kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
somehow we have to develop this in a way that helps them. that is why for me it is so important that the discussions in the february foreign affairs council reflect what we know and what we learn from our discussions on the ground with civil society opposition groups and so on so that we target it appropriately.
i do not want to hurt the relationship between european countries and people in belarus.
i want to find ways we can strengthen this while at the same time continuing to ratchet up our sanctions and concern with the government.
that is really the challenge we have to face and that means we have to think about the economic issues alongside the political ones.
i think that we have been extraordinarily active in the most appropriate way we possibly can.
we have to work with the un and martin kobler who i feel has been the subject of some terrible things in terms of what has been said to him and who is doing his real best to find a way through this.
it is going to keep these people safe.
we have heard lots of different reports about missile attacks over the period.
the question for me is how to get them to safety and how to get them to their future.
it is clear that they have to move that seems to be accepted by everybody and to do so in a way that is as safe as possible. i have made many offers to the un and to iraq to be as engaged as we possibly can in that and i will continue to do so.
you are right to raise the importance of the european union being engaged in what are important matters for the security and safety of our citizens but also as you rightly point out the reciprocal work being done with russia.
if the supreme court overturns what has been done then the solution has been found through a judicial process.
if they do not do that then i think you are completely right.
we have obligations in our agreement and we would want to look at what kind of dmarches to take and what response we would like to give.
you will understand that there is a lot of work going on but i am not at liberty to elaborate on the talks that are being conducted at the present time.
for me our managing director mr westcott was there to ensure that we were fully represented at the meeting.
so many of the debates that we have had in this past year one year after the arab spring have been about the humanitarian crisis where repression has continued.
instead can i ask her to comment today about where progress has been made in a country like jordan and she has already referred to the king of jordan in relation to the middle east peace process. are there lessons to be learned about transition without the need for violence?
could she comment on the lessons that she has learned?
i think you should be reassured that long before any decisions were taken there were many discussions between member states but also through experts on looking at the implications domestically as well as internationally. the purpose of sanctions is to create a strong economic action in order as i have indicated to succeed in bringing iran to the negotiation table. but in any sanctions that we introduce we are very mindful of the domestic impact because the effect is not designed to hurt us.
just to reassure you further we also talked with a number of oil producing countries.
i personally did that i was in the region to do that as did others so we could try to guarantee and be certain of that.
but all sanctions are kept under review and one of the reasons is to ensure that we understand and we minimise any impact.
it is important when we impose them to make sure that they are effective and as you know to be careful that we look for ways that they are being evaded by countries.
we have ratcheted these up and continue to look at them.
the work that i do in discussion and negotiation with iran is determined by the security council who have given us this task.
i mean nothing more than that.
but we are here with a new treaty we are here with a charter of fundamental rights we are going to become a party to the european convention on human rights.
it concerns the language of the person who is in front of a tribunal. i believe that this is only fair because we have to have fair proceedings in order to build the trust of the citizens in our justice
well i must say that in this case this really did not hamper in any way the swift adoption of a very high quality and balanced legislative instrument. why did it happen? we are now in a very peculiar
proceedings which we are used to and which will guarantee in the end via the codecision procedure and after having a public consultation and an impact assessment that we achieve sound policy.
that will then be followed by the right to legal advice and the right to communicate with people who are dear to the heart.
so you see we are going in a direction which aims to achieve the following the same high level of rights for all eu citizens wherever they are whatever their problem.
sound policy which then can be implemented at national level without creating more distortions than rights as unfortunately has happened in the past.
so in fact it does not concern only european union languages or minority languages.
i am very confident that if we should meet together some years from now we will say yes together we have constructed that area of justice and fundamental rights which our continent must become.
member state national laws specifying minority language rights are unaffected although in practice those rights are arguably increased in that if the speaker of a minority language is unable to understand the proceedings then the directive's rights apply equally to them.
the test in the directive is one of comprehension and ability to express oneself as vice president reding said.
i say to ukip that there is no call to get nationalistic about the quality of justice.
turning to the amendments mrs de brn explained the amendments on the rights to use european regional or minority languages.
it is historic being the first criminal justice measure negotiated under codecision and the first eu fair trial law.
i am strongly critical of the lower uk standards that developed over the last decade like control orders which are house arrest and twenty day detention without charge.
this directive is in the spirit of magna carta habeas corpus and the bill of rights whereas ukip would let bank robbers and terrorists escape justice.
i strongly agree with vice president reding about the three year implementation period.
while having sympathy with their motivation i have to oppose them because they do not in fact fit the directive.
i ask that the directive be passed unamended and quickly so that it gets on the statute book. i look forward to commission proposals on the further road map measures the first expected in about a fortnight and i know that in the hands of our feisty champion vice president reding they are in very good hands.
it is not about the right to choose as such so there has to be a procedure of verification of the person's ability to speak and understand and if they do not accept the language offered the option would be to challenge the decision.
he was brought back within six weeks. he was convicted and he is now serving a sentence under a terrorism conviction.
in the past he might have languished for years without being brought back to court.
you i suppose would have been happy that he would never have been brought back to trial.
my constituent andrew symeou has been held for eleven months awaiting trial in the greek prison of korydallos.
in korydallos prisoners are kept four to a cell designed for one the toilet is a hole in the corner no toilet paper is supplied drugs and violence are rife and the screams of rape victims can be heard at night.
six more british citizens including daniel bell and george hollands face extradition and remand in korydallos. the british court is not even allowed to consider the so called evidence against them.
the british government should be ashamed of itself that on the strength of a piece of paper it is prepared to consign british citizens to what can only be described as a shithole.
madam president the fundamental problem with the european arrest warrant is not inadequate translation services but rather that it has rendered national courts completely powerless to protect their own citizens against unjust extradition in the first place.
this is the first to see the light of day.
madam president it has been recognised by most of us for over a decade that the eu needed to act to strengthen the rights of suspects and defendants throughout the union and to give safeguards necessary to ensure fair trials.
in the original trial both the charge and sentence were delivered orally.
cheap justice is no justice.
it is about being tough on crime.
lack of a proper and professional language support has also figured as one of the defects in the case i am dealing with in greece of andrew symeou.
as the road map last november said there is room for further action on the part of the eu to ensure full implementation in respect of convention standards and where appropriate to ensure consistent application of those standards and to raise them.
good efficient justice through high quality decisions means catching more criminals and cutting corners on costs is not best value since if you get a poor court decision or bad police practice then people are going to appeal.
we secured the right to limit recourse to partial translation so all essential material must be translated and oral exceptions must indeed be exceptions and that the suspect should not be allowed to waive the right to translation without prior advice.
we fought hard with a lot of help from vice president reding to whom i pay tribute and her officials to raise standards on certain key points including interpretation of communications between the suspect and the lawyer in all phases of the proceedings the right for the suspect to challenge the decision that there is no need for interpretation or translation and also
the basis of cooperation between member states in criminal justice is mutual recognition the almost automatic recognition of the decisions of courts in other eu countries based on mutual trust but it is not sensible just to assume that trust exists. it has to be earned through full respect by all eu countries of certain standards of justice and fair trial.
this is in the context of much tighter cooperation on policing and prosecution the introduction of the european arrest warrant and the fact that many eu citizens take advantage of free movement rights and may have a brush with the law in an unfamiliar environment.
this directive says that if you become a suspect or you are arrested questioned or put on trial and you do not understand the language of the country you have a right to interpretation and translation under certain conditions for police questioning hearings meetings with your lawyer and so on.
having said that in a spirit of compromise i will accept the solution.
procedural safeguards represent a top priority in the justice area for the coming years because we need those minimum standards for the rights of the defendants in criminal proceedings.
the proposal was meant to reach what parliament has now reached namely to ensure high standards for defendants and to avoid any risk of falling below the european convention on human rights acquis.
the commission considers that three years is excessively long because none of the member states submitted any evidence that the implementation of this piece of legislation would be very difficult. in addition the member states also knew that this legislation would be adopted and have already known this
this is the first step on the road map which indicates that all institutions are living up to the pledge they made to treat this file as a matter of priority. there is only one element with which i have to disagree and that is the request
citizens must be sure that minimum standards for procedural rights will enforce their trust in our justice system and also in the eu as an area of freedom and security and justice.
judges and prosecutors must be confident that no matter where the proceedings take place in the union a common core of basic rights will be upheld.
they are indispensable to promote real mutual trust between the judicial authorities of different member states.
this will be presented in the coming week so what we have initiated today will be work in progress.
i am also very glad that it was possible to have a very swift adoption of this directive.
as commissioner i am pleased that many of the compromise solutions take inspiration from our march two thousand and ten proposal.
that is why i warmly welcome the agreement reached by the two co legislators.
baroness ludford can i ask you do you actually have a figure for the number of criminals and bank robbers who have been returned to britain from the costa del sol since the european arrest warrant has been in operation?
madam president this directive is one of a series whose total effect is that every citizen and resident of the united kingdom is subject to being carted off to jail in other european countries.
whether the country is portugal in the case of garry mann or hungary in the case of two south western constituents there is simply not the same legal protection for the individual as pertains in the united kingdom whatever illusions have been pedalled in this chamber.
it is trying to stick plaster over the near decapitation of britain's hard won liberties at the hand of the european arrest warrant.
i would note that even in its own terms this directive is flawed.
moreover there is a chronic and absolute shortage of translators and interpreters not least because the institutions of the european union absorb so many.
our distinguished colleague baroness ludford has characterised herself many times as a campaigner for human rights.
i would ask her therefore just this once to put aside her obsession with a federal europe and join our campaign to repeal the european arrest warrant.
while i would have preferred to do without some aspects of the compromise reached between inta and the council presidency i can and will support it because it strikes a realistic balance between the very many different views in this particularly complex dossier and one that ultimately well reflects the policy priorities the commission agreed on in the first place.
secondly if we are serious about supporting sustainable development we have to expand opportunities for those countries which are ready and willing to implement core international conventions.
the commission proposal confronts head on the real issues behind gsp. the first one is that the poorest developing countries will never grow sufficiently if we do not give them the space they need to export. this space is currently taken up by countries which are economically much more advanced and no longer need our unilateral preferences.
it is balanced because it focuses preferences on those who need them the most while at the same time expanding opportunities for countries which embrace core international values or values in human rights labour rights and the environment.
our internal discussions in the commission were as complex as yours and our proposal was the result of very careful reflection and a detailed impact assessment.
just over a year ago the commission adopted a proposal to reform the eu generalised system of preferences few.
i am happy to see that the compromise reached between inta and the council presidency endorses the core areas of the commission proposal.
we must focus preferences on the countries most in need.
i therefore count on your help to support a compromise that is as realistic as it is politically important a compromise whereby the eu will help those who need it most and those who embrace international values while respecting the interests of our industry and international law.
and deliver the advantages of this system to those countries that will qualify and ensure that they are able to use this to promote human rights democracy and freedom of speech in the developing world.
two back in two thousand and five myself and my colleague david martin moved an amendment to this effect which was approved by this parliament but was defeated through non application by the then commissioner for trade using the pretence of wto non compliance. now of course in a post lisbon era i hope we will be able to make the most of the opportunity
there are of course some disappointments but i will reserve those for another day.
the gsp is of course an important tool for development and the new regime should and hopefully will seek to concentrate the benefits of trade on those that need them most.
these problems are acknowledged by the united nations itself.
again we looked into the possibility of using the human development index in gsp but this index is not well suited to this exercise.
for example no mater how much china grows it is likely to stay in the same medium' category and thus basically keep gsp preferences forever.
therefore we should stick to an internationally recognised objective way to differentiate among countries.
we have given a lot of thought to this issue but our conclusion is that we have to ensure wto compatibility and the use of a single indicator which is internationally recognised is we think the best solution.
they would render the human development index inadequate for the gsp and enhance the risk of wto challenge.
some of the proposed changes are self evidently beneficial such as the removal of preferences for high income or upper middle income countries.
the changes to the safeguard clauses allowing eu producers the legal right to seek action if they face serious disturbances to their business or a deterioration of the financial situation are clearly beneficial.
madam president this debate is about the two thousand and eight scheme currently being reviewed.
the eu gsp scheme allows preferential access to third countries but in order to qualify for this a country must sign and ratify twenty seven international treaties some of which have far reaching domestic consequences and some of which do not even have an exit clause.
perversely many eu states themselves have not even signed the treaties or agreements that they are insisting these lesser developed countries must sign.
the agreements have been attacked as being illegal under both un and wto law.
we in the ecr group thoroughly recommend and welcome the deal.
we hope that the new regime will not only provide stability and predictability but will also lead to the promotion of trade focused on development. the asian lesson shows that trade is key to development and we must do all we can to assist countries to trade their way out of poverty.
however we as a group are a little bit disappointed that the terms of the deal were not more generous from the eu side.
we cannot on the one hand say that we want to do all we can to help developing countries only to back down when we think it seems to hit our bottom line.
one of the ladies who have just spoken mentioned those countries which are moving out of gsp and i believe there should be some sort of assistance or transitional period to help them move on.
the other thing that i am always concerned about is that whenever we discuss trade negotiations within the european union and redo trade agreements we tend to become rather protectionist.
my group did try to include a vulnerability criteria so that some of the vulnerable upper middle income countries could have been included in this scheme but that was not carried and we as a group will support the compromise agreed in the trialogue.
it is worth recalling when we talk about gsp reform that we still have the most generous scheme in the world for the poorest countries in the world.
it. in terms of where we go from here i think it is right that the scheme lasts for ten years.
i know the commission would have liked an open ended agreement but i thought that was too long and ten years is a reasonable period.
what we have made clear in the trialogue is that it is not ten years from now not ten years from the date of the agreement but ten years from the date of implementation of the agreement so this gives importers inside the european union a period of stability and it gives our exporting partners ten years in which to take advantage of the situation.
this is actually shameful.
this year however the threshold is eur.
government politicians have been quick to call for applications to the european solidarity fund although they are aware that the threshold has not been reached for this third consecutive catastrophic storm.
the story is the same for the regional thresholds based on gdp irish regions have seen leaps of between eur fifty eight million and eur three hundred and thirty three million in the amount of damage they must incur to apply for funds between two thousand. and fifteen and two thousand and seventeen this is a result of distorted gdp figures famously described as leprechaun economics' and we now need to cut out those figures.
mr president last week ireland was hit by storm ophelia. homes farms businesses roads schools even sports stadiums fell victim to massive structural damage.
on the eu side too there is a need to review the solidarity fund as it discriminates against rural and peripheral regions.
unfortunately lives were also lost.
there is a precedent in this australia passed legislation in july to stop registered sex offenders from traveling by removing their passports.
where we know a sex offender is convicted in our member state we should stop them traveling to do their evil deeds elsewhere.
mr president father shay cullen is an irish priest working with vulnerable children in the philippines since the early one thousand. nine hundred and seventy s in his experience sex offenders travel from the european union and beyond to the philippines to abuse children and he has many many horrific cases which he is dealing with.
he has called on my country ireland and other countries in europe to stop convicted child sex offenders traveling abroad by taking their passports from them or preventing them from getting a passport.
we should heed the words of this priest he knows what he is talking about. as we protect or try to protect our children in our own countries the least we could do is afford the same level of protection to children elsewhere.
so my message is clear norwich does not just have a fiery condiment we have fiery campaigners too. so unilever please come up with plans and reassurances that really cut the mustard.
mr president my constituents are alarmed at the threat to coleman's mustard factory after the announcement that britvic who share the same site are closing their operations.
the two hundred year old larder staple is quintessentially east anglian made in norwich with english mustard seeds from norfolk cambridgeshire and lincolnshire and it is enjoyed across the world. the decline of manufacturing jobs is not written in stone and ten zero people have already signed the edp petition to say that we do not want to see much needed jobs that are vital for the norwich economy lost and we do not want to see the two hundred year norwich and coleman's link severed.
one four million europeans develop some form of dementia and the world health organisation estimates that.
we can improve diagnosis and post diagnostic services if we foster dementia friendly communities.
human rights groups continue to raise concerns over the use of excessive and unnecessary force by the state in response to peaceful protests.
i am ashamed that the european union has not yet made a statement on this worrying situation.
as ethiopia's long standing partner the european union should express its concern over the growing unrest and address the human rights abuses being perpetrated against minorities.
ethiopia is a crucial actor for security in east africa.
there must be a democratic and inclusive dialogue among groups in ethiopia in order to de escalate the tensions and bring about lasting peace and stability.
and it is not just our laptops or gadgets which are connected it is public institutions governments and our very own homes.