inhumane and degrading treatment abduction secret detention detention without trial and violations of the non refoulement principle.
it is absolutely clear that despite their particular nature policies of national security and counter terrorism are not exempt from the principle of accountability and there can be no impunity for violations of international and human rights law.
accountability for extraordinary renditions abductions illegal secret detentions and torture is essential in order to protect and promote human rights effectively in the international internal and external policies of the eu and to ensure legitimate and effective security policies based on the rule of law.
the report by the us senate select committee on intelligence has revealed facts that reinforce allegations that a number of eu member states the authorities and the officials and agents of their security and intelligence services were complicit in the cia's secret detention and extraordinary rendition programme sometimes through corrupt means based on substantial amounts of money provided by the cia in exchange for their cooperation.
the report by the us senate select committee on intelligence rebuts cia claims that torture revealed information that could not have been collected through traditional nonviolent interrogation techniques.
the climate of impunity regarding the cia programme has enabled the continuation of fundamental rights violations as further revealed by the mass surveillance programmes of the us national security agency and secret services of various eu member states.
the us must investigate and prosecute the multiple human rights violations resulting from the cia rendition and secret detention programmes and cooperate with all requests from eu member states for information extradition or effective remedies for victims in connection with the cia programme. eu member states must investigate the allegations that there were secret prisons on their territory where people were held under the cia programme and prosecute those involved in the operations taking into account all the new evidence that has come to light.
member states must investigate fully recent allegations that illegal detention rendition and torture took place on their territory and prosecute those responsible. we expressed our concerns regarding the obstacles encountered by national parliamentary and judicial investigations into member states' involvement in the cia programme the abuse of state secrecy and the undue classification of documents resulting in the termination of criminal proceedings and leading to the de facto impunity of perpetrations of human rights violations.
we therefore ask the council if it has apologised for the breaching of the principle of sincere cooperation between the union institutions as enshrined in the treaties when it incorrectly attempted to persuade parliament to accept deliberately shortened versions of the minutes of the meetings of the council working parties on public international law and transatlantic relations with senior us officials. did the council issue a declaration acknowledging member states' involvement in the cia programme and the difficulties encountered by member states in the context of the inquiry?
all these questions are of the utmost importance as well as the question to the commission as to whether the commission has put forward proposals for developing arrangements for democratic oversight of cross border intelligence activities in the context of eu counterterrorism policies.
national security is not outside the rule of law or human rights.
mr president even though as i said before the matter falls under national competence the commission has been following this issue closely and encouraged member states to ensure within the remit of their competences that such a situation does not arise again.
our combined economic technological and increasing political might will be the engines of this cooperation but it will continue to be underpinned by the bases of shared values and principles that lie at the core of the ties between europe and japan.
mr president very briefly firstly to welcome what we have just heard about the progress on the strategic partnership agreement but to emphasise that over the summer we are going to have to decide whether we move on to a free trade agreement with japan.