P8_CRE-REV(2014)07-17(4-204-000)

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2716(RSP)

P8_CRE-REV(2014)07-16(3-264-000)

2016/11/22

Institutional motions (2)

B8-0408/2017

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2017/2727(RSP)
Documents: PDF(177 KB) DOC(55 KB)

B8-0249/2014

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2197(INS)
Documents: PDF(226 KB) DOC(55 KB)

Written explanations (909)

2016/11/22

I support the principle of visa-free travel, having spoken about this frequently during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.Despite my anger and frustration over the offensive text, which was added by the Spanish after a Council of Ministers meeting – despite the original textʼs being, beforehand, passed unanimously in committee – and which disgracefully described Gibraltar as a ʻcolonyʼ of the UK, I was conscious that I had highlighted my own position during a committee meeting, at which I chastised the Spanish for playing politics ahead of their own general election.Because I had highlighted my own position vis-à-vis the Gibraltar text in such a transparent manner, I felt able vote in favour of the principle of visa-free travel, which I accordingly did.

2016/11/22

. ‒ As I believe that the European Union should not interfere with the employment policies of Member States, I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I abstained: I support action by Member States to prevent illegal dumping of waste, but - because I believe in the principle of subsidiarity - this should not be harmonised at EU level.

2016/11/22

Throughout this report, I supported amendments which aimed to limit the impact of the proposals on drivers and transport companies as I believe that (as written) the proposals would have caused more issues and compliance problems. Needless to say, I do not support harmonisation of this matter at European Union level, so I ultimately voted against the Commission proposal.

2016/11/22

I believe that this is a matter which should be legislated on at national level. Furthermore, given that the UK has voted to leave the European Union, it would be wrong for me to support further EU legislation.

2016/11/22

As with the previous votes, some of the amendments served to make the legislation less bad and I felt comfortable supporting those amendments. However, I note that cabotage has less impact upon the United Kingdom than it does on some other Member States. The principle of national sovereignty, however, should always be a strong one. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I do not support harmonisation of this matter at European Union level and I oppose giving more power to the Commission in the field of energy. I am also unhappy with some of the EU definitions of terminology used in this legislation.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is effectively the bill for the common fisheries policy from 2021 to 2027, and I regard this as a very poor use of taxpayers’ money. EU policy in the area of fishing has been disastrous. Such policy-making should be left to Member States. The United Kingdom, post Brexit, must regain exclusive competence over our own fishing grounds, which provide a significant national resource and are currently being mismanaged by the European Union. Consequently, I voted against this report as a matter of principle.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is the plan for the next generation of the common fisheries policy in the western Mediterranean. EU policy in the area of fishing has been disastrous, and such policy-making should be left to Member States. Consequently, I voted against this report as a matter of principle.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst there is a relatively large opportunity for Member States to go above and beyond the scope of the legislation, this is ultimately another case of EU harmonisation. Consequently, I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Though improved road safety is a laudable aim, I cannot support harmonisation of this matter at a EU level. There are various areas where Member States have different laws, and where citizens are accustomed to those differences. One-size-fits-all legislation is the wrong approach. In this case, the UK’s road signage is one of the best – if not the best – in Europe. I am concerned that harmonisation could lead to a lowering of standards to the lowest common denominator.

2016/11/22

. ‒ As this entails further harmonisation of the single market in respect of authorisation, manufacture, distribution and supervision of pan-European personal pension products (PEPPs), I voted against. Pensions are a matter which should be determined by the Member States themselves.

2016/11/22

I might well support parts of such legislation if it were put before the UK Parliament in Westminster, which is the appropriate venue for determining the UK’s policies on employment. However, this is occurring at EU level. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the needs of small businesses. There should be a work-life balance for parents and carers. There should be a balance between employer and employee. The measures in this legislation might be reasonable for multinational companies, but they could destroy micro-businesses and severely damage SMEs. I therefore voted against the Provisional Agreement.

2016/11/22

This proposal is to strengthen EU action in cases where it is deemed Member States are not complying with ‘rule of law’. Specifically this proposal is dealing with EU funds given to Member States in such cases. This is clearly the EU looking to further punish countries that it deems have broken their ‘rule of law’ principles, such as Poland, Hungary etc. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I voted against because I oppose the establishment of this fund.

2016/11/22

The report seeks to assist in the cross-border transport of goods. With a view to possibly assisting avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, I felt it appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

I fully support transparency and the right of access to information. I do not support the notion that the European Union should be the arbiter of how such data is made public. It should be the responsibility of sovereign national states to do that. There is also a cost implication because this seeks to increase EU funding for digitalising Europe. Furthermore, it would increase the EU legislative burden on Member States. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

Although I support good management and conservation, I oppose this specific legislation on the grounds that the EU is behaving like a state.

2016/11/22

There are two directives that govern this issue within the EU: Directive 2008/106/EC, which lays down minimum standards of training and education, and Directive 2005/45/EC, which fosters the professional mobility of seafarers within the EU by facilitating the mutual recognition of certificates issued by the Member States. Mutual recognition in fact leads to lower standards of training being accepted in Member States which have higher standards; this is therefore potentially harmful. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I believe that the reduction of annual pre-financing is correct, and therefore voted in favour of the proposal (and against the rejection amendment).

2016/11/22

This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I voted against closure of first reading. I believe that this proposal needs to be amended to provide greater flexibility to Member States, which is easier to do if the first reading has not been closed. I do not believe that it should be made more difficult for Member States to justify introducing temporary border controls.

2016/11/22

This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I abstained. Whilst I support the Convention, I do not support the principle of treating the European Union as though it were a sovereign state.

2016/11/22

This entails further harmonisation of the Single Market and impinges upon national tax sovereignty. Pensions are a matter which should be determined by the Member States themselves. Hence, I voted against.

2016/11/22

I oppose EU-wide visa liberalisation. This is a question which should rightly be determined by sovereign nations. It is perfectly reasonable, for example, that Spain wishes to take a different political position on this to the UK because of differing views on international recognition of Kosovo.

2016/11/22

This was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I abstained. I do agree with the aim of greater transparency when it comes to drinking water and believe consumers have the right to know what are they drinking and which materials came into contact with their water. However, it would be inimicable to my mandate to support calls for further EU intervention.

2016/11/22

This seeks to cement the so-called four freedoms, which the British people already voted against in a referendum. It logically followed that I should vote against this.

2016/11/22

The European Union’s approach to copyright has been particularly harmful, and therefore I voted against.

2016/11/22

I do not support taxpayers’ money being used to establish the Creative Europe programme, and therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

Whilst I fully support student exchange schemes, I cannot support much contained within this report – such as the ‘free InterRail ticket for 18 year olds and other uses of taxpayers’ money to effectively bribe young people into supporting the European Union. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This suggests that the European Union should define words such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’ in such a way as to impact upon businesses calling themselves sustainable. Many of the amendments to this report are neo-Communist in nature, seeking wealth redistribution by any other name. I suspect that this framework will have completely the opposite of its intended impact: that sustainable businesses will find themselves unable to comply with new, onerous, EU standards - and that we will end up with fewer sustainable businesses as a result. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

There are many reasons to oppose specific facets of this report, but the bottom line is simple: an inflation-busting increase of 3.58% (even if Brexit has been completed, and there are fewer MEPs) to take the European Parliament’s budget over EUR 2 billion per year. I cannot possibly support this; irrespective of my concerns with much of the rest of the text (and areas where I do agree with it), I had to vote against for that reason alone.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I would have been keen to vote in favour of this resolution, as I have previously on Venezuela. I strongly support change in Venezuela given the appalling Maduro regime. Nevertheless, the calls for EU-wide action through the European External Action Service (the EEAS) make this impossible for me and I therefore unfortunately had to abstain.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I do not believe that the European Union should be the arbiter of how national sovereign governments apply the rule of law and fight against corruption, not least because the European Union is often culpable on such matters itself. Furthermore, it applies these standards capriciously, not complaining about serious breaches in larger Member States.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I do believe that Volkswagen and others should bear primary responsibility for the Dieselgate scandal. However, it is also symptomatic of an over-regulated environment. The solutions proposed in this report fail to understand this problem, and propose yet more regulation and legislation at EU level. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I oppose the further development of EU foreign policy, and therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I oppose a EUR 116.7 million increase in funding for this initiative. Whilst of course I support measures to reduce youth unemployment, I believe that actions by Member States could, and should, be more efficient in meeting those aims directly. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This proposal includes, inter alia, use of cross border ‘tax representatives’ and ‘automation of the exemption certificate and its handling for movements of excise products to consignees exempted from the payment of exercise duties’. As parts of this legislation could provide opportunities to assist with the question of avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland post-Brexit ; as such, I abstained rather than votes against this legislation.

2016/11/22

I do not believe that the European Union should be determining such issues as dock dues in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion. This merely serves to highlight the problems with the European Union as it has evolved through the treaties: it acquires power from Member States and does not relinquish it. Nevertheless, I respect the request by a Member State to make these changes and note the possibility that this could potentially have a positive impact upon local productivity in those territories. I therefore abstained rather than voting against.

2016/11/22

I do not support the principle of establishing a new EU instrument, nor the suggestion that it should exist to promote the Union’s interests worldwide: as such, it risks becoming propagandist. I note the huge EUR 89 billion budget proposed for the next Multiannual Financial Framework. I oppose the development and promotion of EU foreign policy through trade. I therefore supported a rejection amendment tabled by the Greens, and opposed the draft legislative act.

2016/11/22

I note that re-establishing this fund will lead to more taxpayers’ money being spent on EU expansion, and that IPA III will continue to include Turkey as a potential beneficiary of funds. As I am against EU expansionism I supported the EFDD rejection amendment to the Commission proposal, and opposed the draft legislative act.

2016/11/22

I oppose any extension of the role of the European Securities and Markets Authority. I do not wish to see Member States set up authorities which would be subject to the ESMA. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I oppose further EU regulation in this field. It would have the effect of placing crowdfunding service providers under the control of ESMA, and it would permit the use of Commission delegated acts, which in general I oppose. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This was a difficult vote because of two competing principles. Firstly, there is a call upon the Commission to keep virtual currencies under constant review. I do not believe that the State should seek to legislate virtual currencies in the first place, but those decisions should be taken by Member States rather than the Commission. However, this does also have a positive impact: it would remove crowdfunding service providers from falling within the scope of the Directive. I oppose the former, support the latter, and consequently abstained overall.

2016/11/22

I supported a rejection amendment to the Commission proposal and opposed the draft legislative act because I cannot support the EUR 273 billion proposed spend on this area during the next Multiannual Financial Framework. Under normal circumstances, I would abstain upon matters which will not impact upon the United Kingdom post-Brexit, as they are by definition not something which should concern a British MEP. However, the uncertainty surrounding Brexit leaves me in a situation where I have no guarantees that the United Kingdom will not be required to pay towards these funds. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I support lower emissions for new cars and light commercial vehicles, although I believe that the focus should be on all pollutants overall. Fuel economy is perhaps a better measure of this than the current g/km of CO2 emissions, because it encompasses other pollutants. In general, I believe, though, that this is best handled through the tax system: more efficient vehicles should be treated more favourably for tax purposes than less efficient ones.Consequently, I view this as a matter for national governments to determine through their own taxation policies. In the United Kingdom, for example, we have seen subsidies for electric vehicles and (previously) for PHEVs. There may be better alternatives for achieving the same desired outcome, but the principle should be one for national governments to decide. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I did not want to vote against this report, because I agree that we must cut single-use plastics and that the impact of 150 000 tonnes of plastics being dumped into the sea annually has a huge impact upon marine life. I felt in the end that I had to oppose it because of the content:1. Given that it is legislative in nature, the problems will be practical rather than merely theoretical.2. The legislation is being rushed through without waiting for the scientific report from the European Chemicals Agency.3. The pace of change proposed will cost a substantial number of jobs in the UK by 2021.4. The legislative overreach prevents research into (inter alia) plastics which are biodegradable.The principle of legislation on this issue is sound; the actual legislation itself is not. I reluctantly voted against.

2016/11/22

This is a first reading, legislative report in which the Commission wishes to harmonise rules on organic or secondary raw fertilisers and label them as an ‘EC’ product. I oppose harmonisation and potential consequent increases in production costs for farmers. I am also concerned about diminishing the quality of fertiliser products. I voted against.

2016/11/22

I do not object to this legislation in any way, and therefore abstained. It would be inconsistent with my mandate to vote in favour of any EU legislation, years after the British people voted for Brexit. The UK should make its own rules. Nevertheless, I support the content.

2016/11/22

I oppose further EU legislation and the principle of creating a Single European Transport Area, especially in light of the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the European Union.

2016/11/22

I oppose any erosion of national tax sovereignty; it was therefore a straightforward decision for me to vote against.

2016/11/22

Under normal circumstances, I would abstain on matters which will not impact upon the United Kingdom post-Brexit as they are by definition not something which should concern a British MEP. However, the uncertainty surrounding Brexit leaves me in a situation where I have no guarantees that the United Kingdom will not be required to pay towards these funds during the next Multiannual Financial Framework. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This was an objection to a Commission delegated regulation, pursuant to Rule 105. It was not the subject of a roll-call vote; in the interests of transparency and democracy, I wish to confirm for the record that I voted in favour. Under normal circumstances I am mindful to support objections pursuant to Rule 105, on the grounds that I do not believe that the unelected European Commission should pass legislation without full democratic scrutiny.Furthermore, such matters are supposed to be minor technical updates. In this case, the establishment of ‘controlled centres’ for migrants goes far beyond the remit of what we might expect from a delegated act. Regardless, I would oppose such centres being set up by the European Union within the territories of its own Member States because this will impact on those countries’ national sovereignty.

2016/11/22

Whilst I would normally support objections pursuant to Rule 106 on principle, I am concerned in this case about the impact on the UK, and am receiving mixed advice as to whether there are reasonable concerns about the particular variant mentioned. I therefore felt it appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

Whilst I would normally support objections pursuant to Rule 106 on principle, I am concerned in this case about the impact on the UK, and am receiving mixed advice as to whether there are reasonable concerns about the particular chemical mentioned. I therefore felt it appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

Whilst I would normally support objections pursuant to Rule 106 on principle, I am concerned in this case about the impact on the UK, and am receiving mixed advice as to whether there are reasonable concerns about the particular chemical mentioned. I therefore felt it appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

Whilst I would normally support objections pursuant to Rule 106 on principle, I am concerned in this case about the impact on the UK, and am receiving mixed advice as to whether there are reasonable concerns about the particular chemical mentioned. I therefore felt it appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

This is part of an expansionist EU foreign policy, which I oppose because I believe that foreign policy should be a matter for sovereign national governments not the European Union.

2016/11/22

I do not believe that parliamentary immunity should extend to matters which go beyond what is necessary to perform the mandate effectively. Nevertheless, I also believe that Parliament must follow its own Rules of Procedure and act impartially in accordance with the rules to ensure that all Members are treated in the same way when accused. In this case, the matter appeared to be somewhat unusual, with questions of media intrusion and/or alleged actions by the MEP concerned. As I was not in the committee responsible, I was not sufficiently well informed to be able to make a detailed decision and therefore felt it appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report, as I believe that consumer rights should be a matter for national governments; redress is indeed important, but this does not require harmonisation across 28 different nations and legal systems.

2016/11/22

This being a technical update, I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only a tangential impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

The EU is signing a new agreement with Uzbekistan. This is a non-legislative report making suggestions to the Council and Commission on the negotiations. I am opposed to the development and promotion of EU foreign policy and the signing of such third-party agreements.

2016/11/22

This proposal is looking to harmonise time across the EU. Member States should be given the time and opportunity to carry out their own public consultations and not have the one undertaken by the Commission (of which the vast majority of citizens were completely unaware) forced on them. I therefore voted against the proposal; this is frankly not a matter for the EU to legislate on, but, for economic and geographic reasons, should be solely a matter for Member States.

2016/11/22

This report is critical of EU subsidies, addresses the intermittency of renewable energy and is in favour of free markets. There was much in the report that I could support, but I could not support the legislation which sought to centralise power at EU level and therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This legislative report refers to the EU Clean Energy for All package. Part of this text was the creation of ACER – an EU Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators. I am opposed to the creation of new EU agencies and therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This legislative report on risks of the electricity sector implies that EU regulatory gaps caused an electricity crisis in Bulgaria, Greece and Romania in 2017. I am against further harmonisation; it is more arguable that the electricity crisis is caused by unrealistic and unworkable EU policies and targets. I naturally voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Although I am strongly in favour of consumers’ information and transparency of all products, I believe the UK as well as other parliaments should be free to decide how to label their tyres. Accordingly I voted against on the final vote.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We all want a balance between protecting creators of copyrighted material, and protecting the lawful rights of citizens going about their daily business. However, this legislation does not deliver that balance. It is fundamentally illiberal because in practice, the big tech companies will have to treat average citizens as ‘guilty until proven innocent’. There are no cost-effective means of removing content which are not automated. Consequently, removal of allegedly-copyrighted material will be removed from large platforms automatically. Where is the consumer protection against big firms? How can it be ensured that fair-use is protected? These questions matter - and the legislation fails to answer them. Ordinary people will be penalised in practice, whatever the Commission has said about the theory of this legislation. I care far more about the voices and views of ordinary people than the views of lobbyists who are paid to tell us what they want us to think. I have had extensive contact from members of the public who are hugely concerned about this legislation. I had no hesitation in voting against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is a legislative, first-reading report, which is concerned with the harmonisation at EU level of contracts for the supply of digital content, the purpose of which is to expand and strengthen the single market. This will harmonise rules such as conformity of digital content over time and other relevant areas. I cannot support measures which propose substantial further EU harmonisation. The report itself reminds us that the UK (and the Netherlands) already have their own rules in this area. I therefore voted against this report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I believe that the British government has a responsibility to ensure that UK consumers are protected, but disagree with harmonisation at EU level. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is another example of when the EU seeks to behave like a state when it is not. Given the EU’s record on fishing policy and the manner in which it is acting, I voted against the agreement.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Although I appreciate the suggestions made by the rapporteur with regard to transparency and administrative procedures, I remain concerned by the nature of the European Union’s policies in regards to the environment. I still believe that they are not the right ones to achieve the stated aims, and therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Regulations regarding the aerodynamics of motor vehicles with regards to CO2 requirements should be the responsibility of sovereign governments. Whilst reduction of CO2 emissions is a reasonable goal, CO2 is not the only pollutant in our atmosphere. The EU’s obsessive short-term focus on that measure alone is seriously short-sighted. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I have consistently opposed the counterproductive and failing EU energy policy. Whilst reduction of CO2 emissions is a reasonable goal, CO2 is not the only pollutant in our atmosphere. Obsessive short-term focus on that measure alone is seriously short-sighted. I believe it to be consistent with the result of the UK referendum for me to vote against such action being taken at the European Union level; the people of the UK voted to repatriate sovereignty to our Parliament in Westminster.

2016/11/22

This is a legislative, first-reading report on the Interreg fund and the ERDF fund. These funds are in the field of cohesion, which deals with cross—border cooperation and outermost regions, amongst other topics. I voted against this report, as I do not agree with EU funding mechanisms, and to delay the closure of first reading.

2016/11/22

While there might be much I agree with in this report, I am unable to vote affirmatively because the report contains so many further suggestions of action at EU level and harmonisation. I therefore thought it appropriate to abstain overall, but voted against an amendment which sought financial reparations for historic injustices: I do not believe that we can arbitrarily determine that one generation is responsible for actions of ancestors many generations ago – and if that principle were to be applied, it could not be applied consistently or equally.

2016/11/22

This report seeks to maximise and centralise EU power, not only on taxation, but also in criminal law procedure. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I am concerned that this Framework Agreement could potentially impact upon Swiss sovereignty, and therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ As I do not believe in the structures and institutions of the European Union as presently constituted, but rather in independent nations trading freely and cooperating where it makes sense to do so, I am substantially at odds with the mechanisms whereby decisions have been taken. I have always attempted to take a consistent approach to discharge – supporting any amendments which recognise genuine failings in the system (in this case there were none), and which remove politicised language. Consequently, I felt it appropriate to vote against the proposal to grant discharge.

2016/11/22

. ‒ As I do not believe in the structures and institutions of the European Union as presently constituted, but rather in independent nations trading freely and cooperating where it makes sense to do so, I am substantially at odds with the mechanisms whereby decisions have been taken. This vote was to refuse discharge to the EU general budget - European Council and Council, and rightly so: it is appropriate that institutions spending taxpayers’ money should be subject to a full audit. Consequently, I voted in favour of the refusal to grant discharge.

2016/11/22

As I do not believe in the structures and institutions of the European Union as presently constituted, but rather in independent nations trading freely and cooperating where it makes sense to do so, I am substantially at odds with the mechanisms whereby decisions have been taken. I have always attempted to take a consistent approach to discharge – supporting any amendments which recognise genuine failings in the system (in this case there were none), and which remove politicised language. Consequently, I felt it appropriate to vote against the proposal to grant discharge.

2016/11/22

. ‒ As I do not believe in the structures and institutions of the European Union as presently constituted, but rather in independent nations trading freely and cooperating where it makes sense to do so, I am substantially at odds with the mechanisms whereby decisions have been taken. This vote was to refuse discharge to the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), and rightly so: it is appropriate that institutions spending taxpayers’ money should be subject to a full audit. Consequently, I voted in favour of the refusal to grant discharge.

2016/11/22

. – As I do not believe in the structures and institutions of the European Union as presently constituted, but rather in independent nations trading freely and cooperating where it makes sense to do so, I am substantially at odds with the mechanisms whereby decisions have been taken. I have always attempted to take a consistent approach to discharge – supporting any amendments which recognise genuine failings in the system (in this case there were none), and which remove politicised language. Consequently, I felt it appropriate to vote against the proposal to grant discharge.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I do not support the erosion of national sovereignty which this would entail, and therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

As this is essentially an extension of the mandate of Eurojust and the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and a third country, I felt it appropriate to vote against.

2016/11/22

I agree with much of the thrust of this report, but I believe that such matters should ultimately be the responsibility of Member States and therefore abstained.

2016/11/22

This entails a transfer of power to the Commission; accordingly, I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This matter was not put to a vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I would have abstained had the resolution not been approved without a vote, on the grounds that the UK will no longer be a member of the European Union in 2020.

2016/11/22

. ‒ The United Kingdom, post-Brexit, must regain exclusive competence over our own fishing grounds, which provide a significant national resource and are currently being mismanaged by the European Union. Consequently, I voted against this report as a matter of principle.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I abstained on this report which seeks to assist the harmonisation of taxation across Member States.

2016/11/22

. ‒ The clear intention of the legislators when lifting these questions out of the Rome I Regulation was that the Commission should return with a proposal at a later stage. The questions were raised again in the light of the 2015 Action Plan on Capital Markets Union (CMU). In May 2017 the Commission’s mid-term review set out the remaining actions which will be taken to put in place the building blocks of the CMU by 2019, with the objective of removing barriers to cross-border investment and lowering the costs of funding. I cannot support measures that propose substantial further EU harmonisation in this area, hence I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst the safeguarding of a currency is obviously in itself not a bad thing, this is a report to protect a currency that the UK does not belong to, but which still benefits from British taxpayers’ money. If euro countries wish to protect their currency they would be better off funding efforts from their domestic budgets. For this reason, I voted against the report.

2016/11/22

As this report could become the template of a future Singapore-UK bilateral deal, I supported this agreement.

2016/11/22

Whilst I supported the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the accompanying resolution contains too many amendments attacking Singapore’s free market values with the aim of politicisation of trade. Hence I abstained on the final vote.

2016/11/22

This report follows a Court decision, which saw the EU-Singapore deal being split in to two. The first part deals only with free trade. The second part, which should not be confused with the ISDS of TTIP, is instead modelled more on CETA, with higher levels of transparency. As this was the case I felt I could vote in favour this part of the agreement, which will be a model for a future UK-Singapore agreement.

2016/11/22

Whilst I supported the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, this resolution contains too many amendments attacking Singapore’s free market values with the aim of politicisation of trade. I therefore felt it appropriate to abstain on the resolution as a whole.

2016/11/22

This political agreement differs from the previous votes in that it further propagates the EU’s foreign policy and develops the economic and political framework between the EU and Singapore. I believe that such actions should fall within the purview of sovereign states and that the EU, by undertaking such an action, diminishes the sovereignty of the Member States. Accordingly, I voted against this cooperation agreement.

2016/11/22

As I voted against the Agreement, it was logical to also oppose the accompanying resolution.

2016/11/22

I voted against the proposals as I oppose further EU harmonisation and interference.

2016/11/22

I oppose European Union enlargement and therefore voted against this report.

2016/11/22

I oppose the EUR 330 billion proposed cost for the 2017-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework. Were it not for the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, and specifically the lack of any guarantee that the United Kingdom will not be part of these structures by the start of the next MFF, I might well have abstained. In the current political climate, I have no such guarantees and therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This proposal will entail taxpayers’ money being used to promote and establish common harmonised judicial systems and practices, and to dilute the sovereignty of Member States. I therefore voted against the Commission proposal.

2016/11/22

I completely disagree with this vision for the future of Europe; I believe in sovereign nation states cooperating on matters where it makes sense to do so and reducing barriers to trade. I do not believe in centralisation of power or loss of sovereignty. Given that I disagree with the principles underpinning this report, I had no choice but to vote against it.

2016/11/22

I cannot support any resolution which proposes further harmonisation at a time when the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. I therefore voted against this report.

2016/11/22

I cannot support any resolution which proposes further harmonisation at a time when the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. I therefore voted against this report.

2016/11/22

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, such contingency measures are necessary to ensure the continuation of trade. It is entirely logical to support such measures, and it is worth noting that the content of these common rules, taken together across various different policy areas, is something which UK pro-EU politicians consistently told us would not happen in that event. I therefore voted in favour.

2016/11/22

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, such contingency measures are necessary to ensure the continuation of air travel, transport and trade. It is entirely logical to support such measures, and it is worth noting that the content of these common rules, taken together across various different policy areas, is something which UK pro-EU politicians consistently told us would not happen in that event. I therefore voted in favour.

2016/11/22

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, such contingency measures are necessary to ensure the continuation of aviation safety. It is entirely logical to support such measures, and it is worth noting that the content of these common rules, taken together across various different policy areas, is something which UK pro-EU politicians consistently told us would not happen in that event. I therefore voted in favour.

2016/11/22

The adjustments only affect countries which joined the EU post 1994. Consequently, I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only tangential impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

As an MEP elected upon a platform of withdrawal from the European Union, I cannot support measures which propose substantial further EU harmonisation and an increase in EU spending.

2016/11/22

Whilst I am supportive of measures to help protect the victims of motor vehicle accidents, I cannot help but feel that this is a matter which should be one for Member States rather than harmonised action at European Union level.

2016/11/22

I abstained on this emotional issue, which is also a matter of faith.

2016/11/22

This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I abstained on the resolution as a whole. Whilst I support increased investment in research programmes, better support and health infrastructure, I believe such matters should fall within the purview of Member States rather than pan-European harmonisation strategies.

2016/11/22

This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I abstained on the resolution as a whole. Recreational cannabis use can lead onto the use of stronger drugs, which destroys lives and causes significant life-long health problems. Cannabis is not a safe drug, and its potency now is far higher than it was, say, 50 years ago.I do not object to the extraction of specific cannabinoids for use in medicines, from such time as there exists genuine peer-reviewed research to demonstrate that this would be more efficacious than existing medicines available on the market. However, ultimately, such matters should be discussed and debated in Member States rather than at EU level.

2016/11/22

I abstained for the same reasons as usual: I believe in the principle of citizens’ petitions, but I do not believe in the approach to EU-wide legislation. As a strong supporter of direct democracy, I cannot oppose anything to do with citizens’ petitions, although the mechanisms in practice are misguided. Equally, I cannot support it because this is not genuine direct democracy, or anything resembling it.

2016/11/22

I am concerned that this Agreement will lead to the usual problem: Exploitation of the waters of a third country to the benefit, perhaps, of the European Union - but to the detriment of the natural resources of another country. This is, essentially, a cash-for-access deal. This deal pays the Ivory Coast 682,000 Euros for 36 vessels from Spain, France and Portugal to take 5,500 tonnes of fish. The non-legislative resolution attempts primarily to justify the agreement as both sustainable and beneficial to the Ivory Coast. Coming from the UK, whose waters have been plundered by the EU, I oppose this despoliation of another country’s waters. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This resolution seeks to justify the agreement which I had previously voted against. I naturally voted against this resolution.

2016/11/22

This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I abstained on the proposal.

2016/11/22

I believe that this deal creates a good opportunity for economic growth within this area, which should help increase the living standards for local people. The UK and Morocco are already working closely on bilateral relations, post-Brexit, including discussions in many areas such as opportunities afforded by another trade supply route for Gibraltar, from Morocco.I usually vote against such deals, but in view of the special circumstances in relation to this deal, I decided to vote in favour.

2016/11/22

This is a further example of the EU behaving as a state. Thus, even if the agreement itself has little within it to which I might object, it is unacceptable for the EU to be a signatory, reducing the Member States to the equivalent of its federal provinces. Consequently, I voted against.

2016/11/22

This report is a technical update recognising the fact Croatia has joined the EU since the original deal was signed with Mexico. As the report calls for nothing more than this fact to be acknowledged, I supported the proposal.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This legislation seeks to establish a new EU anti-fraud regime for the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework. I would like to vote for anything which seeks to combat fraud, but this particular package is problematic.I am concerned by the proposed EUR 181 million budget, and the requirements to ‘ensure the visibility of the EU’ for any organisation in receipt of EU funding. I am concerned likewise by the compulsion upon the Commission to implement an ‘information campaign’. I am also concerned specifically about providing power to the Commission to adopt delegated acts, and supported amendments seeking to curtail that power.There are, therefore, strong reasons to neither vote in favour nor against. Furthermore, the legislation impacts a Multiannual Financial Framework of which the United Kingdom will not be a part. I therefore abstained.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is the plan for the West Atlantic, comparable to those for other waters. It also modifies the Baltic Plan. I oppose these agreements as the next generation of the discredited Common Fisheries Policy. Moreover, the plan, like others, begins the extension of the CFP into recreational fishing.EU policy in the area of fishing has been disastrous; such policy-making should be left to Member States. The United Kingdom, post Brexit, must regain exclusive competence over our own fishing grounds, which provide a significant national resource and are currently being mismanaged by the European Union. Consequently, I voted against this report, and abstained on the committee joint statement, which was not subject to a roll call vote.

2016/11/22

. ‒ As an MEP elected upon a platform of withdrawal from the European Union, I cannot support measures which propose substantial further EU harmonisation and an increase in EU spending.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Though I am against further EU harmonisation, I recognise the problem of water scarcity and believe that Member States should consider investing in reclaimed water procedure. I therefore felt it appropriate to abstain on the final report rather than vote against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Though this is a simple report that does not create new legislation, I am wary of type approval, which by its very nature entails harmonisation. It also allows the Commission to adopt delegated acts, which can only be prevented if the Parliament or the Council object to them. I therefore intended to vote against this report, but for some reason, my vote did not register on my voting machine. However, I have now corrected my vote from ‘Did Not Vote’ to ‘Against’.

2016/11/22

I voted against this as I disagree with the concept and structures of European Union funding and the current protectionist nature of the single market; from that principle, opposition to these measures must surely follow.

2016/11/22

These proposals are part of continued attempts by the EU to harmonise VAT. Sovereign states should have the freedom to set their own VAT rates. The UK should not be subject to these systems post-Brexit. Hence, I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

Although this matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote, in the interests of transparency and democracy, in view of my continued campaigning for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller rights to be properly addressed, I voted in favour of this report, although I believe that the European Union is not the correct organisation to fight against anti-Gypsyism, and that, for this issue to be properly understood and respected by the public, it must be properly addressed, willingly, at Member State level. Discrimination in this area remains a consistent concern, and I believe that, to their shame, Her Majesty’s Government are squandering a huge opportunity to help both the GRT and settled communities, by failing to come up with a UK national strategy in this area.

2016/11/22

I voted against these proposals, which seek to impose an EU identity upon citizens in countries across Europe. This is not a European identity: one can feel European whilst considering EU institutions and structures bad for democracy and bad for accountability. Furthermore, it should be obvious by now that the State attempting to impose identity on the populace is futile.

2016/11/22

Any move to exchange unanimity for qualified majority voting must necessarily impact upon national sovereignty; accordingly, it was a straightforward decision for me to vote against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ In a functioning democracy, the (elected) parliament should have greater power than the (unelected) civil service. Those involved in drafting should be politically neutral. It is unacceptable for a political (unelected) Commission to be the primary driver of new legislation. Therefore, I tend to support measures seeking to redress the balance. I would have liked, on this occasion, to vote in favour. However, some of the earlier votes on amendments to the text made it clear that to vote in favour in the final vote would also be to vote in favour of the false Spitzenkandidaten process. That process creates a veneer of democracy but it was lent no legitimacy in the United Kingdom because there are no MEPs from Parliament’s largest political grouping. I therefore abstained on the final resolution.

2016/11/22

. ‒ The report looks at the role of the Charter particularly in two areas of EU policy making: the conclusion of trade agreements with third countries and economic governance. The ‘national dimension’ of the Charter complements the EU one. Inadequate implementation of the Charter at national level undermines its overall consistency and effectiveness. I therefore voted against the proposals..

2016/11/22

. ‒ I support the principle that there should be greater scrutiny and accountability of European Union institutions. I therefore abstained, rather than voting against, on the final resolution, and I supported a number of amendments seeking to strengthen accountability.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is a non-legislative report on a common industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics. I am against harmonised EU law on this issue and I believe that this innovative technology should fall under the purview of national parliaments. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I abstained on this report as it is becoming more and more evident that citizens are increasingly concerned on the negative effects on human health that can derive from pesticides. On the other hand, I understand farmers and their need to use pesticides to keep plants healthy and prevent disease and infestation. Decisions should be made on the basis of sound scientific information, and I am less than convinced that this is currently the case. Furthermore, decisions should be made by nation states rather than by the European Union.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is a report on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare: it makes recommendations for the improvement of the existing EU Directive on this issue. I voted against the proposals as I am against further EU harmonisation and the financial implications of this report.

2016/11/22

I supported amendments which sought to:1. Remove limitations upon the numbers of Parliamentary Questions which could be asked by MEPs2. Ensure fair distribution of speaking time and time for major interpellations amongst Parliamentary Groups3. Delete the possibility of a large political group forcing secret ballots upon the Parliament4. Require the Commission to respond faster to questions raised by MEPsI wished to support amendments regarding sexual harassment, which were unfortunately not voted on as a previous amendment (which I could not accept) had been carried.I opposed amendments seeking to regulate political affinity within Parliamentary groups (which would be fundamentally undemocratic), and to make it harder for political groups and groups of MEPs to force debates upon important issues.Whilst I had been considering an abstention on the final vote, ultimately some of the amendments which carried made it impossible for me to do so; accordingly, I voted against.

2016/11/22

This is a legislative, first reading report amending the Union Customs Code. Firstly, it contains a number of technical amendments, which correct technical errors and omissions including harmonising the legislation with international agreements such as CETA, which were agreed after the adoption of the Customs Code. Additionally it also allows for the municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano to be added to the customs territory of the EU. The Italian government has requested the exclaves to be added due to Switzerland including them in their own customs territory and the fact that they are no longer isolated and economically disadvantaged. I voted against this report as it is expanding and adding to the functioning of the single market.

2016/11/22

This is a highly technical rushed vote designed to address the fact that the regulations do not make proper allowance for the year 2020. It is not my role as a British MEP to assist the EU cope with its poor planning and drafting. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I strongly support the accession of the Dominican Republic to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. I believe that the UK should sign such an agreement. I do not, however, see it as the role of the European Union to instruct the UK in that regard. I therefore abstained as a ‘best fit’.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I strongly support the accession of both Ecuador and Ukraine to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. I believe that the UK should sign such an agreement. I do not, however, see it as the role of the European Union to instruct the UK in that regard. I therefore abstained as a ‘best fit’.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I strongly support the accession of Honduras to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. I believe that the UK should sign such an agreement. I do not, however, see it as the role of the European Union to instruct the UK in that regard. I therefore abstained as a ‘best fit’.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I strongly support the accession of both Belarus and Uzbekistan to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. I believe that the UK should sign such an agreement. I do not, however, see it as the role of the European Union to instruct the UK in that regard. I therefore abstained as a ‘best fit’.

2016/11/22

This non-legislative vote was to approve the funding programme for overseas countries and territories (OCTs) of the EU Member States. The funding is largely used to promote their integration into regional economies, sustainable development, climate change mitigation and efforts to reduce the risk of natural disasters.This entails taxpayers’ money being used to allow the EU to set the agenda and influence Member States’ OCTs. Sustaining and funding an OCT should be the responsibility of the nation state; I therefore voted against it.

2016/11/22

This non-binding report is the MEPs’ yearly assessment of fraud in the EU budget. The report notes that the total number of fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported in 2017 (15 213 cases) was 20.8% lower than in 2016 (19 080 cases) and that their value had decreased by 13% (from EUR 2.97 billion in 2016 to EUR 2.58 billion in 2017). The report goes on to assess that the VAT gap in 2016 amounted to EUR 147 billion, which represents more than 12% of total expected VAT revenue, and that the Commission estimates that intra-Community VAT fraud cases cost the Union around EUR 50 billion annually. The report points out that the average recovery rate for cases reported as fraudulent over the years 1989-2017 was only 37%.I cannot possibly support calls for harmonisation or action against the UK. Therefore, although stronger anti-fraud measures are indeed required, I had to vote against this report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I oppose the legislative and financial implications of this project. Consequently, although this would entail the repeal of some existing legislation, I had to vote against further spending of taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Adjustments to Gross National Income (GNI) are made in order to increase Member State contributions to the EU, and will grant power to the Commission to make delegated acts. I oppose delegated acts in principle. Neither can I support any resolution which proposes further harmonisation at a time when the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. I therefore voted against this report.

2016/11/22

Whilst I normally on principle would support objections pursuant to Rule 106, I am concerned in this case about the impact which that would have upon the UK, and am receiving mixed advice as to whether there exist reasonable concerns about the particular variant mentioned. I therefore felt it appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

I very much recognise the impact that this situation is having on the daily lives of its people and the suffering which has been caused. Furthermore, the denial of free and fair elections is a serious issue. I have serious concerns about the current political situation in Venezuela and the impact of far-left ideologies on its people. The European Parliament’s resolution is reasonable, and calls for the European Union to take a position are equally matched with, importantly, calls for the Member States to do likewise. Under the circumstances, it is important that the international community should be as united as possible. Unusually, therefore, I voted in favour of this resolution.

2016/11/22

Whilst I supported various amendments aimed at improving transparency and democratic accountability, and ensuring that third countries’ actions do not distort the free market, I had to vote against this report overall, because it seeks further EU power and Commission action.

2016/11/22

This report discusses what percentage of the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant in Lithuania should be met by the European Union. I do not believe that British taxpayers should fund such a project at all.Therefore, both a vote in favour and a vote against would send out completely the wrong message. I abstained.

2016/11/22

Given that the UK is one of the largest shareholders of the European Investment Bank, it is important to ensure that the UK’s capital is returned in an appropriate manner post-Brexit. Yet the report highlights UK obligations to the EIB rather than the other way around. Furthermore, the EIB is used to implement EU policy. I therefore voted against, although there are elements of the report – such as those calling for greater accountability and transparency – that I could support.

2016/11/22

Where there is a clear debt owed due to the confiscation of art by the Nazi regime and others, it makes sense for civil restitution to permit the recovery.There are, of course, complex issues with regard to ownership – particularly in respect of claims dating back centuries or even millennia. People still alive today lost property to the Nazis, and compensation should be possible.It is right for civil procedures to be streamlined in each Member State. Although, this report is unclear in terms of precisely how it seeks to achieve change, and words such as ‘harmonisation’ are concerning. I support the principle of what the report is ultimately seeking to achieve, but am unclear about the mechanisms for it. However, being such an emotive issue, this is one of the few occasions that I decided to vote in favour of an own initiative report.

2016/11/22

As I am likely to oppose this directive regardless of the outcome of inter-institutional negotiations, it seemed appropriate to vote against the decision to enter into such negotiations in the first place.

2016/11/22

I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only tangential impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

This will centralise power in the hands of the Commission and permit the Commission to (in effect) sanction Member States. If this were referring solely to responding to cases of fraud, then there would be an argument for it – though the procedure would remain a flawed one. It seems, though, that this will go further: that it will be used against Member States whose policies the EU dislikes. There is little democratic accountability here. The Commission would be able to act, and could only be overruled by the Council acting by QMV within a month. This is insufficient as a democratic safeguard, and it is notable that the elected Parliament will have very little say under the legislation. Hence I voted against.

2016/11/22

I oppose the principle of the Fiscalis programme. I oppose the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is mentioned in the Committee amendments. I oppose the principle of Commission delegated acts. I oppose the principle of harmonisation. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This is a legislative report which seeks to establish a EUR 1.6 bn project to support civil society organisations that promote EU rights and values. My problem with this is that the definition of ‘EU rights and values’ will be used to pursue a political agenda. This could lead, in effect, to the fund being used as an expensive propaganda campaign, especially as regards the EUR 443 million strand for the promotion of ‘active citizenship’. I voted against for two reasons: firstly, as the UK is leaving the European Union, we should not be committing further taxpayers’ money to new projects. Secondly, I am concerned about the lack of political balance and the use of the State to promote particular opinions.

2016/11/22

Whilst I am in favour of nuclear safety and international cooperation on safety rules, I believe Member States should independently deal with nuclear-related activities on their territories. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

Though there was much in this report I agreed with, as it called for EU intervention I felt it appropriate to abstain on the final vote.

2016/11/22

This report encourages the EIB to reduce exposure to the US dollar. In practice, this is an impossible aim: no organisation is able to eliminate trade in the world’s strongest currency. It is far from clear, in any event, that it would be in any way desirable to do so. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent US sanctions against nations and organisations acting in a manner incompatible with the principles of democracy. Likewise, this reasoning is concerning. Whilst I may have differences of opinion with the current US administration, it is strange to base long-term economic policy upon political differences with the current incumbent of the White House. The whole basis of this report being fundamentally flawed, I voted against.

2016/11/22

I cannot support any resolution which proposes further harmonisation at a time when the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. I therefore voted against the report.

2016/11/22

Whilst there were positive aspects to this report, for example the Ombudsman confirming her findings of maladministration, I could not support the report as a whole, nor its recommendations, so I abstained.

2016/11/22

. ‒ In principle, I have concerns over granting discharge to institutions responsible for matters which should properly be dealt with by national governments, rather than EU agencies. In this specific case, there were stronger reasons than usual for voting against, namely: the ongoing OLAF investigations over a culture of bullying; the alleged irregular payments in 2016 amounting to EUR 1.5 million; the inadequacy or total lack of internal control and governance, highlighted by the 2017 Court of Auditors report; and the inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money more recently (for example, the call for tenders for expensive branded promotional items), which demonstrates that the European Asylum Support Office has learned little.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst I am a strong supporter of free trade and recognise the issues faced by Morocco, especially in regard to migration, I was concerned about some protocols here, so I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ As a strong supporter of free trade, and recognising the issues facing Morocco, especially in relation to migration and security, I decided to vote in favour of this report. I also note the close working relationship between the UK and Morocco, in relation to the issue of post-Brexit trade between our two countries, which is already being discussed on a bilateral basis.

2016/11/22

. ‒ My concerns about animal welfare and the standards to which these poultry products are produced led me to vote against the report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ The principle of subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the citizen – in this case, at regional or national level. Therefore, these projects should not be funded by the European Union. The superficial changes suggested in this report do not solve any of the failings of the mechanism. There was a case for an abstention, on the grounds that the changes are due to come into effect only for the 2021—2027 framework, which is expected to be post-Brexit. However, following recent developments in the House of Commons in the UK, it seems more difficult to guarantee that any transitional period will have finished before this framework begins. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ The European Social Fund Plus is designed to support the EU’s policies as identified in the European Pillar of Social Rights and in the European Semester. This ultimately amounts to improving labour mobility amongst the Member States and the design of increasingly intrusive policies in the internal affairs of Member States. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This report lays down the provisions for these funds, with an aim to simplify and ensure clarity whilst doing so. These funds are in the field of cohesion, which deals with cross-border cooperation and outermost regions, amongst other topics. As I do not agree with EU funding mechanisms, I felt it consistent to vote against the report. However, I did support amendments which would have respected national sovereignty in terms of setting their own domestic budgets.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Post Brexit, technical arrangements will be necessary to apportion quotas between the United Kingdom and the European Union in order to ensure the free flow of trade. The exact detail is subject to negotiations between officials. I recognise the need for this to occur, but do not have sufficient information on whether it is being done in a manner which is fair to both sides to be able to vote in favour. In view of my concerns over greater technical legislation, I abstained on the roll-call vote and voted against both the Parliament and Commission statements.

2016/11/22

This is a non-legislative report. Whilst I believe that matters such as the authorisation of pesticides should be subject to the subsidiarity principle and determined by individual nation states, the situation at present is that they are determined at EU level. Overall, it seemed appropriate for me to abstain.

2016/11/22

This report concerns financial support to Bulgaria and Slovakia for decommissioning some nuclear power plants within their territories. Whilst I am in favour of nuclear safety and international cooperation on safety rules, I believe Member States should independently deal with nuclear related activities on their territories. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

Though I oppose the development and promotion of EU foreign policy through trade, the UK has voted to leave the European Union. I feel it is not for me, a British MEP, to seek to influence EU policy in this area. Consequently, I abstained.

2016/11/22

I would naturally oppose the establishment of a new EU investment programme. In addition to this, the report seeks to interfere with State aid rules, which would disadvantage UK businesses. I naturally voted against.

2016/11/22

The rapporteur views this document as a symbol of ‘European citizenship and solidarity’. I would argue that it should be down to Member States to decide which (if any) nationalities they are willing to assist in their overseas embassies. For this reason, I voted against the proposal.

2016/11/22

I am in favour of the use of nuclear energy in Europe and in favour of maintaining existing reactors. However, I am against the financial implication of this project and against EU interference, so I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

Whilst I supported amendments critical of the ECB and highlighting the political rather than the economic nature of the project, ultimately the UK is not part of the ECB and I therefore abstained on the final vote.

2016/11/22

The proposals support:The European Deposit Insurance Scheme (in which one country’s banking system will be used to subsidise another’s dysfunctional one); andThe Commission using Regulations rather than Directives to implement banking union (which increases harmonisation and centralised control).Accordingly, I voted against.

2016/11/22

Although I oppose the development and promotion of EU foreign policy through trade, I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with little impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

Whilst I am a strong advocate for ensuring fundamental rights for all, I do not believe further EU interference on this issue is the best way forward. National governments within Europe will always be the best way to enhance and protect rights without additional EU bureaucracy and unnecessary legislation. I therefore voted against this report.

2016/11/22

This report does not affect the UK, due to its withdrawal from the European Union. However, as a supporter of Brexit, I believe in the principle that the European Union should not tell the UK what to do. I therefore voted against the report.

2016/11/22

As I am opposed to EU resourcesʼ (in this case the European Border and Coast Guard Agency) being deployed in Albanian territory, I voted against these proposals.

2016/11/22

This being a technical update, I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only a tangential impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

This being a technical update, I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only a tangential impact upon the United Kingdom. However, due to rules of procedure, no vote was actually required or taken.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This report looks to address outstanding issues in data protection, vehicle and route data, and cybersecurity. I cannot support any report which proposes further harmonisation at a time when the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. I therefore voted against the report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This report seeks further EU harmonisation in relation to the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road; accordingly, I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This report concerns the concept of safeguarding clauses. This is quite a normal component in EU trade deals and is intended to allow the EU to react if there are sudden over supplies of products on the market. The Rapporteur wants all applications of this nature to be transparent. As these arrangements are normal in international trade, I abstained on the Roll Call Vote and voted against the committee proposals, as a matter of political principle.

2016/11/22

This report does not affect the UK due to its withdrawal from the European Union. I note that, as a supporter of Brexit, I believe in the principle that the European Union should not tell the UK what to do. I therefore voted against this report.

2016/11/22

The proposal is to remove the UK director from the board as a consequence of Brexit. However, as representation of the UK is still required in light of the EUR 9 billion refund that is due to the UK and allegedly will not be paid back until 2054, it is therefore important that representation be maintained. Consequently, I voted against the report.

2016/11/22

The report concerns gender quality within Parliament, calling for gender quotas on the committees, the bureau, senior management and vice-presidents. There are addition calls for gender parity on electoral lists and political groups to elect two co-presidents (one female, one male). Because I believe in equality of opportunities, I oppose any gender-based discrimination. The best candidate should be chosen at the same pay – irrespective of gender, religion, sexuality, ethnicity or pretty much anything else. Whist I fully support tackling issues of gender discrimination, this should be done by national governments and not in the way prescribed in this report. Hence, I voted against.

2016/11/22

The EU wants a new act to include the renovation of ITER (2021-2027) in the next MFF – with a budget contribution of EUR 6 070 000 000. I felt it necessary to vote against this report, as in the event of our departure from the EU being delayed, we may face having to contribute to this project.

2016/11/22

This non-binding report discusses how EU funding is spent in reforming the public sector of Member States. It calls for responsibility for better public administration and governance to be given to an individual Commissioner. The report says that such reform is good for many reasons including expanding eGovernment and improving the delivery of services throughout the EU, especially with regard to new technology and IT systems and combatting fraud. Currently the EU allocates EUR 9 billion for public administration reform. This report encourages the EU to further interfere directly and indirectly in Member States’ public sector administration, which I oppose. I therefore voted against the report.

2016/11/22

Though I passionately campaign for and advocate freedom of religion in and outside the EU, I do not support the institutions of the EU. I therefore voted against this report.

2016/11/22

This report discusses tax policies across the Member States, and the negative effects on women, particularly with regard to disincentivising women from joining the labour market.The report calls for EU legislation to be properly implemented against indirect and direct gender discrimination, criticism of the lack of gender mainstreaming in the next MFF, and for the Commission and Member States to implement gender budgeting.In summary, this calls for EU interference in Member State tax policy and I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I voted in support of this reduction of payments and commitment appropriations report.

2016/11/22

Because I believe this to an area that should be addressed at national level, rather than from an European Union perspective, I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

As I opposed the establishment of the Solidarity Fund, and its inclusion within the general budget of the European Union, (because I believe that such matters are better handled by national governments rather than being administered remotely by the European Union), I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report, as I cannot support the European Union’s record on budget control, auditing and transparency.Such taxpayer’s money would be far better controlled, managed, transparent and it would be far easier to hold such bureaucracy better to account, if it were be a matter solely for national parliaments to decide on.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report, as I cannot support the European Union’s record on budget control, auditing and transparency.Such taxpayer’s money would be far better controlled, managed, transparent and it would be far easier to hold such bureaucracy better to account, if it were a matter solely for national parliaments to decide on.

2016/11/22

The UK is leaving the European Union. The implementation of this partnership agreement is now a matter for the European Union and for Japan, not one for the United Kingdom. Although I am critical of the Japanese approach to whaling, I decided to abstain.

2016/11/22

The UK is leaving the European Union. The implementation of this agreement is now a matter for the European Union and for Jordan, not one for the United Kingdom; I therefore abstained.

2016/11/22

As I am opposed to Horizon Europe, I naturally voted against this report.

2016/11/22

Because I am opposed to Horizon Europe, I naturally voted against this report.

2016/11/22

To my mind, the single market continues to be anything but a level playing field, and I feel it is becoming increasingly protectionist, especially in relation to access from agricultural producers in the third world. Accordingly, I voted against this report as a matter of principle.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report, as I do not believe that the European Union should have any competency whatsoever within this area. It should be a matter solely for national parliaments to decide on. Furthermore, the UK can far better rely on the ‘Five Eyes’ initiative and NATO in this important area.

2016/11/22

This report underlines the EU’s truly frightening military and foreign policy aspirations. The description of the European Union as a sovereign entity flies in the face of reality and public opinion, and talk of the ‘projection of power’ is frankly ludicrous. 27 states, some of whom are neutral, can never come to a joint decision to send their young to war.We already have an organisation in NATO that has kept the peace through the most testing times. NATO has the expertise and is an alliance of mutual interest. If you must spend money in this area, then invest in that successful and well-run organisation.It is the nation state that protects its citizens, and we must ignore this call to arms. Hence I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

This report underlines the EU’s truly frightening military and foreign policy aspirations. Talk of any ‘projection of power’ is frankly ludicrous. 27 states, some of whom are neutral, can never come to a joint decision to send their young to war.We already have an organisation in NATO that has kept the peace through the most testing times. NATO has the expertise, and is an alliance of mutual interest. If the EU must spend money in this area, then invest in that successful and well-run organisation.It is the nation state that protects its citizens, and we must ignore this call to arms. Hence I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report, as I do not believe that the European Union should have competency within this area – it should be a matter solely for national parliaments to decide on individual policy in this area.

2016/11/22

We already have an organisation in NATO that has kept the peace through the most testing times. NATO has the expertise, and is an alliance of mutual interest. If the EU must spend money in this area, then invest in that successful and well—run organisation. It is the nation state that protects its citizens, and we must ignore this call to arms. Hence I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ There are many flaws in the EU’s approach towards transport and connectivity, not least HS2, which came to fruition under the TEN-T initiative, and is causing despair, heartache, desperation and environmental damage across my own constituency. Transport should, in my opinion, be a matter solely for national governments, hence I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

The UK is leaving the European Union. The implementation of this association agreement is now a matter for the European Union and for Ukraine, not one for the United Kingdom; I therefore abstained.

2016/11/22

Whilst this is a non-legislative report on the digitalisation of skills, jobs and education, I must vote against centralisation and harmonisation across the European Union and calls for increased EU funding. The importance of, and need for, digital literacy, giving schools better access to the Internet, and other measures to modernise education are clear – but this is not the appropriate institution to be doing it.The UK Government has its own digital strategy, with various investments, including the Digital Innovation Fund for local councils to access GBP 7.5 million for a grant in order to benefit local public services. The UK also has a fund for digital inclusion for the elderly and those with disabilities.This simply does not require EU-wide action. Member States are best placed to recognise the needs of their own citizens.

2016/11/22

Being opposed to harmonisation, in particular in light of the UKʼs vote to leave the European Union, I naturally had little choice but to vote against this measure.

2016/11/22

Being opposed to harmonisation, in particular in light of the UKʼs vote to leave the European Union, I naturally had little choice but to vote against this measure.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is a legislative report which wishes to ring-fence EU funding allocated to the Asylum and Migration Fund. Given the European Union’s repeated failures in responding to the migration crisis, I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Although I have concerns in relation to the European Union’s approach towards the environment and climate change, this approach is not likely to achieve the stated aims, largely because it cuts pollution within the EU at the expense of increasing emissions elsewhere. Whilst there are some positive points in this report, I abstained, instead of voting against it, to highlight my concerns for our environment.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is one part of a package of proposals to amend legislation already in force on carcinogens in the work place. This part introduces five new carcinogens with maximum standards of exposure at work and other safety standards in the original legislation. There is no other impact on legislation other than the introduction of these substances under the scope of the legislation. I therefore felt it appropriate to vote in favour, despite certain misgivings about the principle of action being taken by the EU rather than sovereign nations.

2016/11/22

I support transparency. I recognise the necessity of a response by nation states following (for example, but not limited to) the horsemeat scandal. In April 2018, the EU Commission submitted a proposal for more transparency in EFSA (EU food safety authority) and stricter rules to guarantee impartial food risk assessments. I supported many amendments to increase transparency across the sector but could not support the calls for further harmonisation and budgetary increases of up to 80%.There is, however, a clear need for the consumer to have greater confidence in products. I therefore abstained on the final Commission proposal, having previously voted in favour of amendments seeking to increase transparency.

2016/11/22

Harmonisation of education and employment policies is antithetical to the UK’s vote to leave the European Union; consequently, I had little option but to vote against.

2016/11/22

The Commission is proposing amendments to the existing legislation governing the working of EU-OSHA. It attempts to harmonise health and safety standards, to further facilitate labour mobility within the EU. As I believe that harmonisation is a waste of taxpayers’ money and the rightful responsibility of Member States, I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Questions of living and working conditions vary wildly within the EU28, and different measures may be required in different countries. Harmonisation is antithetical to the UK’s vote to leave the European Union: consequently, I had little option but to vote against the proposal.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Although this report amends legislation to allow manufacturers to apply to a different EU27 authority post Brexit, so that tests carried out by the UK do not need to be repeated, and type-approval may be granted, I had specific concerns in some areas, so I chose to abstain.

2016/11/22

. ‒ In the interests of democracy and transparency, I would like to confirm that I chose to vote against this matter, which was not the subject of a roll-call vote.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against this last month. My reasoning has not changed: I voted against it again this month.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is a legislative first-reading report that seeks to amend the EU’s Visa Code legislation harmonising procedures and conditions for processing visa applications and issuing visas. The legislation governing visas only applies to Schengen states and is only applicable to third countries with which the EU has not agreed visa-free travel.As this is unlikely to affect UK citizens, I abstained.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against this matter, given my opposition to a common position on VAT. For example, I abhor the fact that, in an age of fuel poverty, the UK Government cannot abolish VAT on domestic fuel whilst it remains a member of the EU.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst I continue to disagree with the European Union’s approach to enlarging the disastrous Schengen area, I abstained, as the UK is outside of the area and is due to leave the EU in March 2019.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This own-initiative report sets out various proposals and priorities the EU wants from the Member States in order to improve the ability for the EU to carry out rapid operations, mobilisation and projection of force. This includes the improvement of physical infrastructure and legally with a freer ability of military forces to cross national boundaries. As I am concerned about British military involvement in such operations, and prefer the options afforded through our NATO membership. I accordingly voted against this resolution.

2016/11/22

This a non-legislative report on the EU’s plans to increase cultural participation of EU citizens, via cultural policies and existing programmes such as Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens.There are calls for increased and adequate funding for programmes, for the creation of an ‘EU scoreboard’ to measure media pluralism and diversity, and the creation of an online directory of European films. I cannot support taxpayers’ money being spent on this, nor can I support the suggestion that the EU should interfere with the tax regulation and bilateral agreements of Member States. I naturally voted against the report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against this report as I was unable to support this ‘type approval’ which concerns total harmonisation within an extra five years thus delaying innovation opportunities within the UK.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Even though I am an opponent of capital punishment, I voted against this well meaning report for practical reasons. There are many products such as rope, which have many everyday uses, but regrettably, can also be used for capital punishment and torture. It seems to me that this report is the ‘using a hammer to crack a nut’ approach, which can only serve to stifle industry.‘Water boarding’ is a well known and effective method of torture. Would anyone seriously suggest limiting access to, and the banning of the use of water?

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted in favour of this report which supports the continuing financial development of this Commonwealth member.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against this measure as I cannot support UK taxpayers’ EU contributions being used as to sort out poor economic decisions by Member State governments or ill-judged but implemented EU directives.

2016/11/22

. ‒ The approach in this report fails to properly address the EU’s bad policies in relation to both migration and human trafficking. Hence I voted against it.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Although I supported some elements within this report, I felt that they were negated by other inconsistent aspects, hence I decided to abstain.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I abstained on this motion for a resolution, on the draft Commission implementing decision granting an authorisation for certain uses of sodium dichromate.

2016/11/22

. ‒ There was much political posturing from all sides within this report, on this issue, which clearly leads to much emotion on an issue that needs a sensible, businesslike and transparent approach. As I felt that the report did not ultimately address such an approach, I abstained.

2016/11/22

This sensitive issue is highlighted by, in effect, accusations of German courts ignoring and even undermining other EU Member States’ court rulings on family issues affecting their nationals. I abstained.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I abstained on this report on a matter of principle due to my opposition to how the EU currently represents and negotiates on behalf of its members states on WTO matters. I am certainly not opposed to some of the necessary reforms that the WTO certainly needs, but I would sooner that they be negotiated from the British perspective of an independent nation state, with our own seat at the WTO.

2016/11/22

I voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. I oppose further accession of states to the European Union and the extensive interfering in the affairs of these states by the European Union during the process. In particular I oppose the infringements on Serbia’s right to conduct an independent foreign policy.

2016/11/22

I voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. This report attempts to infringe the rights of Member States to conduct an independent foreign policy by attempting to ensure they recognise the independence of Kosovo. The European Union should not have such extensive relations with a partially recognised state and should certainly not be inviting them to join the EU.

2016/11/22

I voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. I oppose to further accession of states to the European Union and the extensive interfering in the affairs of these states by the European Union during the process. Whilst I support the normalisation of relations between the FYROM and Greece, I am concerned at attempts by the Commission to interfere in the internal affairs of the two states and the procedures for both countries to legitimise the Prespa Agreement. The settling of the naming dispute should not be used to catalyse the FYROM’s accession to the European Union.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. I am opposed to further accession of states to the European Union, and to the extensive interference by the European Union in the affairs of these states during the process.

2016/11/22

I voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. I am opposed to further accession of states to the European Union and the extensive interfering in the affairs of these states by the European Union during the process.

2016/11/22

I voted against this non-legislative and non-binding recommendation. Whilst I support the principles of freedom of expression and thought which this issue represents generally, I am opposed to the consistent politicisation of the internal affairs of Hungary to attempt to discredit the democratically elected government by the European Union.

2016/11/22

The resolution calls to ensure that more is done to tackle gender-based violence, that there is adequate access to healthcare, and that labour regulation, application for maternity and paternity leave, and education are all tailored to the needs of those with disabilities. Although there are some calls on Member States and the Commission for more action and legislation, which I would otherwise oppose, this report is of a sensitive nature – I cannot oppose giving those with disabilities better access to services, hence I abstained.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report, as I do not believe that the European Union should have competency within this area – it should be a matter solely for national parliaments to decide on.

2016/11/22

As I do not believe that the European Union should have competency within this area and that this should be a matter solely for national parliaments to decide on, it would follow that I would vote against this report. However, in this instance I abstained on this environmental issue as a matter of principle.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report, as I do not believe that the European Union should have competency within this area – it should be a matter solely for national parliaments to decide on.

2016/11/22

Lyme disease is a horrendous condition, which regrettably affects people across the globe. Accordingly a truly international approach needs to be taken towards a genuine global strategy. This is one of the rare occasions that I was happy to vote in favour of a resolution in the European Parliament, as even, post Brexit, I remain committed to an aforementioned global strategy to combat borreliosis.

2016/11/22

. ‒ The United Kingdom will no longer be a member of the European Union at the time when this multiannual financial framework comes into force in 2021. Furthermore, the proposed transitional period will by that time have expired. The UK will not be making budgetary contributions to the European Union. I note that, as a supporter of Brexit, I believe in the principle that the European Union should not tell the UK what to do. This situation is the reverse: as a UK MEP, I should not cast an affirmative vote on issues which affect the EU27 but not the UK. I therefore abstained on every vote throughout this report.

2016/11/22

Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have had a significant negative impact upon the ability of the British government to protect local businesses in specific circumstances where temporary assistance could save significant numbers of jobs. I believe that these articles represent unnecessary intrusion. This vote relates to the Commission seeking additional powers for exemptions for European Union financing. It could result in additional control over Member States’ domestic policies by the European Union; accordingly, I voted against.

2016/11/22

I voted against this resolution as it fails to deal with arms control in any practical sense. Instead, it is a vehicle for anti-Saudi rhetoric, the usual tired comments about Yemen, and an opportunity to, yet again, criticise one or two Member States.All reasonable people agree that a robust and ethical system of arms control, and in particular, licensing, is vital for successful de-escalation of the many conflicts across the globe. Arms sales to non–state actors are a particular concern, and therefore the transparency of end-user certificates becomes paramount.If Member States are not prepared to intervene in a particular area, then we cannot deny material support to those who do so on our behalf. The EU remains strangely silent on how the Houthis are deploying ever-more sophisticated weaponry, including ballistic missiles fired into Saudi Arabia – maybe it’s something to do with European business interests in Iran.If the EU wants real global influence, it has to stop this self-serving rhetoric.

2016/11/22

Ultimately, I voted against this because:1. It was legislative rather than non-legislative2. It seeks to interfere with domestic policies of Member States3. It entails loss of sovereigntyThat said, I agree with the principle that competition authorities should be independent of political control.

2016/11/22

I voted against this resolution, which proposes further harmonisation at a time when the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. Whilst this is an update to existing legislation, I believe that it should be for national authorities to manage the increasing use of data services.

2016/11/22

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the BEREC Office were established by EU law as part of the ‘telecommunications package’. The BEREC Office is an EU decentralised agency, based in Riga. The main thrust of the Commission proposal is to convert BEREC and BEREC Office into a single EU Agency. I voted against this report as I object to the financial implication caused by the centralising role of these bodies.

2016/11/22

I abstained on this report, as I believe that, post Brexit, an independent UK will have a degree of cooperation on environmental issues, due to simple geography.I oppose many of the measures within this report, including the EU’s obsessive attacks against Carbon dioxide, which seems to be there main culprit with their approach to environmental issues.

2016/11/22

As a strong supporter of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, I voted against this resolution. Democracy requires a demos; self-governance is a fundamental right. Ultimately, this proposal interferes with national sovereignty.

2016/11/22

The UK is leaving the European Union. The implementation of this Association Agreement is now a matter for the European Union and for Georgia, not one for the United Kingdom; I therefore abstained.

2016/11/22

The UK is leaving the European Union. The implementation of this association agreement is now a matter for the European Union and for Moldova, not one for the United Kingdom; I therefore abstained.

2016/11/22

I do not oppose humanitarian visas. I do, however, oppose the principle that visas should be coordinated at European Union level in such a way as to permit applicants to move freely across borders without detection. It would effectively provide financial incentives for Member States to use this procedure rather than their own asylum policies, because the cost would be borne by the European Union. I therefore voted against the final resolution, but in favour of some recitals and amendments.

2016/11/22

I do not believe that this fund is necessary. EU Member States contribute to a fund from which they can then reclaim money in the event of a natural disaster. However, ultimately there will be no real net benefit from this system: the amounts of money are not so high as to have a significant overall impact upon national economies. Money is reclaimed much later, having already been spent. The administrative costs are significant.Given that the fund exists, however, I see no reason to doubt that responding to a natural disaster in Latvia is a worthwhile cause and I have no specific objection to the proposal. I therefore felt, overall, that it was appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

I agree with certain sentiments expressed within this non-legislative report. Education is important, and the furtherance of education in some of the worldʼs poorest countries will form part of a strategy for them to increase their prosperity in the longer term.However, the specific recommendations are concerning. The European Union should not tell Member States how to spend their own overseas aid budgets. Likewise, whilst the provision of one yearʼs free pre-primary schooling in poorer countries may well be a laudable goal, there might be more pressing priorities.I therefore voted against the resolution.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst I am supportive of measures to increase energy efficiency, and indeed there are substantial energy savings which could be made (with consequent reduction of emissions), I cannot help but feel that this is a matter which should be one for Member States rather than harmonised action at European Union level, hence I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst I strongly support research and development of renewable energy, I remain unhappy about the direction of public policy. This proposal for the adoption of a ‘carbon budget’ for the European Union is a legislative one. We should be seeking primarily to research technology in order to ensure that renewables become cost-efficient and, therefore, in the interests of private companies to produce without the need for subsidy. Current policies incentivise energy-intensive industry being outsourced to non-EU countries with lower environmental standards. Current policy, taken at a global level, is far less effective at reducing emissions.I therefore voted against this report as I cannot support measures which seek more of the same, and EU-wide harmonisation of action which is not only expensive but also counterproductive.

2016/11/22

Although this is a recast of existing legislation, I feel that it is unhelpful as it continues to codify the wrong approach towards energy development. We should be seeking primarily to research technology in order to ensure that renewables become cost-efficient and, therefore, in the interests of private companies to produce without the need for subsidy. Current policies incentivise energy-intensive industry being outsourced to non-EU countries with lower environmental standards. Current policy, taken at a global level, is far less effective at reducing emissions.I voted against this report as I cannot support measures which seek more of the same, and EU-wide harmonisation of action which is not only expensive but also counterproductive.

2016/11/22

In principle, I felt it was appropriate for me to abstain on the final vote because it was a matter which does not impact upon the United Kingdom post-Brexit. The European Union’s decisions concerning fishing arrangements in the Adriatic Sea after March 2019 are really not my concern as a UK MEP. That being said, I felt it important for me to cast an affirmative vote on a number of the amendments. Given that there are moves at EU level to force the UK to remain a part of the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy post-Brexit, I felt it important to vote for amendments 85, 86 and 87, which proposed an overall reduction of the regulatory burden. Nevertheless, I abstained on the final vote.

2016/11/22

. ‒ There may well be reasoned criticisms which can be levelled at the Romanian Government. I do have certain concerns over press freedom and the independence of the judiciary in Romania. Had the resolution been confined to these issues, and had it been couched in appropriate language, I might well have voted differently. But, as ever, that was not the case. The resolution included, inter alia, criticism of policy decisions which should fall squarely within the purview of Member States, and a call for establishing a new EU pact on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights.I therefore voted against on the final resolution.

2016/11/22

. ‒ As I am someone who campaigns for minority rights, specifically in relation to the UK’s Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, it should naturally follow that I support equal rights for all under the law. However, as is often the case in relation to legislation before the European Parliament, there was much in this report that made it difficult for me to support it on a matter of political principle. Problematic issues included: calls for the European Union to define what constitutes a minority; state-funded ‘anti-hate speech campaigns’; EU interference in domestic policing to insist upon anti-hate crime units – as such matters should be decided by Member States; the EU dictating that taxpayers’ money should be spent funding NGOs working with minority communities, taking that decision away from a national government; and EU interference in the independence of the media.Therefore, I decided to abstain.

2016/11/22

. ‒ There is indeed reasonable concern that artificial intelligence and automation is already beginning to replace low- and medium-skilled jobs. To that extent, I agree with the rapporteur. Indeed, this is one of many causes of substantial unemployment in working-class communities in the United Kingdom. It is also true to say that digitalisation can have enormous economic benefits for a nation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to suggest that this might be one approach to lift developing countries out of poverty. I differ, though, on suggestions that the Commission should ‘assist’ sovereign countries with drafting legislation. I cannot support calls for further EU funding. Therefore, although there are elements of this report which I agree with, I decided to abstain.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against this proposal as I believe this is a matter for national governments to decide.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against, as this should be dealt with by sovereign states.

2016/11/22

I voted against as these matters should be dealt with at national level.

2016/11/22

I voted against, as this is a matter for national governments.

2016/11/22

I voted against the report as it did not deal with the underlying problem of the international community not engaging with legitimate Yemeni political groups, paid no attention to the desires of the Yemeni people, legitimised a proxy war and had no clear road map on how to promote a political settlement.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against, as I believe this to be a matter for individual states.

2016/11/22

This is a matter for Member States to decide.

2016/11/22

Although they introduce new regulatory burdens, the technological updates could assist in post—Brexit facilitation of trade.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against as decisions relating to health technology are best left to Member States.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against, as this is a matter for national Governments.

2016/11/22

I voted against as this is a matter for national governments.

2016/11/22

I voted against as this calls for the Commission to take action.

2016/11/22

I voted against this proposal.

2016/11/22

I abstained on this issue.

2016/11/22

Abstained.

2016/11/22

This being a minor technical update I considered an abstention appropriate.

2016/11/22

I voted against as this is an issue that the European Parliament does not have the competency to decide

2016/11/22

I voted against as I do not believe the EP should legislate in this area, and it is a matter for individual states

2016/11/22

. ‒ Abstained as the draft amending budget did not seek to return the balance of funds to Member States.

2016/11/22

Being opposed to the principle of Eurojust (cross-border matters should be dealt with by agreements amongst sovereign states, not the European Union), I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

The single digital gateway has an initial estimated implementation cost of EUR 109 million, plus further costs of EUR 8 million per annum. I voted against.

2016/11/22

I believe that visa policy should be for Member States to determine; accordingly, I voted against.

2016/11/22

The Attica region of Greece recently faced devastating wildfires, resulting in the tragic loss of 98 human lives, with hundreds injured, and thousands made homeless. I welcome the Greek government’s announced package of measures designed to alleviate distress and repair the material damage; whereas a judicial investigation into possible faults by state officials and the causes of the devastating fires in Attica is under way. I supported some amendments which were critical of the EU’s handling of the Greek economy. The full report was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would therefore like to confirm that I abstained on the final vote.

2016/11/22

The vote on the threat of demolition of Khan Al-Ahmar and other Bedouin villages was not the subject of a roll-call vote. I do not believe that the resolution provides a workable solution to the issues raised, and therefore in the interests of democracy and transparency I confirm that I voted against this resolution.

2016/11/22

I believe that much more must be done for the recycling of plastics. However, the report’s suggestion of a ‘single market’ for recycled plastics is not the answer – better domestic legislation is. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

The full report was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would therefore like to confirm that I voted against on the final vote. Whilst the principles of the report do indeed need to be addressed, they should be addressed by Member States themselves not at European Union level.

2016/11/22

This report is, broadly speaking, scientifically sound. I do not wish to oppose good science, and therefore I abstained rather than voting against it. However, where multinational cooperation on antimicrobial resistance is necessary, the appropriate vehicle for that is the World Health Organisation. This is an own-initiative report which has no legislative force.

2016/11/22

I opposed this own-initiative report because it calls for EU-level taxpayer subsidy of industry.

2016/11/22

This report seeks further EU harmonisation in relation to plant-based products: accordingly, I voted against on the final vote.

2016/11/22

This report seeks further EU harmonisation of goods within the single market. Accordingly, I voted against on the final vote.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Japan seeks to export shochu to the European Union under its Free Trade Agreement. Historically and traditionally, this spirit is stored in bottles of 720 ml. Therefore, an exemption to the usual bottle sizes is being sought. Whilst I recognise the value of the exemption, the bureaucratic nature of this situation demonstrates the issues caused by over-legislation at European Union level. Something has gone seriously awry with the principle of subsidiarity if selling goods in 720 ml bottles rather than 700 ml requires Member States to seek EU permission.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This issue should be handled in a bilateral manner between the UK and the USA. Since the UK will be leaving the EU there is no reason why such a bilateral agreement cannot be realised.

2016/11/22

The copyright directive is an unnecessary intrusion. The language is so vague that we don’t know exactly how bad the damage will be, but when the founder of the internet is sufficiently concerned to speak out, it suggests that utmost caution is needed. Article 13 would require internet platforms, such as Microsoft or Google, to install automated filters to remove copyrighted content. Such filters will by definition end up removing content erroneously; the law provides for ‘fair use’ and certain exemptions including parody.A law requiring providers to install such ‘censorship machines’ is chilling; there will be little or no accountability in practice. In fact, it will become a typical EU ‘closed shop’ stitch-up: the tech giants will be able to comply with ease; smaller companies and tech start-ups will be in big trouble. As ever, the EU ‘looks after’ big business by introducing legislation which hammers small business competitors.Article 11 regurgitates failed laws in Spain and Germany aimed at creating a new copyright rule which will create a commercial incentive for spreading ‘fake news’, whilst disincentivising and taxing accurate information. I therefore voted against the Directive as a whole, and supported amendments which sought to mitigate the damage.

2016/11/22

This legislative first reading seeks additional controls on cash entering or leaving the EU in a bid to combat terrorism and serious organised crime. The principle is one of harmonisation: the EU wishes to legislate on such matters rather than letting Member States make their own decisions. This creates odd situations with seemingly arbitrary limits for non-euro area countries. It fails to account for disparities in income between EU Member States. Nor does it permit Member States the flexibility to respond appropriately to threats in a timely fashion through their own legislation. For these reasons, I voted against.

2016/11/22

This legislative report seeks to harmonise criminal law across the EU in relation to money laundering. Although the goal is laudable, the principle of undermining national sovereignty is not. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

When the European Union becomes the arbiter of what a member state can and cannot do, those European Union decisions invariably become politicised. This places me as an MEP in a particularly difficult position. I am being asked to sit in judgement on an entire nation and on its laws. There are indeed some aspects of Hungarian politics which are deeply troubling. However, the tenor of this debate has raised further concerns for me. Some of the amendments and points within the report do not relate to the principles of undermining the very rule of law or undermining democracy; they merely relate to political decisions which many MEPs dislike. Other allegations are undoubtedly more serious, but I cannot support a report which merges the two. Furthermore, there are real concerns about other EU nations’ policies breaching the same Article. The political issues in such situations being different, the EU has less interest in taking similar action. Even-handedness is important, but lacking. I could not support invoking Article 7 for these reasons; the basis of the proposal is not a sound one.

2016/11/22

There are fundamental questions which need to be answered with regard to autonomous weapons systems. The nature of how artificial intelligence is developing, and the opaque mechanisms by which decisions can be taken, lead to some tough decisions when it comes to the development of international law. Such decisions should be taken by the United Nations, but it is incumbent upon all actors to consider the issues carefully.

2016/11/22

This non-legislative report is heavily and directly critical of the Trump regime. I myself often have criticisms of Donald Trump’s policies, but those criticisms are reasoned and proportionate. Furthermore, my criticisms are levelled as an individual MEP not on behalf of an organisation or institution such as the European Parliament. It is fundamentally wrong for the Parliament to take aim at an elected Head of State in this way. By all means, we should as individuals criticise Donald Trump when he is wrong - but the nature of this report associates the Parliament with such criticisms. The report takes those criticisms to an extreme in a number of areas, and thereby loses any semblance of balance or sense of authority. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

It is interesting to note that this report is less critical of a non-democratic Chinese regime than the previous report was of the democratic United States of America. This creates certain red flags about the proportionality of the European Parliament’s reports, political response and respect for democracy. In this report, the importance of relations between the EU and China is reiterated. I do not object to that, though I would rather see greater focus upon nation states. The report further comments upon certain internal Chinese security issues.However, it also proposes further EU strategic autonomy, which would necessitate loss of national sovereignty. On that basis, I had little choice but to vote against.

2016/11/22

I am concerned that this legislation, on equivalence of field inspections, could lead to increased bureaucracy. Furthermore, the UK has voted to leave the European Union and consequently the common agricultural policy. It seems in keeping with those principles to oppose this, because it is likely to come into force before Brexit. That being said, I do not oppose the principle of permitting the import of foreign seed. It should merely be a decision for the UK sovereign Parliament to take.

2016/11/22

I object to the rising burden from EU legislation, especially in light of the UK referendum result, and therefore voted against this report. This is a decision for the UK sovereign Parliament to take.

2016/11/22

New psychoactive substances, such as the synthetic opioids cyclopropylfentanyl and methoxyacetylfentanyl, are structurally related to fentanyl, an internationally controlled substance. Given my firm stance against drugs, I felt compelled to vote for this legislation.

2016/11/22

I opposed the establishment of this Solidarity Fund, and its inclusion within the general budget of the European Union, because I believe that such matters are better handled by national governments rather than being administered remotely by the European Union. Therefore, I voted against the Fundʼs application.

2016/11/22

. – This vote relates to the specific changes to the budget lines regarding the Solidarity Fund. It seems consistent with my principles to vote against this, as the fund itself is an inefficient means of providing support.

2016/11/22

The Good Friday Agreement was between the British Government, the Irish Government, and the people of Northern Ireland. Whilst the European Union has been broadly supportive of the peace process, I am concerned that the European Union’s attitude towards Brexit has risked destabilising that Agreement.

2016/11/22

I believe that this report fails to understand the nature of EU-imposed austerity and the consequences of EU policies for the people of Greece. What is needed is not more European Union interference, but less. Whilst the underlying cause of economic problems in Greece is not the European Union, European Union rules leave Greece unable to devalue its currency and to boost competitiveness.

2016/11/22

This matter should not be determined at European union level. Member States are perfectly capable of setting their own policies for the reintegration of workers recovering from injury into the workforce. Consequently, this report fails to respect the principle of subsidiarity. I voted against for that reason.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This report provided an opportunity for the European Parliament to propose mutual recognition of standards between the UK and the EU following Brexit. That opportunity was missed, instead preferring to insist upon equivalence of regulation which would bind the UK’s policies for the foreseeable future after Brexit. The potential impact on UK sovereignty is such that I felt compelled to vote against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Once again, this is a question which should be determined by nation states and not by the European Union. The management of borders, and boosting growth in border regions, is properly a matter for domestic legislation rather than European Union.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I oppose the principle of taxpayers’ money being spent on the EU Solidarity Corps, especially given that the amount is as high as EUR 341.5 million. It is likely to become a further vehicle for pro-EU propaganda to be disseminated, particularly amongst young people in the European Union. Regardless of this, it is consistent with the UK referendum result to vote against the spending of additional taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

I supported the rejection amendment to the Structural Reform Support Programme financial envelope on general principle, but specifically also because the Provisional Agreement seeks to increase funding to help non-euro countries to join the euro. The euro has been far from an economic and monetary success, and European taxpayers’ money should not be spent on supporting its expansion.

2016/11/22

I do not oppose nuclear power in principle. However, I do not seek a massive expansion in the use of nuclear power either. Decisions should be taken based upon a variety of factors, including cost and environmental impact. I note that nuclear is a much lower-carbon option than others, and that the levels of safety have increased dramatically in recent years. However, it is not quite as cost-effective as it once was. Renewable technologies should be supported, but the key is not to introduce technologies before they have been made cost-effective. We should focus upon research to ensure that cheap, sustainable, renewable energy is possible. Once this succeeds, market forces will then – without further subsidy being needed – ensure that renewable technologies replace older technologies for economic reasons. Attempts to establish an EU roadmap would continue to take energy policy down a cul-de-sac. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I would have liked to abstain on the own-initiative report on measures to combat mobbing and sexual harassment. I support such measures, yet oppose the principle that this should be done at EU level. The UK already has some of the highest standards in this respect, and standards must continue to improve. However, whilst voting it became clear that the Parliament was voting in favour of new EU legislation on the subject – violating the principle of subsidiarity. It voted in favour of gender discrimination through suggestions that Parliamentary lists should be chosen on the basis of gender rather than ability. It further sought to interfere in the policies of Member States. I therefore, reluctantly, voted against the report because I could not support the principles described.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I am a strong supporter of the diversity of languages. However, the European Union seeks to centralise and to ensure that this is done at taxpayers’ expense. Yet this is not appropriate: nations and regions where diverse languages are spoken should themselves know best how to promote those languages. This is a classic case of EU interference where it is not merited, and therefore I voted against it.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst I strongly support better management of forests in developing countries, this report advocates further harmonisation at European Union level and seeks to introduce the possibility of sanctions into free trade agreements with those countries. I therefore voted against it.

2016/11/22

I have huge concerns about the proposed directive on copyright, in particular focusing on Article 11 (described by opponents as a ‘link tax’), which would force online platforms to buy licences from media companies before linking to their stories, and Article 13 (an ‘upload filter’), which would require everything uploaded to certain platforms in the EU to be checked for copyright infringement.The policing of such vast quantities of content could only be achieved via automation. Crawling bots lack the discernment to be able to correctly identify fair-use exemptions (e.g. memes, parodies, etc.) and thus the proposed legislation will lead to content being wrongly taken down. This will have negative consequences on both creative expression and overall internet freedom. Typically for the EU, these changes will also benefit tech giants at the expense of small business: the cost of self-policing can easily be subsumed into a multi-national, multi-billion pound company; it is a huge deterrent to a small business. I therefore had no choice but to vote against these proposals.

2016/11/22

The European Citizens’ Initiative pays lip-service to the concept of wider public involvement in the EU institutions. The concept of the European Union itself is rather remote from the citizens of Europe. This proposal appears to water down, rather than strengthen, the involvement of citizens in these processes. Consequently, I felt obliged to vote against.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report, which related to a technical update.

2016/11/22

This proposal concerns the amendment of financial rules governing the use of EU funding. It is a particularly complex piece of legislation. I note as follows:1. The United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union in March 2019;2. It is therefore unlikely that there will be any particular budgetary impact in respect of the United Kingdom;3. Some of the proposals may well simplify bureaucracy, accountability, and checks on EU spending;4. There is some element of harmonisation, but this is unlikely to impact upon the UK.On balance, it is difficult to be certain whether the new rules will make matters better or worse. As they do not apply to the UK anyway, I felt it appropriate to abstain.

2016/11/22

This report seeks to establish a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), which is largely a replica of the US ESTA visa system and the current UK visa scheme. It seeks to ensure that all third country nationals will need to apply for travel authorisation into the Schengen Area prior to travelling to the area.As the UK is not part of the Schengen Area this is not directly applicable, but it will of course impact on UK citizens in the future who wish to travel to the Schengen Area. It will also cost EUR 200 million and is, of course, further EU harmonisation of its border policy. This ultimately involves UK taxpayers’ money being used to fund a project for the benefit of the Schengen Area. Additionally, the UK after Brexit will be a ‘third country’, which will require UK citizens to provide this biometric data to EU databases. It is also highly likely that the applicant will eventually fund such an operation. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This report focuses on the Europol aspects of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS). The regulation will necessitate additional powers for Europol, which is as an institution far too unaccountable.As the UK is not part of the Schengen Area this is not directly applicable, but it will of course impact on UK citizens in the future who wish to travel to the Schengen Area. It will also cost EUR 200 million and is, of course, further EU harmonisation of its border policy. This ultimately involves UK taxpayers’ money being used to fund a project for the benefit of the Schengen Area. Additionally, the UK after Brexit will be a ‘third country’, which will require UK citizens to provide this biometric data to EU databases. It is also highly likely that the applicant will eventually fund such an operation. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report for two reasons: harmonisation, and budgetary impact. This legislation seeks to facilitate other legislation arising from the migration crisis, notably changes to the EU’s external border management and the rise in data exchanges and data protection. The agency’s new mandate will allow it to establish new systems such as the European Search Portal and a Common Identity Repository. The enhanced mandate will cost the taxpayer approximately EUR 78 million. This is a further strengthening of the powers of an EU agency, taking away the responsibility of Member States to manage their own IT systems.

2016/11/22

I voted against the resolution primarily because I cannot support an increased EU budget for 2019, but also because I believe Parliament’s spending priorities are wrong. To do otherwise would fail to respect the fact that the British people have already voted to leave the European Union and should reasonably expect budgetary contributions to cease at that point. This report is to approve Parliament’s negotiating position to take to the Council regarding the EU budget 2019.The Commission proposal is to set the EU budget at EUR 165.6 billion for 2019, which starts the budgetary process. The report welcomes the 3.1% increase in the EU budget. It supports increased funding across various policy areas, supports the Juncker investment plan, supports the commitment for an EU defence agenda, supports target of 20% of the EU budget being used for climate spending, welcomes the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the European Labour Authority, believes that the 5% staff reduction target has been achieved and there is no need to continue this policy.

2016/11/22

This resolution sets out Parliament’s recommendations to the Council on Parliament’s proposed priorities for the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly. This coordination and participation limits the exercise of an independent foreign policy for the Member States, especially the UK and France. Article 34 obliges Member States to represent the EU and common interests on bodies where either the EU or not all Member States are not represented. When the Council comes up with a position we have to represent it at the UNSC and are even forced to request that the VP/HR be invited by the UNSC to present the EU’s position. Article 24(3) forces us to ‘comply’ with EU action and to refrain from positions that go against EU interests, with the Council and the VP/HR having power to ensure compliance.The report suggests several recommendations to which I object; a call for reform of the UN Security Council, a UN Security Council seat for the EU and for a legal definition for climate refugees/migrants. This is an attempt to transfer competence from Member States to the European Union: that runs contrary to the democratic mandate upon which I was elected; I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

The economic crisis brought about by the failed Socialist economic policies of successive regimes, despite the country’s rich reserves of natural resources, has resulted in a humanitarian crisis and the government continues to refuse outside aid. The EU has imposed targeted sanctions consisting of travel bans and asset freezes on 11 officials in retaliation for the re-election of Maduro, which has been contested as neither free nor fair. The opposition boycotted the elections following the barring of their most popular candidates and a crackdown on several opposition parties. The report should be far more critical of the Maduro regime; I voted against.

2016/11/22

This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. I voted against the final report, because in essence it represents the European Union seeking additional power to reduce the sovereignty of Member States concerning their own borders. Humanitarian assistance, of course, should not be criminalised. But assistance which refers not to humanitarian concerns but an illegal act should not be defined as humanitarian assistance. This report, in effect, conflates the two. I abstained on the ENF roll-call vote which exchanged one piece of bad text with another, the latter being irrelevant to the question.Furthermore, I am concerned that this resolution is specifically aimed at Hungary. This is, perhaps, not completely appropriate.

2016/11/22

Whilst being in favour of appropriate data exchange where necessary for reasons of security, I believe that such matters should be determined by national governments, not the European Union. The report, although correctly critical of the lack of safeguards in certain areas, is particularly EU-centric and overly demanding of the US Government. Overall I felt it appropriate to vote against.

2016/11/22

There are genuine concerns about the FATCA legislation in the United States, because it is one of the only countries in the world which taxes those living and working abroad. Had the report highlighted only this, I would have been more amenable to it. Fundamentally, though, it is not appropriate for the European Union to tell the USA what its own policy should be.

2016/11/22

The report calls on the Commission to introduce a ‘European social label’ which should be available for organisations that satisfy a set of legal requirements, regardless of the legal form of their incorporation in a Member State, and that label should be optional for the undertaking. The financial implications of the request proposal are to be covered by the EU and the Member States. As an MEP elected upon a platform of withdrawal from the European Union, I cannot support measures which propose substantial further EU harmonisation and an increase in EU spending.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst there are some poignant aspects in relation to the field of culture, in relation to accessibility, financing and education, one fundamental point remains: it is not for the EU to dictate how much national governments should contribute to or invest in cultural services, nor how they should form policy in this area. Furthermore, there is the usual call for more EU investment, which will by definition be at the expense of the taxpayer. Hence, my vote against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This recommendation will allow citizens to be more aware of the link between the national parties and candidates running in the elections and their affiliation with a European political party. This proposal may open the door for European issues to gradually replace national ones in the debate on European elections. As I respect the sovereignty of national governments, I felt it wise to vote against this proposal.I did consider an abstention on the grounds that this should not affect the United Kingdom as the UK is due to have left the European Union before the next European elections. However, given recent attempts by Remain politicians to water down or reverse Brexit – and given the fundamental importance of this issue – I ultimately felt it appropriate to cast a vote on this issue.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is Parliament’s consent to the ratification of an agreement signed between Armenia, the EU and the European Atomic Energy Community aimed at strengthening political relations between the EU and Armenia. I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only tangential impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is Parliament´s consent to the ratification of an agreement signed between Armenia, the EU and the European Atomic Energy Community aimed at strengthening political relations between the EU and Armenia. I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only tangential impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Parliament is being asked to give its consent to the ratification of an agreement signed between Iraq and the EU. It aims at improving the political dialogue between the two and providing a legal framework governing relations. I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only tangential impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This is a technical update reflecting Croatia’s accession to the European Union. I consistently abstain on such technical updates.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I oppose further EU control of clearing and payment systems.

2016/11/22

The public in the United Kingdom has been consistently opposed to the principle of distance-based road charging. Whilst this particular proposal impacts upon heavy goods vehicles only, the danger for this to be extended to private vehicles at a later date is clear. Any form of such road pricing will require, in some way, additional intrusion and monitoring. The cost of compliance is likely to be borne by the operators, and inevitably there exists a danger of additional taxation causing loss of competitiveness and higher prices in countries like the United Kingdom which do not generally operate a system of road tolls in the first place.Whilst the report does state that there should be some flexibility, this is not an own-initiative report: it is based upon a Commission proposal. I felt it was more important to vote on the principle of the proposal and to oppose this measure.

2016/11/22

This proposal is to transfer EUR 555 542 325 left over from the 2017 budget in to the 2018 budget. However it states that this will mean contributions from Member States will be reduced by this much. Whilst I have no political support for the EU budget, the proposal itself will mean a reduction in the amounts which the UK has to pay to the EU. Accordingly, I voted in favour.

2016/11/22

This proposal is to transfer an extra EUR 500 million to the Facility for refugees in Turkey. Believing that such matters should be determined by the Member States themselves, I voted against.

2016/11/22

This vote was an objection pursuant to Rule 105 against making Iran eligible for support from the European Investment Bank. Apart from my usual position of opposing any extension of the EIB mandate, I oppose delegated powers in principle as they go through very little democratic scrutiny. Additionally the EU should not be supporting the Iran regime and causing further diplomatic and trading problems with the USA.

2016/11/22

This non-legislative report considers the very serious issue of forced and underage marriage globally and its impact within the EU Member States, both in terms of illegal cases on member state territory and the marriages of migrants taking place outside of their legal jurisdiction.Ultimately, if this serious matter is to adhered to by citizens, then it must be determined by individual nation states, rather than through ‘one size fits all’ EU legislation, and therefore I voted against.

2016/11/22

Small and medium sized enterprises account for 99% of European enterprises, providing over 90 million jobs and generating EUR 3.9 trillion in value added. SMEs remain disproportionately affected by administrative and regulatory burdens and must deal with challenging conditions including market failures. As the EU is no friend of SMEs, I voted against the potential for further bureaucracy that could stem from an EU definition.

2016/11/22

Although I oppose the development and promotion of EU foreign policy, I felt it appropriate to abstain on a matter with only tangential impact upon the United Kingdom.

2016/11/22

As with the previous votes, some of the amendments served to make the legislation less bad and I felt comfortable supporting those amendments. However, I note that cabotage has less impact upon the United Kingdom than it does on some other Member States. The principle, though, of national sovereignty should always be a strong one. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This is one of a series of non-legislative own initiative reports which provides an opinion on the Commission’s proposal to begin negotiations on an agreement with a variety of third countries for the purpose of exchanging personal data to tackle serious crime and terrorism. Many of the reports highlight the lack of an impact assessment from the Commission on the risks posed by transfers of personal data to these countries. Many of the reports also highlight that these countries, currently, do not have the data protection standards required to handle and exchange data, which is why I ultimately voted against the resolution.

2016/11/22

This is one of a series of non-legislative own—initiative reports which provides an opinion on the Commission’s proposal to begin negotiations on an agreement with a variety of third countries for the purpose of exchanging personal data to tackle serious crime and terrorism. Many of the reports highlight the lack of an impact assessment from the Commission on the risks posed by transfers of personal data to these countries. Many of the reports also highlight that these countries, currently, do not have the data protection standards required to handle and exchange data, which is why I ultimately voted against the resolution.

2016/11/22

Whilst I strongly support the principle of this report, I am concerned on a more practical level about the financial implications and accountability. Hence, I abstained.

2016/11/22

An agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the US and the European Union has been in force since 1998. The continuation of cooperation makes sense; the instruments by which this is funded at EU level do not.I support continued cooperation, but have some misgivings about the nature of this relationship. Furthermore, I note that the British people voted in June 2016 to leave the European Union. Consequently, on balance, I felt it was appropriate for me to abstain.

2016/11/22

I recognise the importance of high-performance computers; the rapporteur correctly highlights their impact on industry, including significant reductions to design and production cycles, increasing the efficiency of resources, and cost minimisation (including through optimisation of decision-making). The question is not ‘is high-performance computing a good thing?’, but ‘to what extent should the State, in particular the European Union, be involved in driving such technology?’In principle, I tend to oppose such measures because I am concerned at creeping EU harmonisation dictated by the EU Commission. In this specific case, I further note that the proposal is likely to have substantial financial implications for Member States, with the EUR 486 million proposed budgetary contribution. Hence, I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

The principle of subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the citizen – in this case, at regional or national level. Therefore, these projects should not be funded by the European Union. It is absurd that the arbiters of the question whether this funding should, or should not, be given are Members of the European Parliament with no detailed knowledge of the situation. This project may well be of benefit to the people of France, but I am not best placed to judge.The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be scrapped, which would give money back to the Member States to decide for themselves about the appropriateness of such funding. Consequently, I had no option but to vote against.

2016/11/22

This proposal seeks new EU funding and structures to help cities to apply for EU funding. The circular logic here is not lost on me. Furthermore, the UK is leaving the European Union. National funding should be more efficient and more appropriately targeted than EU funding, and I therefore felt it appropriate to vote against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I see no reason why the European Union should seek to legislate for three-dimensional printing. Whilst there do arise some legal questions when a new technology becomes more prevalent, these should be determined by the nation states where possible. There is, in my view, an insufficient case made here to justify action which would bind all 28 Member States.I further note that the decision of the British people to leave the European Union must be respected: As a UK member of the European Parliament it would be wrong for me to support such a call for further legislation. Thus, I voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Defence is, fundamentally, the preserve of the nation state. In seeking to encroach upon this role of the nation state, the European Union seeks to supplant national sovereignty. This is something which I could not support under any circumstances, and I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I suspect that the practical implication of this legislative report will be merely to support existing, failed, EU-wide agricultural policies. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ EU Regulation 256/2014 creates, in effect, duplication of other legislation and adds to the impact upon Member States without creating any added value. It is a particularly poor piece of legislation. The proposal is to repeal that piece of legislation. There is no proposal for an alternative regulation. Consequently, I voted in favour of the repeal.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Whilst I am supportive of the principle of this report (the need to cut cross-border VAT fraud) and whilst I recognise that the measures described may well have some impact on reducing VAT fraud, I have three concerns:1. The UK should not be subject to these systems post-Brexit2. There is a huge risk of creating additional bureaucracy through these measures, particularly in terms of the procedures which it requires Member States to follow when dealing with each other3. The report fails to address the structural failings of the system itself which lead to cross-border fraudI therefore felt unable to vote in favour; the most appropriate approach was an abstention.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I find this report particularly concerning: whilst we should be able to agree that the protection of rights of indigenous peoples is a laudable aim, it appears that this report seeks instead to foster division rather than unity. It contains substantial calls for EU action, for definitions such as ‘climate refugees’, to promote a specific world-view on abortion, and attacks so-called ‘neo-colonialism’. Instead of being a report which unites, it becomes in and of itself an example of the divisions of so-called ‘identity politics’. By rejecting consensus, it weakens its own aims.I therefore, with great sadness, felt it appropriate to vote against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against this report as it calls for a strong leadership role for the EU, and a stronger role for the Commission and the European External Action Service, focusing on a joint EU effort to set up an EU climate diplomacy strategy equipped with the necessary financial and human resources. I oppose the EU interfering with the policies of Member States and using taxpayer money to fund it.

2016/11/22

Whilst there are some poignant points relating to the field of culture in relation to accessibility, financing, and education, I believe that it is not for the EU to dictate how much national governments should contribute or invest in cultural services, nor how they should form policy in this area. Furthermore, there is the usual call for more EU investment, which will, by definition, be at the expense of the taxpayer. Hence, I voted against the report.

2016/11/22

The European Commission wishes to be able to apply a new proportionality test so that they can make sure that no Member States are giving an unfair advantage to their own citizens compared with EU citizens. This level of regulation risks significant intrusion into national sovereignty, and is likely to lead to substantial litigation as the extent of such proportionality is tested in the courts over a period of time.As I do not agree with such harmonisation and EU interference, I voted in favour of the rejection amendment and against the proposal itself. I therefore supported any amendments which would limit the scope of the legislation, before opposing the final vote.

2016/11/22

I believe that this is a matter which should be legislated at national level. Furthermore, given that the UK has voted to leave the European Union, it would be wrong for me to support further EU legislation. Hence, I voted against the report.

2016/11/22

I voted against this first reading, which requested that this report go straight into inter-institutional (i.e. behind closed doors) negotiations, which would have created a lack of transparency.

2016/11/22

I voted against this first reading, which requested that this report go straight into inter-institutional (i.e. behind closed doors) negotiations, which would have created a lack of transparency.

2016/11/22

I voted against this first reading, which requested that this report go straight into inter-institutional (i.e. behind closed doors) negotiations, which would have created a lack of transparency.

2016/11/22

This was an objection to a Commission delegated regulation, pursuant to Rule 105. It was not the subject of a roll-call vote; in the interests of transparency and democracy, I wish to confirm for the record that I abstained. Under normal circumstances I would support objections pursuant to Rule 105, on the grounds that I do not believe that the unelected European Commission should pass legislation without full democratic scrutiny.In this case, I am concerned that certain exemptions (albeit partial, and temporary) were provided by this delegated regulation, and I have some concern about the uncertainty which would be created for fishing by a vote in favour on this occasion. Therefore, reluctantly, I abstained.

2016/11/22

I voted against this resolution as it is my contention that the European Union has no right to act on behalf of, nor represent, the United Kingdom on the world stage. Our own democratically elected, and thus accountable, government, together with the United Nations, where the UK is a permanent member of the Security Council, are the only authorities that I believe should act in our national interest.

2016/11/22

The resolution concerns the ongoing negotiations for a new EU-ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) agreement. This resolution asks the Commission to uphold these principles in any future agreement with ACP countries. It also requests regionalisation of aid and increased co-operation between the EU and the Pan-African Parliament. This agreement entails more money being spent overseas with the intention of strengthening the powers of the EU globally and using trade as a political weapon. I therefore voted against this resolution.

2016/11/22

Whist this report in places is critical of the implementation of EU law, in the main it calls on the Commission to be more proactive in enforcement in respect of failures by Member States. The large number of infringement procedures creates a red flag, hinting perhaps at additional EU involvement in the domestic politics of sovereign nations.In 2016 there were 70 directives to transpose, up from 56 in 2015. I do not believe that the European Union should be interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations, and I therefore voted against it.

2016/11/22

As a supporter of Brexit, I am guided by the principle that the European Union should not tell the UK what to do. This situation is the reverse of this. Accordingly, as a UK MEP, I believe it hypocritical to vote on an issue that will only affect the 27 EU Member States, after the UK’s departure. I therefore abstained.

2016/11/22

Croatia, Bulgaria, Latvia and Portugal have all made internal amendments to insolvency procedures. This, in turn, necessitates technical amendments to the regulation. As the amendments to the Annex do not affect the UK, I thought it only proper to abstain on these updates.

2016/11/22

This vote concerns only Schengen Area countries. It sets no precedent for the UK post-Brexit, as the United Kingdom is not a member of the Schengen Area. There is little reason to suppose that this could have any serious implications as regards the UK concerning illegal immigration and/or trafficking; Iceland does not form part of any particular major route for such criminal activity. It is also broadly similar to the UK in terms of economics and purchasing power per capita. This is merely a technical update, rather than new implementation. Furthermore, the UK has voted to leave the European Union and should not in principle be seeking to influence EU policy on matters which do not concern it. Consequently, I abstained.

2016/11/22

This vote concerns only Schengen Area countries. It sets no precedent for the UK post-Brexit, as the United Kingdom is not a member of the Schengen Area. There is little reason to suppose that this could have any serious implications as regards the UK concerning illegal immigration and/or trafficking; Switzerland does not form part of any particular major route for such criminal activity. It is also broadly similar to the UK in terms of economics and purchasing power per capita. This is merely a technical update, rather than new implementation. Furthermore, the UK has voted to leave the European Union and should not in principle be seeking to influence EU policy on matters which do not concern it. Consequently, I abstained.

2016/11/22

The Schengen Area leads to far too little scrutiny, and the lack of checks at national borders, thus depriving member nations of their best opportunity for detecting cross-border criminal activity. Whilst the United Kingdom is not a member of the Schengen Area, this does (for example as regards illegal immigration and trafficking) have a certain impact upon the UK. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This is a non-legislative, own-initiative report on the relationship between Cohesion policy and the circular economy. Cohesion policy is the main source of funding for projects in the European Union, and the term ‘circular economy’ means moving away from a ‘throw away’ culture into one in which consumers recycle products which are more sustainable. Whilst I agree with the need for greater sustainability, this report calls for increased EU funding and Commission intervention. Hence, I voted against it.

2016/11/22

Rampant corruption plagues Ukraine. Its 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index score is abysmal, ranking in the bottom quartile. This fact is reported and widely known. Yet, the EU parliament overwhelmingly rejected to state such facts in this report. Furthermore, when offered the addition of sensible anti-corruption measures as conditions to ‘Macro-finance assistance’ (an EU euphemism for throwing away money on buying goodwill in an effort to expand the EU), the EU parliament again said no.The EU thinks that by throwing money at the problem, as if with the wave of a wand, democratic norms, the rule of law, and sound financial practice will be practiced in Ukraine. The reality is that these funds will further incentivize widespread corruption.In the interests of sound financial management and reducing incentives for corruption I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

The UK will leave the EU in March 2019. After which, we will strive to make our own trade arrangements. One of these no doubt be with the EU. In accordance with this aim I cannot reject the EU’s agreement with Chile as the UK seeks its own free trade deal. However, as an MEP for the UK I cannot endorse it. Therefore I chose to abstain.

2016/11/22

. ‒ NATO is vital to maintaining the defence of the United Kingdom and our allies. However, it can be argued that NATO—EU defence cooperation undermines this as, by creating a military relationship with NATO, the EU reinforces its sense of statehood, thus adding an extra level of interference between NATO and its members, and opening the door to NATO serving EU interests.This relationship also violates a people’s right to self-determination. The EU has four Member States with a long—standing tradition of neutrality: Ireland, Austria, Finland and Sweden. While it may be true that countries such as Finland and Sweden have long discussed joining NATO, a consensus has not been reached. Cooperation with NATO is the means by which the EU seeks to circumvent their neutrality.Cooperation between NATO and the EU represents another milestone on the path towards an EU army. NATO, at its heart, is a defensive alliance between member states. Yet EU federalists yearn for the day when they can project their own power both at home and abroad through military means. I fear that NATO, under EU influence, would seek only to project power, rather than safeguard freedom.Accordingly, I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

Whilst the issue of cyber security has rightly increased in prominence over the last couple of years, being highlighted as a result of credible and tangible threats, the defence against such threats are a matter for sovereign nations working together as part of any strategic or military alliance. The appropriate action should be taken firstly by sovereign nations, and secondly, where co-ordination is appropriate, the UK should be working together with the Five Eyes network and NATO. Information sharing with the EU is one thing; this, however, is not the nature of the report. A new PESCO initiative will focus on cyber-defence. The report, in effect, provides internal market and military justifications for the EU’s expansion into this new policy area. As ever, the EU’s response to the existence of any public policy question appears to be a call for ‘more EU’.This is, in effect, an attempt to transfer competence from member states to the European Union: that runs contrary to the democratic mandate upon which I was elected, and to the mandate of the British people at the EU referendum. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This report seeks to extend the scope of the common fisheries policy into recreational fishing. I believe that the CFP has already caused sufficient damage to commercial fishing. Accordingly, I have no desire to see similar damage inflicted upon those who fish recreationally. Hence, I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

I voted against this report as I oppose further legislation at EU level in this field. I believe that economic and financial policies should be the preserve of Member States.

2016/11/22

I voted against this legislation as it would transfer further power away from Member States to the European Union.

2016/11/22

I believe that this is a matter which should be legislated at national level. Furthermore, given that the UK has voted to leave the European Union, I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to support further EU legislation in this area.

2016/11/22

This report calls for greater EU involvement at every level of the education system. It incorrectly defines the problems within education, and utilises generic language rather than defining the nature of actual issues.Statistics are quoted suggesting that girls outperform boys academically; this is not perceived as a particular problem within the report. The gender employment gap, which occurs subsequently to education, is perceived as such. The use of such phrases, without specifics, risks creating further political correctness and a failure to respond robustly to actual issues. I believe that education should, simply, treat everyone equally.I don’t support the creation of a ‘European Education Area’; I do support national sovereignty. Hence my vote against.

2016/11/22

Even though, most unusually, this report fairly accurately summarises many of the problems, I voted against this report on the basis of my objection to a ‘one size fits all’ EU approach in response.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I previously opposed the principle of setting up the Solidarity Fund, and of including that Fund within the general budget of the European Union because I believe that such matters are better handled by national governments rather than administered remotely by the European Union.However, this fund already having been established, and the money already being available, I then abstained upon the application of that fund. I do not object to the specific cause to which this money is being put, merely to the principle of the creation of the fund and the mechanisms by which it is applied.

2016/11/22

This draft amending budget accompanying the Solidarity Fund proposal seeks to spend money outside the normal EU budget levels. The proposal entails an increase in the special instruments budget by EUR 97 million. The reality of paying out the money outside the budgetary ceilings is that each Member State will have to contribute more money to the EU.Accordingly, I voted against the mechanism by which this is to be paid whilst abstaining upon the principle of the usage of that fund itself.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted against this report, as I believe that this should be a matter for national competence, and not the European Union.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This proposal is to mobilise an extra EUR 345 000 not specifically for the benefit of redundant workers, as is the norm with the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, but for activities such as data gathering, information activities and online administration.The EGF should in my view be scrapped, with money then given back to the Member States to decide for themselves about the appropriateness of such funding. Consequently, I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

As a supporter of GM, as a means to increase crop yields in the Third World, which in turn can help to tackle poverty and famine in poorer regions, I voted against this objection raised under Rule 106. However, I have changed my actual vote on the day, from an abstention due to pressing the wrong voting button in error.

2016/11/22

As a supporter of GM, as a means to increase crop yields in the third world, which in turn can help to tackle poverty and famine in poorer regions, I voted against this objection raised under Rule 106.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This own-initiative report calls for strict compliance with the common fisheries policy and other EU legislation, urging the Commission to examine promptly the possibility of creating a label to identify the EU’s fishery products. As I oppose the disastrous common fisheries policy and increased EU interference, I voted against the report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I welcome the report’s admission that the recent CAP reforms have been a failure, which in certain cases made things worse, and indeed there were some paragraphs in the original text which I was able to support in separate votes. As usual, though, the proposed remedy for structural failings of the European Union is ‘more Europe’. The report rejects any return of power over agriculture to the Member States. I voted against this report because it demonstrates how impossible the EU makes it to achieve real positive change.

2016/11/22

I am opposed in principle to the EU having any power to make and pass legislation – whether by directive, regulation or any other means – that would have primacy over UK law and override the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Secondly, I do not believe that this agreement will alter in any way the profoundly undemocratic nature of the EU in general or the European Parliament in particular. The document is a singular and ringing indictment of the nature of the past 59 years of legislation by the EU and its predecessor organisations.

2016/11/22

If the public vote to leave the EU in the 2016 UK referendum is respected, then the United Kingdom will no longer be a member of the European Union at the time when this Multiannual Financial Framework comes into force in 2021. Furthermore, the proposed transitional period will by that time have expired. The UK will not be making budgetary contributions to the European Union. I note that, as a supporter of Brexit, I believe in the principle that the European Union should not tell the UK what to do. This situation is the reverse: as a UK MEP, I should not case an affirmative vote on issues which affect the EU27 but not the UK. I therefore abstained on every vote throughout this report.

2016/11/22

I voted against this own-initiative report on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council of Ministers, Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, in relation to Libya. It is my contention that the European Union has no right to act on behalf of, nor represent, the United Kingdom on the world stage. Our own democratically elected, and thus accountable, government, together with the United Nations, of which the UK is a permanent member of it is Security Council, are the only authorities that I believe should act in our national interest.

2016/11/22

The Schengen Area leads to far too little scrutiny, and the lack of checks at national borders deprives European nations of their best opportunity for detecting cross-border criminal activity. Whilst the United Kingdom is not a member of the Schengen Area, this does (for example as regards illegal immigration and trafficking) have a certain impact upon the UK. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

This report calls for more Commission oversight of Member States’ judicial systems, including calls for further harmonisation of judicial practices and also subjects that go beyond the competency of the EU. As I do not agree with such harmonisation and EU interference, I voted against the proposals.

2016/11/22

This report covers a wide range of topics, such as the US withdrawal from TTIP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Brexit is also mentioned. This report covers everything from protection of geographic origin indicators, the use of FTA opportunities by EU companies and the desire of the EU Commission to see a more rules-based international trade system. As a supporter of free trade, I believe countries have the right to enter or leave any agreement they wish. I consequently voted against the report as I oppose the EU’s protectionism regarding trade.

2016/11/22

Although this matter was the subject of approval without a vote, had there been a vote, I would have abstained.

2016/11/22

Whilst I support the principle of sustainable management, by virtue of the Common Fisheries Policy, which has seen, over many years, a decimation of fish stocks across the EU, I was unable to support this report, as I believe that, although it is well meaning, past actions speak louder than words.

2016/11/22

The European Commission states its desired requirement for statistics concerning the transportation of goods on inland waterways, in order to monitor and develop EU transport policy. I believe that this matter should wholly be a competence of sovereign nations, so should not require European Union involvement. Accordingly, I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

Despite some minor concerns, bearing in mind my pro-free trade stance, this should streamline the process of trade between EU countries and non-EU countries, and in the context of Brexit, a question arises as to what effect this will have.Among the improvements is the REX system, which will allow better confirmation of the countries of origin of products entering the European market. Given that this overall makes trade easier, I considered it appropriate to vote in favour.

2016/11/22

Despite some minor concerns, bearing in mind my pro-free trade stance, the overriding principles mean that this should streamline the process of trade between EU countries and non-EU countries, which also leads to considerations as to how this affects Brexit.Among the improvements is the REX system, which will allow better confirmation of the countries of origin of products entering the European market. Given that this overall makes trade easier, I considered it appropriate to vote in favour.

2016/11/22

Unlike the previous vote, I had certain concerns in respect of this particular report, in particular, the inclusion of exchange of staff and the inclusion of reciprocal access to electronic systems.I am concerned that, should such principles form the basis for a post-Brexit deal, there could be substantial issues for the UK. I further note that this report misses the point: VAT fraud is, sadly, a consequence of the incredibly bureaucratic nature of VAT as opposed to other means of collecting indirect taxation.I felt it appropriate to vote against. In the plenary, I mistakenly pressed the wrong button. However, I have now corrected my vote to reflect my this.

2016/11/22

This report calls for taxpayer subsidies, new standards, more bureaucracy and new non-tariff trade barriers. Furthermore, I am already opposed to the Common Fisheries Policy. I voted against the report.

2016/11/22

Although this report is critical of the CAP for incentivising farmers to hang onto land access and control in order to keep the subsidy money rolling in at taxpayers’ expense, and for being administratively cumbersome with complex bureaucracy, unfortunately the solution drawn is the usual call of throwing more taxpayers’ money at the problem. It wants funding for young farmers’ tools to be increased by 2% and to create new forms of support whilst failing to recognise the fundamental systemic nature of the problems it identifies, hence my vote against it.

2016/11/22

The report perpetuates the wasteful, bureaucratic, discriminatory Common Fisheries Policy in UK waters. The United Kingdom, post Brexit, must regain exclusive competence over its own fishing grounds, which provide a significant national resource and are currently being mismanaged by the European Union. Consequently, I voted against this report.

2016/11/22

As the UK has voted for Brexit, it would seem consistent to vote against a report which introduces new legislation regarding workers across national boundaries. This should rightly be a matter for the British government post Brexit, not for the European Union. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

The record of European Union fisheries agreements, and the effect that they have, both environmentally and on the livelihoods of local fishing communities, led me to vote against this report.

2016/11/22

This own-initiative report seeks further EU-level legislation to affect the financial sector, which leads to serious questions about the impact upon competitiveness. Should EU businesses lose out to others overseas, this will mirror the ‘outsourcing pollution’ issue which has occurred within heavy industries. I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

I object, on principle to the notion of the European Union telling Member States, how to run their their own justice systems. The European Union should not seek to override, or be the arbiter of, sovereignty. It is ironic, too, that the European Union – which regularly overextends its own power – should lecture others. Hence, I voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this consent procedure. We do not support the EU developing policy through these agreements or further accession to membership of the European Union.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this consent procedure. We do not support the EU developing policy through these agreements or further accession to membership of the European Union.

2016/11/22

Regrettably, I failed to press my voting button in time, but had I done so, I would have voted for this non-legislative report. Historically, I have campaigned against so called ‘legal highs’ and support any institutionally mandated initiative to prevent circumnavigation of the agreed legislation. In my humble opinion, the issue of so called ‘legal highs’ is not given due weight and consideration within the corridors of power, nor within the medical profession that is left to rehabilitate this drug—infused society.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I voted for this non-legislative report. Historically, I have campaigned against so called ‘legal highs’ and I support any institutionally mandated initiative to prevent circumnavigation of the agreed legislation. In my humble opinion, the issue of so called ‘legal highs’ is not given due weight and consideration within the corridors of power nor within the medical profession that is left to rehabilitate this drug-infused society.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. While helping those who have been made redundant by the effects of global structural changes is an admirable aim, UKIP MEPs believe that this is something that can be achieved by Member States themselves, and not by using EU funding mechanisms.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report, although there are various calls within this report for more transparency, better reporting and communication. We cannot vote to support the continuation of the EIB. Particularly as the withdrawal agreement plans to only return the UK’s EUR 3.2 billion paid in share-capital, without any profits. This is despite the fact that the UK’s share of EIB assets is worth EUR 92.3 billion.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this resolution. UKIP is concerned about sensitive issues such as consumer’s health, food safety and environmental protection. However, UKIP MEPs believe that the authorisation for the placing on the market of food and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet H7-1 should be autonomously taken by national parliaments.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this a non-legislative report. We fully support tackling fraud and corruption, though whilst the figures regarding fraudulent activity and irregularities are useful, particularly towards better oversight of the EU’s budget; we oppose the further calls for more EU legislation, measures and harmonisation, and fundamentally disagree with the spending of taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP abstained on this non—legislative and non—binding resolution. Whilst we are concerned by developments in Venezuela caused by the Socialist Government we do not support EU interference in the matter or the development of EU foreign policy.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative own-initiative report. Improving transport infrastructures in order to benefit the environment, safety and economic concerns is certainly a positive goal. However, UKIP MEPs do not believe that the best way to do this is through cohesion policy and EU funding as it is an issue that is better handled by individual Member States.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEP’s have to against this non-legislative motion for resolution. Whilst UKIP firmly support protecting children, particularly unaccompanied children, this resolution politicises the topic to provide an opinion on the migration crisis as whole. More specifically, UKIP MEP’s firmly oppose the suggestion that the best way to assist children and asylum seekers is to offer them ‘safe and legal routes’ into the EU. UKIP believe the best way to combat people traffickers and to end the migration crisis is to stop the boats arriving into Europe.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on the motion for resolution on a global ban on testing cosmetics on animals. UKIP is in favour of animal welfare and ending of brutal practices on animals for cosmetics testing. UKIP share these concerns and are firmly against testing chemicals used in cosmetics on animals. However, UKIP MEPs do not trust the unelected EU Commission to decide on the protection of the environment and animal welfare - the EU has already caused irreparable damage with its environmental policy.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs have voted against this non—legislative, own initiative report. This is because they are not in favour of using EU funds, particularly in relation to the common agricultural policy. In addition, they do not agree with the additional layer of bureaucracy that some of the additional monitoring proposed in this report would require.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative motion for a resolution. Whilst UKIP firmly supports the need for free and open media, which form the basis of a democratic nation, UKIP MEPs cannot support recommendations for EU legislation on how this should be achieved.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This report extends the temporary 15% minimum VAT rate set by the EU. UKIP does not support the EU collecting taxes from British taxpayers and accordingly voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ The EU should stop repeatedly changing the rules on anti-money laundering, which adds cost to business compliance, but UKIP are not against the prevention of money laundering and so (on balance) abstained.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative report concerning motor vehicles and their trailers. UKIP opposes harmonisation of rules, as we believe that Member States should be allowed to act on their own initiative.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We oppose this legislation because it fails to recognise that how you farm, including whether organic or not, and what you eat are matters for individual choice: instead, again, the EU proposes massive, often counter-productive bureaucratic intervention at taxpayers’ expense.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this legislation. We firmly defend Member States’ right to define their own domestic legislation. Any interference by the Commission is an erosion of Member State sovereignty, which we are firmly against. We do not necessarily take a position on any of the suggested policies within the report, it is ultimately up to each Member State.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report, as it concerns the spending of EU funds, which we are against. We voted in favour of amendments that wished to reduce the budget and which aim to make Parliament more transparent. We voted against amendments that wished to increase the budget, for instance in allowing APAs to accompany Members on missions, which is a waste of public funds.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative report. UKIP understands the need for improving statistics and data on businesses in the EU. However, UKIP opposes further EU harmonisation on this issue.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEP’s have voted against this non-legislative motion for resolution. UKIP firmly support the work of investigative journalists and are appalled at the details of this murder which was clearly motivated by the need to silence a whistle-blower. This resolution, however, clearly oversteps the EU’s mandate in this field. UKIP reject any attempt by the EU to establish a directive on whistle-blower protection and strongly oppose calls for the EPPO to be established.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative motion for resolution. UKIP firmly opposes taxpayers’ money being given to organisations in the EU to promote the values of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental values. This is a clear attempt by the EU to increase funding for organisations which hold a favourable opinion of the European Union who will inevitably disseminate propaganda to the citizens of Europe.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. UKIP have long been concerned by developments in Turkey and have opposed their integration within the EU. We are especially concerned at military developments and Turkey’s increasing opposition to the West and international norms. However this resolution implies a role for the EU institutions, to which we are opposed.

2016/11/22

This non-legislative own initiative report is generally supportive of national parliaments and doesn’t call on the Commission to act (other than to grant national parliaments more time in which to prepare ‘reasoned opinions’ objecting to EU legislation), but UKIP does not support the right of EU institutions to determine the rights of national parliaments and accordingly UKIP abstained.

2016/11/22

This non-legislative own-initiative report calls on the Commission to act in various areas, including energy, retail financial services and transport; accordingly UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP believes in the importance of vaccination and cooperation against vaccine-preventable diseases. However, we would like national parliaments and not the unelected EU Commission to impose programmes on this issue.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP fully support the right of citizens to be protected in their own country and when travelling abroad and welcome the fact that all countries in the EU have their own system of protection orders. With such a limited amount of EPOs having been issued since the directive was enforced, it is clear to see that this is a poor and ineffective piece of legislation. For this reason, UKIP voted against this report.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-binding motion for a resolution. We support the principle of the Bologna Process as a non-EU, voluntary group discussing education amongst its members. However, we disagree with the call for the Commission to become more heavily involved, using it as a platform to promote itself and its own education initiatives.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain. This was a procedural request for the period of this legislature to end within the five year term. UKIP voted to abstain on this matter as it does not affect the UK.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against giving consent to this procedure. We do not support the development of an EU foreign policy or believe that the EU is qualified to negotiate agreements with third countries as if it were a state. UKIP is extremely supportive of closer relations between the UK and Commonwealth countries, including especially Australia. We look forward to improved relations between our two countries when we finally, fully leave the European Union.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We do not support the development of an EU foreign policy or believe that the EU is qualified to negotiate agreements with third countries as if it were a state. UKIP is extremely supportive of closer relations between the UK and Commonwealth countries, including especially Australia. We look forward to improved relations between our two countries when we finally, fully leave the European Union.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically legislative resolution. Whilst UKIP fully supports the need to tackle and prevent terrorism, UKIP MEPs do not support harmonised definitions and minimum sentences to be established by the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs object to the creation of new EU legislation. UKIP is in favour of protecting the environment: re-using, recycling and recovery materials. However, UKIP believes that legislation in this field should be independently established by Member States.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative report. UKIP objects to the creation of new EU legislation. UKIP believes that Member States should repeal the Waste Framework Directive, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and the Landfill Directive and regulate these fields autonomously.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs object to the creation of a new EU law on this issue. UKIP is in favour of protecting the environment. However, UKIP believes that the legislation in this field should be independently established by Member States.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs object to the creation of new EU law on this issue. UKIP is in favour of protecting the environment. However, UKIP believes that the legislation in this field should be independently established by Member States.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs abstained on this legislative report. UKIP are in favour of the removal of EU legislation to avoid overburden to people, organisations and Member States and agree that any legislation that does not serve its objective should be removed. However, UKIP are against the overreaching amount of EU environmental legislation produced since the 1970s.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted for this motion for a resolution regarding the appointment of Martin Selmayr to Secretary-General of the European Commission. We supported this motion due to its criticism of the manner in which the Commission conducted the appointment, the lack of action taken to resolve the situation, and the calls for a reassessment of the procedure and more transparency. However we feel the motion could have been far stronger in its criticism.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative motion for a resolution. UKIP MEPs believe that the ‘UN compact on safe, orderly and regular migration and on refugees’ has the ultimate aim to make illegal migration legal and to facilitate it in greater numbers. UKIP believe that the Dublin Agreement already sets out a fair system for refugees; the problem is that it is not being enforced effectively, which has led to the current migration crisis.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We do not support the propagation by the European Union of its foreign policy through the use of these funds that either interfere in the domestic policies of third party states or that are used to support the further expansion of the European Union. In particular, we are concerned by the changes made to the Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace that allow it to fund military actors in third countries. We believe this contravenes existing Union law and its disregard is further evidence of the militarisation of the EU.

2016/11/22

This non-legislative non-binding report emphasised that subsidiarity is a ‘fundamental principle of federations’ – for this reason, UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this. The Commission is unelected, unaccountable and has the sole power to originate EU law. Its executive agencies, as well as consuming vast amounts of taxpayers’ cash, are unaccountable and have powers far in excess of what such bodies should have. We note with concern, as noted in the report, that EUR 900 million was spent on management costs and fees. We also note the concerns expressed about corruption in Pre-Accession Funding, especially in Turkey.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this. We share the concern expressed in the report that projects in the Natura theme were unsustainable, and that a serious ‘audit gap’ has opened up between Member States. Most seriously, we note that the Courts of Justice of the European Union denied access to auditors of certain financial documents, a move we find at best incompetent, and at worst, suspicious. We also note with concern a trend towards auditors not being drawn from accounting professions due to a professional competency, but being drawn due to allegiance to the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEP’s have voted against this technically legislative resolution. Whilst UKIP fully support the need to tackle and prevent terrorism, UKIP MEP’s do not support harmonised definitions and minimum sentences to be established by the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this. The EU Parliament is little more than a talking shop, and lacks the legitimacy and powers of the British Parliament. The EU Parliament has shown a political vindictiveness and lack of maturity around Brexit, epitomised by the appointment of arch-federalist Guy Verhofstadt as EU Parliament negotiator. Despite our alleged ‘influence’, British MEPs account for barely 10% of the total, placing us totally at the voting mercy of our ‘partners’ and thus making it impossible for British interests to be defended. We note with satisfaction our imminent departure.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this for several reasons. One key reason, as identified by the report, was the lack of transparency identified in the report, and we feel that this alone would be grounds for rejection. We also feel that the EU Council, with its unelected EU President is not a legitimate organ for EU law making, and we not the ‘President’ is appointed in secret under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, which EU citizens were denied a promised referendum on.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against granting discharge and closing the accounts for EU agencies and institutions. UKIP is opposed to all EU institutions and agencies as they are not democratically controlled and waste billions of taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this discharge procedure. UKIP voted against granting discharge and closing the accounts for EU agencies and institutions. UKIP is opposed to all EU institutions and agencies as they are not democratically controlled and waste billions of taxpayers’ money. In particular we are concerned by the EEAS spending to attempt to influence media within the European Union and its censorship activities. As such we supported Amendment 3.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. It approves the closure of the accounts of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators for the financial year 2016. UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEP’s have voted in favour of postponing the discharge of the EASO. UKIP are highly concerned with both the significant budget increases for the agency and the fact that so many payments are listed as irregular. UKIP MEP’s also supported the accompanying resolution as it highlighted the issues as to why, until the OLAF investigation has concluded, it cannot discharge this agency.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. It approves the closure of the accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2016. UKIP MEPs support the noble objective of this Centre. However, UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. It approves the closure of the accounts of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2016. However, UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. It approves the closure of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2016. However, UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. It approves the closure of the accounts of the Euratom Supply Agency for the financial year 2016. UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. The report grants the Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2016. UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. It grants the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the year 2016. UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. It approves the closure of the accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2016. UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this report. It approves the closure of the accounts of the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year 2016. UKIP are against the financial expenditures related to this project.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this report. UKIP do not oppose scientific cooperation in the Mediterranean area. However, UKIP MEPs oppose the huge financial implications of these projects (Horizon 2020 funding).

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP oppose this consent for the EU to share in despoiling other people’s seas, in this case Mauritian tuna.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted in favour of this report as it was/is in favour of increased free trade in agricultural services between the EU and Norway. We support free trade between nations, and look forward to being a key player in free trade once Brexit is finalised, and we can sign our own free trade deals.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP oppose this non-legislative report as it proposes unnecessary, long-term market intervention which is bureaucratically burdensome, potentially expensive to taxpayers and, likely, counter-productive.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative report. UKIP are sceptical about the existence of man-made climate change and believe that EU energy and climate policy have damaged our economy whilst bringing jobs and industry offshore.

2016/11/22

UKIP is against public funding of political parties because it provides establishment parties with a stranglehold on purse strings that enables them to vastly outspend emerging political parties and suffocate opposition.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this non—legislative report. UKIP objects to the implementation of existing EU law on this issue. UKIP MEPs are in favour of protecting the environment. However, UKIP believes that the legislation in this field should be independently established by Member States.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report. Although there were aspects such as incitement to hatred, violence against women, and cyber-bullying which we wholly deplore, we did not support this report, as we oppose gender quotas and gender mainstreaming in policy, which the report calls for. We believe that equality can be achieved through other means. Furthermore, we oppose the call to unblock the ‘Women on Boards Directive’, which also called for obligatory gender quotas in listed companies and for penalties for those who breached the directive.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report. We are for equal opportunities for all, both men and women. Whilst we are in favour of pushing for more women and men to be involved in the digital sector, to improve opportunities in the labour market and to reduce the gender pay gap, we do not believe that this needs to be achieved through gender mainstreaming within policy. The EU should not interfere with the national curricula of Member States with regard to digital literacy, since this is the prerogative of national governments, as is the empowerment of all, which can likewise be achieved through national governments and not at EU level.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative motion for resolution. UKIP do not support these EU instruments, which send millions of taxpayers’ money overseas with minimal scrutiny. UKIP believe that any decision to provide foreign aid money should be made solely by the Member States.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative motion for a resolution. Whilst UKIP support some of the principles of this report – that money should not be loaned to corrupt governments, for example – we reject any suggestion that it is the EU has a right to legislate in this field.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report because it concerns cohesion policy and the spending of EU money, which we are against. We have also voted in favour of Amendment 1, because it is critical of EU spending and the economy, reiterating rights for sovereign control of these areas.

2016/11/22

We abstained because we do not support the Commission and the Council in denouncing the agreement – thus opening the way to a new agreement – but neither can we endorse the current agreement by voting against denunciation.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We abstained because we do not support the Commission and the Council in denouncing the agreement – thus opening the way to a new agreement – but neither can we endorse the current agreement by voting against.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative report. We view the European Union Youth Orchestra as an EU propaganda tool to promote EU ideals and therefore did not wish its funding to be secured via amendment of the creative Europe legislation.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative report. Whilst we support the principle of boosting employment, this scheme, according to the Commission, is not reaching many users, despite running for almost 13 years. Therefore, given that it is failing, we do not think that the scheme should be continued and promoted at the taxpayers’ expense.Furthermore, we oppose harmonisation, which we believe that the EU is aiming to achieve through Europass.

2016/11/22

Without doubt there are injustices caused by use of Single Market rules (that allow multinationals to establish themselves in any Member State whilst selling into another) which lower the tax paid in the location of much of the economic activity; the solution lies with wider global international arrangements (for example via the OECD) rather than via the EU which is motivated by a desire to eliminate tax competition and to harmonise taxes at ever higher rates.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative report. This report is intended to set the initial position of the Parliament ahead of the negotiations with the Council and Commission for the EU budget for 2019. The report of course called for more EU spending and more EU action. Of interest is that it included very little about Brexit. This is explained because they believe the UK will continue to pay yearly budget contributions until 2020, due to what was agreed in the first phase of negotiations.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEP’s have voted against this non-legislative report which outlines Parliament’s opinion on how future EU-UK relations should be conducted once the UK leaves the Union. UKIP tabled its own resolution and amendments on this issue which aimed to protect the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and the UK fishing waters, to ensure that the role of the ECJ would end at the date of withdrawal and to assert that there is no legally enforceable obligation for the UK to continue contributing financially to the EU after the UK withdraws. UKIP MEP’s also highlighted that negotiations for continued tariff free trade arrangement must begin in parallel with the withdrawal to ensure minimal disruption for businesses and services. Lastly, UKIP were also keen to remind Parliament that, even though the UK is withdrawing from the Union, the UK will continue to play a major role in the prosperity of peace and security on the European continent via NATO and bilateral partnerships

2016/11/22

We abstained on this legislation because it does no more than remove an obsolete article

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs abstained on this Report. Whilst UKIP is against all transpositions of the EU Directives, it recognises the damages and risks connected to the Newcastle disease and the importance of developments in research and in diagnostic procedures.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this Resolution. UKIP MEPs are in favour of accelerated planning and favouring lower administrative costs in Europe. UKIP is in favour of increasing direct democracy through greater public participation via different kinds of consultations. However, UKIP MEPs are against any projects that favours EU energy policy and climate objectives. UKIP doesn’t believe that the EU should initiate a greenhouse gas emissions reduction as established by the European Commission. The European Institutions are planning to spend unimaginable sums of money on mitigation measures, which will only damage further our economy

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against the mobilisation of this EU money. This proposal is to give EUR 2 165 231 (60% match funding) to 646 workers who have lost their jobs in Germany from the company Goodyear Dunlop. The money will be spent on job search, training allowance, career guidance, workshops for exchanging views, and business start-up advice. UKIP voted against as we oppose taxpayers’ money being used as EU dole for poor economic decisions made in other countries.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this non-legislative report. The MFF is the long—term budget of the EU, with the current MFF running out in 2020. Technically the Commission should have put forward a proposal for the next MFF by 1 January 2018, but it looks unlikely they will present anything until May 2018. In general the report overall calls for yet more EU spending and action. On Brexit it notes that during the first phase of negotiations the UK Government agreed to carrying on paying contributions to the EU budget until 2020. The report also wants to take away the veto for Member States on budget setting and move towards ‘qualified majority voting’.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative report. This report proposed new ways the EU budget should be financed. Such ideas included: reform of EU level VAT rates, set and collect corporate tax, the idea that ECB profits should go to the EU budget rather than back to national governments, an EU level financial transaction tax, and other green taxes. As this would mean more powers for the EU in an effort to have a higher budget, UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

The EU Semester identifies real economic problems in the EU but ignores the obvious solution to the economic difficulties of various Member States within the eurozone, namely that they need to abandon the euro in order to adopt their own bespoke economic policies. Accordingly, UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We do not support the premise that the Commission should interfere in the employment or social policy of Member States; this should be a sovereign and democratic decision made by the Member States themselves. In particular, we object to the report’s proposals for an EU-level social security number and EU-level unemployment reinsurance scheme.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this budget vote. This proposal was to recycle an extra EUR 40 million to a fund called ‘Research for Coal and Steel Fund’ (RFCS) which lies outside the EU budget but is managed by the Commission. The money is used to fund research projects for coal, steel and climate change, in line with EU political priorities. The money will come from ‘de-commitments’ (money which hasn’t been used or has been recovered) from the fund from every year since 2003. UKIP voted against as we oppose giving the unelected Commission more resources to further their political aims which are not accountable to voters.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We abstained as we feel that there was no point in being needlessly obstructive by voting against what was simply a technical exercise. We do not wish to stand in the way of anything that may improve international trade cooperation.

2016/11/22

We opposed this non-legislative report on the grounds that, although the objective is sound, the approach proposed is unnecessarily bureaucratic and potentially expensive to the taxpayer.

2016/11/22

We oppose this because, as so often, the legislation does more to grow regulatory bureaucracy than to deliver an improved service to consumers.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We oppose this legislation because the new regulations will simply deepen and extend EU bureaucratic capture - without delivering identifiable benefits to UK drivers.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against the Report on the proposal for an EU regulation establishing the European Defence Industrial Development Programme. UKIP is against further EU harmonisation dictated by the unelected EU Commission in Brussels. UKIP is also against the huge financial implication of this project.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this a non-legislative report regarding gender equality in EU trade agreements. We fully support combating exploitation, improving working conditions for workers and protection of labour rights and human rights. However, we believe this report highly politicises trade, which we oppose. Furthermore, we do not agree with gender mainstreaming, which the EU wants to incorporate into policy and trade negotiations. Gender equality is a cultural change that needs to be achieved through male and female voices.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this own-initiative report. Whilst the aims of this report are admirable, such as reducing unemployment and helping lagging regions, this is something that should be entrusted to Member States and is not for the Commission

2016/11/22

UKIP have voted against this own-initiative report, as MEPs believe that it is not for the European Union to take action on climate change or to tell Member States how they should implement the outcomes of the COP21 Paris Agreement. Furthermore UKIP MEPs disagree with spending any EU funds on this issue. We have also voted against amendment one as we do not believe that it is the EU’s place to introduce mandatory targets.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain on this because we believe that the Marrakesh Treaty is an excellent opportunity, however it should not be for the EU to dictate to Member States when they should ratify the treaty.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain on this because we believe that the welfare of a child who has been abducted through a matrimonial matter should be protected and the time taken to repatriate the child should be cut and the process made more efficient. However this is really a matter that should be discussed at Member State level and not as a whole block.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We believe firmly in tackling rising youth unemployment but we do not support EU initiative. This report suggests several overbearing policies that allow the Commission to interfere in the domestic policies of Member States, something we cannot support. Furthermore this report fails to address all potential causes of youth unemployment such as the link with mass, uncontrolled immigration.

2016/11/22

UKIP have voted against this own-initiative report. UKIP do not believe that the harmonisation of professional service requirements is necessary. Additionally, UKIP MEPs believe that Member States are more than capable of regulating professional services themselves, without the involvement of the Commission.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We voted against this because we feel that the EU has no right to interfere in international trade. Dual-use items are a complex issue, and the EU is aiming to complicate it further with regulations in this already sensitive and difficult area. We feel that the EU’s attempt to cloak this move with concerns about ‘human rights’ is simply a smokescreen for interference and politicising trade.

2016/11/22

. ‒ Today UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative proposal for a new EU Renewable Energy Directive. The Commission continues imposing never-ending objectives for emissions reduction. EU policies are forcing the investment of vast amounts of money in activity that will have little or no effect on climate. Independence and freedom from absurd targets, unilaterally set by the unelected Commission, will allow Britain to rejoin the world and enhance liberty whilst protecting the environment.

2016/11/22

Today UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative proposal for a new EU Renewable Energy Directive. The European Commission continues imposing never-ending objectives for emissions reductions. EU policies are forcing the investment of vast amount of money for activity that will have little or no effect on climate. Independence and freedom towards absurd targets unilaterally set by the unelected EU Commission will allow Britain to re-join the world and enhance liberty whilst protecting the environment.

2016/11/22

Today UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative proposal for a new EU Renewable Energy regulation. The European Commission continues imposing never-ending objectives for emissions reductions. EU policies are forcing the investment of vast amount of money for activity that will have little or no effect on climate. Independence and freedom towards absurd targets unilaterally set by the unelected EU Commission will allow Britain to re-join the world and enhance liberty whilst protecting the environment.

2016/11/22

We opposed this legislation on the grounds both that the EU is, once again, acting like a state and that it is doing so in the form of neo-colonialism on the other side of the globe.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non—legislative own—initiative report on the implementation of EU macro—regional strategies. The EU macro-regions are the Baltic Sea, the Danube Region, the Adriatic and Ionian Region and the Alpine Region. The document encourages improved coordination and better partnerships between different actors and policies at national and regional level. This can be viewed as a move for further harmonisation of policies. In addition, this document calls on the Commission a number of times. For these reasons, UKIP has voted against this non-legislative report.

2016/11/22

The many measures in this long, technical report effectively extend the Common Fisheries Policy well into the future. Although we oppose the whole policy as a long-term disaster for the UK and are against the further loading of cost onto the UK’s suffering fishermen, we abstained in order to ensure that the prohibition on electric charge (pulse) fishing comes in as soon as possible and stops this destructive practice

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs abstained on the non-legislative report on international ocean governance. We believe that seawater should be safeguarded and protected from pollution and environmental degradation. However, we oppose the content of this report as we do not believe in man—made climate change.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative non-binding report. UKIP opposes the EU climate—change agenda. Whilst there were many sensitive aspects to this report regarding the vulnerability of women and the exacerbation of violence, sexual exploitation and trafficking, which we want to tackle, we are against more EU action. This report called for gender mainstreaming within climate—change policy and to impose sanctions on those that did not conform to gender quotas. We disagree with the concept of gender quotas and believe in positions based on merit not gender.Furthermore, we do not support calls for additional funding. Therefore in light of all the above, we opposed this report.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We are concerned at the increased instability within Afghanistan and the vacuum this leaves for the rise of Islamic extremism. We are opposed to any involvement by the EU institutions either in Afghanistan or in member state asylum policies. However western policy has proved a failure in this country and we would urge it necessary for the UK and other countries to revaluate our conduct in foreign affairs.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We share concerns over the mistreatment and hostile action by the Burmese government towards the Rohingya people. We do not believe however that the EU has any meaningful or effective role to play that cannot be better achieved by states or by more appropriate international fora.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP MEP’s voted to abstain on the non-legislative report. UKIP wholeheartedly condemn all forms of child exploitation, particularly when this exploitation is of a violent or sexual nature, and therefore broadly support the broad aims of this report which seek to eradicate this exploitation. UKIP MEP’s would, however, prefer that a consensus to tackling the issue be made by sovereign nations rather than an approach at EU level. For these reasons, UKIP MEP’s voted to abstain.

2016/11/22

. – This non-legislative report seeks to extend the powers of EU Parliamentary Committees in ways which would challenge the role of national parliaments and which mirror powers exclusively held by sovereign states – accordingly UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We remain firmly against the development of EU defence policy and any potential involvement of the UK in EU defence structures. The development of CSDP risks undermining NATO, a proven defence alliance that has guaranteed security in Europe since 1949. UKIP is committed to spending at least 2% of GDP on defence as per NATO obligations and would urge fellow allies to do the same. The 2% target is a NATO obligation and should not be co-opted by the EU as this report attempts to do.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We are against the development of EU foreign policy as a point of principle and are opposed to any attempt by the UK government to seek alignment with it after Brexit. EU Foreign policy has proved ineffective in its management of Russia, Iran, the migration crisis in Libya and in its overseas missions. As a political union, the development of EU foreign policy goes beyond coordination and reduces the ability of Member States to exercise their sovereignty in international affairs, as opposed to military alliances such as NATO and other genuine international fora. UKIP is committed to spending at least 2% of GDP on defence as per NATO obligations and would urge fellow allies to do the same. The 2% target is a NATO obligation and should not be co-opted by the EU as this report attempts to do.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. Whilst we support efforts to improve the economic, political and humanitarian conditions of people throughout the world, we do not believe that the EU has any added value in doing so. Effective measures cannot be covered in such a wide-ranging report, and policies that will actually benefit people and not merely be used as justification for further EU action should be developed on a case-by-case basis with support from sovereign states and genuine international institutions.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. UKIP are firmly committed to protecting the freedoms and special status enjoyed by Hong Kong as per the Sino-British Joint Declaration. We are concerned by the People’s Republic of China’s infringements of that status. Furthermore we believe that the future of Hong Kong beyond the 50-year period guaranteed in the Joint Declaration should be decided by the people of Hong Kong. However we do not believe that the EU can or should play any meaningful role in Hong Kong. This should be left to the guarantors of the Joint Declaration – the UK and the People’s Republic of China – supported by appropriate international institutions.

2016/11/22

. – We opposed this legislation because it is trying to use the procedure inappropriately to rectify egregious failings in the most recent CAP reform without recognising that these failings are systemic and that this approach is likely to multiply error rather than properly rectify it.

2016/11/22

. – This first reading of a legislative report seeks to extend and enhance the European Fund for Strategic Investments, UKIP is against the EU spending UK taxpayers’ money and so voted against.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP MEP’s voted against allowing this legislative report to be negotiated between the institutions behind closed doors. UKIP believe that legislation should receive full scrutiny from parliament via a full debate and the ability to table amendments to the report.

2016/11/22

. – We abstained on this vote, as it was a mere technical tidying up exercise and therefore not of any political or economic consequence to the UK.

2016/11/22

. – We opposed this legislative consent because this is an agreement for states to sign and the European Union is not a state.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP voted against giving its consent to this agreement. We do not support the development of an EU foreign policy and so cannot agree to a structure or agreement that would further facilitate this.

2016/11/22

. – UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We do not support the development of an EU foreign policy and so cannot agree to a structure or agreement that would further facilitate this.

2016/11/22

. – We voted against this non—legislative non—binding own initiative because we do not believe the EU is a state, or should ever be a state or have the powers of one. This would include the ability to regulate the rights of its citizens, and impose the EU view of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ on European people. We also reject the notion of an EU ‘demos’, which this report seems to assume exists.

2016/11/22

. – We voted against this non-legislative, non—binding own-initiative because we feel that the EU has no right to regulate and control digital trade, either through new EU legislation or through imposing such measures via trade agreements with third countries.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative initiative. This would extend the Commission’s power to bypass parliamentary scrutiny of changes to a Directive on intelligent road systems, and make unilateral changes to the legislation. Whilst we object to all EU institutions legislating on behalf of the UK, the European Parliament allows some level of democratic scrutiny on otherwise unaccountable decisions made in the Commission

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative 1st reading report as we felt that the recommendations would not be sufficiently strong to protect us from unfair or abusive trade practices with partners. In addition, we note that whilst independent countries like America can and do take decisive action against trade abuse, EU policy is not as effective in this area.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We express our sincere condolences to the family of Daphne Caruana Galizia and support the on-going independent investigation into the circumstances to her death. We hope her killers are brought to justice. However we are completely opposed to any attempt at politicising her death or using it as a catalyst for the European Commission or any other EU institution to interfere in the internal affairs of Malta. Any allegations of illegal wrongdoing should be investigated by the appropriate authorities within Malta. We remain resolutely opposed to any use of the Rule of Law Mechanism.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this non-legislative resolution. We note with satisfaction that this is the last time that the EU will represent us in the WTO Ministerial Conference before Brexit. We look forward to an independent Britain being a helpful and active participant in the WTO once free of the EU. In the meantime, we chose to abstain.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We are firmly opposed to the development of any kind of EU foreign policy, including further expansion of the European Union. The Eastern Partnership provides a mechanism to support these ambitions.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have abstained on this non-legislative resolution. UKIP firmly believe in the great importance of preserving biodiversity in Europe. However, UKIP think that this subject should be competence of Member States’ national governments.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We are opposed to any use of the Rule of Law Mechanism in which the Commission interferes in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. The Law and Justice Party sought and received a democratic mandate in free and fair elections to form a government and pursue its agenda. Any allegations of unconstitutional or illegal activity should be dealt with by the courts within Poland and have no need for the involvement of the Commission.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this budgetary decision. The proposal is to give over EUR 3.3 million to 1 610 Italian workers who have lost their jobs. The money will go to things like retraining, job seeking, allowances for travel, start-up grants etc. UKIP voted against as we don’t believe UK taxpayers’ money should be used for poor economic decisions in other countries. This is nothing more than EU unemployment benefit.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. Whist we take the issue of car safety seriously the UK has perfectly sufficient legislation in place. This report calls for unnecessary harmonisation of standards and contains calls for several legislative initiatives which we cannot accept. Any changes to laws affecting the UK should originate in our own sovereign Parliamentary democracy.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this first reading on the territorial typologies. Traditionally, typologies of territory are determined by population size and density of local administrative units, such as communes and local authorities. The main policy objectives of the initiative are to establish a legal recognition of territorial typologies, including the definitions of cities, for the purpose of European statistics. They want to have the same definitions for the whole of the EU rather than having individual definitions for different countries. The aim of this proposal is to further refine the data that the EU has on its Member States and in doing so make it possible to accumulate data according to clear-cut typologies. This will just help the EU compose more specific legislation for these areas and for this reason UKIP has voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative initiative. Fundamentally we disagree with the EU institutions deciding any law affecting the UK. Specifically in this case the UK has its own licensing system. EU involvement and harmonisation is unnecessary and potentially damaging. A similar scheme applied to the UK’s road infrastructure created a national shortage of drivers and therefore disrupted the economy. Voting against protects against any potential negative impacts on the UK’s inland waterways.

2016/11/22

UKIP have voted against this legislative first reading report. UKIP disagree that harmonisation of consumer protection across Europe is needed, as well as opposing the idea that the scope of the existing CPC regulation needs extending, or its efficiency strengthening. In addition to this, UKIP believe that Member States can act on their own accord without involvement from the Commission.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative own-initiative report on the deployment of cohesion policy instruments by regions to address demographic change. The report talks about the characteristics of demographic change in the EU, such as decreasing population densities, falling birth rates and gradual depopulation. It calls for the establishment of an EU-wide legal framework that specifically recognises all territories facing demographic disadvantage and calls on the Commission to include a new flagship initiative on demographic change in Europe 2020. UKIP voted against, as the report is calling for the Commission to create more EU-wide legal frameworks and to adopt a European strategy to address demographic change: this is a national issue, not an EU one.

2016/11/22

This non-legislative report calls on the Commission to, inter alia, ensure competition in retail financial services is not ‘distorted’; however, we recognise that the Commission is on the side of big business which wants to avoid disruption and will use this as an excuse to stifle competition rather than to enhance it. Accordingly UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this own—initiative report. This report amongst other things is calling for secondary legislation to accompany Member State primary legislation and the setting up of a European fund for the remedying of environmental damage.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against allowing this legislative report to be negotiated between the institutions behind closed doors. UKIP believe that legislation should receive full scrutiny from Parliament and that Members should be able to table amendments to the report.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain on this non-legislative, motion for resolution. We utterly deplore any form of sexual harassment and abuse, particularly in the work place. Therefore, we welcome initiatives taken to tackle workplace harassment internally within the European Parliament and EU institutions.However, whilst we condemn any form of violence against women, this report called for more legislation, which would encroach on the policies of Member States. In this respect we believe it is at the discretion of National governments to decide on policy and legislation.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this. Whilst we usually support free trade talks, we note that the EU has initiated these talks at precisely the time the EU says the UK cannot discuss trade deals with anyone the EU is discussing a deal with. We regard this as a cynical ploy to stop Britain forging global trade deals, particularly with Commonwealth countries.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this non-binding own-initiative report. This report is critical of Member States’ application of refugee quotas and calls for further infringement action to be taken. It is concerning that this report calls for more infringement action to be taken against Member States when they fail to implement EU law either in a timely manner or at all.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted in favour of the proposal to refuse discharge and in favour of the accompanying non-legislative resolution. The ‘discharge’ is a yearly procedure where the EU Parliament looks through the budgets of all EU institutions and agencies to decide whether they have been used correctly. This proposal is to refuse to grant discharge to the EU Council. For many years there has been a recurring problem with the Council. Under the EU treaties it says the Parliament has the right to grant discharge to the Commission, but it doesn’t say anything about the Parliament granting discharge to any other EU institution or agency. Because of this the Council doesn’t cooperate with this transparency procedure. This decision and resolution criticises the Council for not being more open about their budgeting. UKIP always opposes the granting of discharge and the closure of accounts, and supports any calls for greater transparency, as we oppose all these EU institutions and agencies in principle.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this legislation. We fully support appropriate measures to protect the health and welfare of workers. We believe that all legislation should be initiated by sovereign Member States. This however does not create new legislation but rather updates existing legislation already in place according to the latest scientific consensus.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative first reading report. In principle, UKIP largely support the measures proposed. With the significant increase in terrorist and criminal threat, it is only logical to have a system that electronically registers biometric information and records where and when third country nationals entered the EU. UKIP do, however, believe that the management of borders should not be a competence of the EU and should be the sole right of a sovereign state. Moreover, UKIP MEPs also have concerns with regards to the centralisation of sensitive information which can be accessed by all Member States and EU agencies. For these two reasons, UKIP voted against this report.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative first reading report. This report is a technical supplement to enable the establishment of the Entry/Exit System (EES), which UKIP oppose. Therefore to keep consistent with our approach to the EES, UKIP MEPs voted against enabling changes to the Schengen Borders Code which would facilitate the EES.

2016/11/22

I voted in favour as this is consistent with my support for the Roma.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted to abstain on this recommendation. This bilateral agreement guarantees its legal certainty. Furthermore this is the first to have been signed with a country outside the European continent and will prove a source of precedence for the future.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this consultation procedure. These special taxes pre-date the existence of the formation of the EU so France should not have to ask the Commission for permission to reduce the rate of these indirect taxes. The EU does not have the right to be intervening in national state affairs. This is just yet again another example of the EU intervening in state affairs that should not concern them. France should be able to regulate its own special tax arrangements with its own outermost regions without having to ask for permission first. In conclusion, this is why UKIP have voted against this document

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this own initiative report. UKIP support exchange of information and cooperation among Member States in the field of research. However, the financial implication of these EU projects (EUR 7.35 billion) is unacceptable.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this technically non-legislative report. The UK already has measures in place to control these drugs under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The UK is not bound by this decision taken at EU level, however UKIP believe that controlling the drug in the EU could be beneficial in combatting the drug being available in the UK.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report. The EU Youth Guarantee scheme is a commitment by all Member States to ensure all young people under the age of 25 receive a good quality offer of employment, further education or apprenticeship within a 4 month period of becoming unemployed or leaving education. This report does call for greater transparency and oversight of taxpayers’ money, however the main thrust is calling for more EU money to be spent, more interference in Member States employment policies and more EU initiatives. UKIP believes only our elected national government should decide employment policy, not unaccountable EU institutions

2016/11/22

UKIP have voted against this legislative, first reading report as UKIP disagree with EU harmonisation and any attempts to strengthen the single market. UKIP voted in favour for any amendments which wished to increase phosphorus pentoxide levels to 80 mg/kg in order to protect British industry whilst keeping cadmium levels at a safe level. UKIP also voted in favour of any amendments which postponed the implementation of such limits, again in order to protect British interests.

2016/11/22

We opposed this legislative 1st reading vote as we oppose discards, the Common Fisheries Policy in toto, and the pretensions of the EU to determine what happens in what are and should be again UK waters.

2016/11/22

I voted in favour of this resolution as it is consistent with my speeches and policy position.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have abstained on this motion for a resolution. UKIP support the highest possible level of protection of environment and human health. However, this control should be made by Member States and not by the unelected EU Commission.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative budgetary decision. This vote, linked to the mobilisation of the Flexibility Mechanism vote, is in two parts and will increase the EU budget by EUR 297.8 million overall. The first part is the European Fund for Sustainable Development which will get EUR 275 million of this money for the creation of a new budget line which will be used to offer financial loans, grants and guarantees to foster private sector investment in countries outside Europe. The second part is to increase the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) by EUR 22.8 million from this money. The EAR is a ‘last resort’ financial instrument that is used to give aid to other countries. UKIP believes only our elected national government has the right to spend taxpayers’ money, not unaccountable EU institutions and thus we oppose all EU budget increases in principle.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative budgetary decision. The Flexibility Instrument operates outside the normal budgetary ceilings, has a budget of EUR 471 million a year and is used as a way to spend more money on specific budget lines in order to circumvent normal budgetary spending limits. This vote, linked to the Draft Amending Budget 5 vote, is to transfer EUR 275 million from the Flexibility Mechanism to the newly-created European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) budget line. The EFSD will be used to offer financial loans, grants and guarantees to foster private sector investment in countries outside Europe. UKIP believes that only our elected national government has the right to spend taxpayers’ money, not unaccountable EU institutions and thus we oppose all EU budget increases in principle.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding resolution. This resolution is the EU Parliament’s reaction to the Commission's ‘reflection paper’ setting out different future options for the financing of the EU budget. The resolution calls for increases in the long-term EU budget (MFF), encourages a dedicated euro area budget, uses Brexit as an opportunity to end all rebates, and creates a new system of own resources where the EU collects more money itself, to take funding away from national contributions. The resolution goes on to criticise four of the five options in the Commission reflection paper as the EU rolling back its responsibilities and action, but goes on to give its full support to option 5 which would mean radically more EU power, spending and action. UKIP opposes a bigger budget and more power for the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this own-initiative report. It is important to ensure that, where necessary, the protection of whistle-blowers is maintained. However issues of this nature should remain purely within the remit of the Member State. The EU cannot look at an issue of this nature and propose a one-size-fits-all policy. It is important to ensure that transparency is maintained, especially within the EU institutions; however, this report was not solely about that.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We support economic and tax arrangements that support low income workers as a principle but we cannot support this report. Many suggestions contained within would likely have a negative economic outcome and repeated calls for the use of EU taxpayers’ money and the creation of new EU level legislation is something we must vote against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically legislative report. UKIP has repeatedly opposed any attempt by the EU to establish a public prosecutor. The EPPO clearly increases the judicial powers of the EU and intrudes upon national judicial sovereignty. Although the UK does not participate in this enhanced cooperation procedure, the establishment of this body will still impact on the UK. As the UK has signed up to other directives, most notably the European Arrest Warrant, the EPPO will be able to circumvent the UK’s opt-out on this proposal. For these reasons, UKIP voted against the establishment of the EPPO.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted to abstain on this non-legislative report. UKIP fully supports recommendations in this report that concern the urgent need to combat radicalisation in prisons. Despite other very reasonable suggestions in this report, UKIP MEPs believe that prison systems and conditions are the sole responsibility of each Member State. Primarily for this reason, UKIP MEPs abstained on this report.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislation. Whilst we agree that the region is important and look forward to improved relations between an independent United Kingdom and the countries concerned, we cannot support the creation of an international organisation by the European Union. We completely reject the development of an EU foreign policy and any budgetary implications in the future.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this technically non-legislative report. This report solely concerns the Schengen Area, which the UK is not part of. For this reason, it would not be appropriate for UK MEPs to interfere on this matter.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have abstained on this technically non-legislative report. UKIP supports data exchanges, particularly when the aim is to fight terrorism and serious crime, but believes that this should be concluded bilaterally between sovereign nations.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this technically non-legislative report. UKIP support data exchanges in principle, particularly when the aim is to fight terrorism and serious crime, but believe that this should be concluded bilaterally between sovereign nations.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this technically non-legislative report. UKIP support data exchanges in principle, particularly when the aim is to fight terrorism and serious crime, but think that this should be concluded bilaterally between sovereign nations.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this first reading. It is important to understand that safety rules on passenger ships are important. In no way would UKIP MEPs agree to the EU managing the safety standards of Member States, but at the same time UKIP MEPs would never consider it acceptable to allow the safety of passengers and their rights to be put in danger.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this first reading. It is always important wherever necessary to tidy up the burdensome red tape that is produced by the EU. The amendment to this Directive updates, simplifies and clarifies the existing requirements for the counting and registration of passengers and crew on board passenger ships, whilst enhancing safety levels. However it does not go far enough and one proposal put forward by one of our MEPs is to have CCTV on decking to ensure safety of passengers in the event of any accidents.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted to abstain on this first reading. This is a review of the existing legislation which aims to simplify and rationalise it. There is a proposal to eliminate the legal uncertainty and redundancy caused by the co—existence of two directives on the inspection of vessels. It is important to ensure that any legislation that is to do with the safety of ro—ro ferries is clear to all parties involved and UKIP MEPs will ensure that no unnecessary red tape will confuse matters and cause any problems.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs abstained on this motion for a resolution. UKIP supports the highest possible level of protection of environment and human health. However, this control should be made by Member States and not by the unelected Commission.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have abstained on this motion for a resolution. UKIP support the highest possible level of protection of human health. However, this control should be made by Member States and not by the unelected EU Commission.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain on this non-binding motion for a resolution. We utterly deplore such an abominable crime, and support tackling violence against women. However, we believe that this ought to be conducted at Member State level, and believe it is not for the EU to state where Member States spend their development aid, or to interfere with the financial decisions of international nations. The UK is already committed to the cause of ending forced marriage, duly considering it a criminal act under UK law.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this Resolution on 2017 UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn. UKIP deny the Climate Change alarmism supported by green lobbies, often financed by the EU Commission. They are the cause of current damaging and counter-productive energy policy. The European Commission continues imposing never-ending objectives for emissions reductions. EU policies are forcing the investment of vast amounts of money into activity that will have little or no effect on climate.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding resolution. The resolution itself was a co-signed by a number of the political groups in the European Parliament. It included calls for a transition period to be under ECJ jurisdiction, that free movement continue, that Northern Ireland and the UK remain in the customs union, and that talks on a UK-EU trade deal be postponed. UKIP tabled 13 amendments calling for a range of things such as allowing the UK to start trade negotiations with third countries, that the ECJ must have no jurisdiction in the UK, that the Commission does not obstruct the UK bringing in border controls, that there should be no transition deal, and that Gibraltar should not be used as a bargaining chip. Unfortunately all these amendments were rejected. UKIP also tabled its own resolution, however this was not voted on as the joint resolution was passed first.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative report on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. UKIP opposes the creation of new EU legislation in this field. UKIP believes it is necessary to increase legal certainty while preserving the environment and public health. However, UKIP insist that all decisions on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances should be taken at national level.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs reject this legislative proposal because, however powerful the case to conserve tuna by international agreement, the European Union is neither a state nor a nation and should not therefore be trying to behave as one by signing agreements which are by definition for signature by nations: the word ‘international’ means between nations and this is a further example of EU action which may be judged as ‘ultra vires’.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-binding, non-legislative report. Although we fully support tackling discrimination and violence against women; as well as the empowerment of women; UKIP vehemently opposes all forms of gender quotas, gender mainstreaming and in particular the women on boards directive. We believe that such strategies are highly counterproductive and also discriminatory. All positions, including high-level positions ought to be determined by aptitude, and not gender.This report was extremely contradictory; on the one hand it pushed for gender quotas and women on boards, whilst at the same time called for anonymised euro-pass C.V’s, where C.V’s are unable to be determined by a person’s gender.Furthermore, not only was this report seeking to intervene in the employment policy of Member States; we also believe this report was intrusive in the private and domestic lives of families, with regard to the division of care.Overall, this was more interference on the part of the EU and undermines the sovereignty of Member States, via the need to enforce their gender mainstreaming agenda.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report, which wants to address the shrinking civil society space in developing countries. The document states that it ‘believes that a genuinely independent, pluralistic and vibrant civil society is pivotal to a country’s development and stability, to ensuring democracy and respect for human rights, and to building inclusive societies’. This sounds contradictory for an EU institution to say this, as they are more likely to try to control every aspect of a nation state. In addition to this, the report calls on the EU to ‘provide guidance to governments’. The governments of these nation states were elected by their own citizens to run the country how they see fit not by some foreign illegitimate political entity. Furthermore, the report wants to see the integration of all internal and external policies, including justice, home affairs, trade and security policies, in accordance with the principle of policy coherence for development. UKIP do not want to see the harmonisation of policies as it is up to the nation state to amend and implement policy and for these reasons UKIP MEPs voted against this own initiative report.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP MEPs believe that co-operation is needed in the fight to combat cybercrime, but that that this should be concluded bilaterally between sovereign nations. UKIP also strongly oppose any attempt by the EU to establish further legal frameworks, particularly when this seeks to establish common definitions on terms associated with cybercrime.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report, as we don’t support the development of any type of EU foreign policy.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this legislative report at first reading. Whilst making products and services more accessible to people with disabilities is a positive aim, UKIP believes that it is not for the EU to tell Member States how to legislate in this area. Additionally, UKIP disagrees with harmonisation attempts and efforts to create a single market. UKIP MEPs voted against a number of amendments tabled to this report. They voted for amendments which would remove microenterprises from the scope of the legislation. They voted against any amendments seeking to increase the scope of the legislation: for example, amendments to include ‘persons with functional limitations’ in the legislation, as this goes beyond what the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities sets out, and it is not for the European Union to go beyond this.

2016/11/22

UKIP supported this legislative report whereby this agreement grants Chile the right to cancel the deal if it feels the EU is not upholding its end of the bargain. Given this is one of the rare occasions the EU has treated a trade partner as an equal, we supported this.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP supported this legislative report. UKIP notes that this was a simple technical update to reflect that fact that Croatia is now an EU Member State. There was no need to oppose such a factual update, so we supported it.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP abstained on this non-legislative non-binding report, which notes that trade between Chile and the EU does not require freedom of movement of people, and it hopes that the Brexit negotiators on the EU side will be reminded of this. We abstained on this vote as we feel there is no need to interfere in trade.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative report. This would tie the UK into the common fisheries policy for the long term, deprive us of our own waters and is entirely against UK interests.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this decision. We are concerned by the proposed further militarisation of the European Union and the lack of clarity in the legislation over what constitutes eligible military actors.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain on this non-legislative own initiative report. It is extremely important that the EU institutions maintain a high level of transparency in order to ensure that it remains accountable. However, this is very much a report that has come about through closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. This report does not go far enough, there should be an independent body established in order to provide a relevant code of conduct that will ensure that all measures that are required to maintain integrity and transparency are met.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non—legislative motion for resolution. We are against further calls for self-promotion and budget increases, which this resolution calls for in line with the next MFF negotiations. This is despite the programme already having had a 40% increase since the last programme, as well as admitting that the success rate remains low, with only 5% of young citizens having benefited from the programme. Currently Erasmus+ costs the taxpayer EUR 14.7 billion. UKIP believes that this exchange scheme is not cost effective; exchange schemes can be conducted outside of Erasmus+ in the UK.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. Whilst we share similar concerns with the balance of work skills and jobs in the market, EU-level action is unnecessary and unhelpful. These issues are best addressed by the UK Government and private enterprise.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEP’s voted to abstain on this recommendation. Amongst other things this recommendation was amending the Multilateral Agreement to take into account the accession of several countries who are now members of the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding report. This report raises many important breaches of human rights and corruption of which we are concerned. However we do not support the development of EU foreign policy or see any added value in EU action that cannot already be achieved by state or international level assistance.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We do not support the development of any type of EU foreign policy. We look forward to reinvigorating the UK’s ties with our important Commonwealth partners following the UK’s exit from the European Union, on a bilateral basis, when we will able to, once again, negotiate our own trade agreements.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this legislative decision. This proposal is to give over EUR 1 billion to Italy to help in reconstruction efforts for earthquakes that occurred in 2016 and 2017. While of course UKIP opposes the EU spending any UK taxpayers’ money, the amount given would be budget-neutral. It does not mean the UK has to give more money to the EU, nor would it mean the UK would get money back if this money wasn’t given to Italy. The money will come from funds that had already been budgeted for. To be clear, this would not mean any additional funding is necessary from taxpayers. Additionally as this was for legitimate humanitarian reasons, UKIP felt it would be more responsible to abstain.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this legislative amending budget. This proposal is directly linked to the ‘mobilisation’ vote to give over EUR 1 billion to Italy for reconstruction efforts due to recent earthquakes. Whilst the other vote is concerned with the principle of giving the EUR 1 billion to Italy, this vote is to make sure that there is technically enough money in the correct budget-line to pay it. As it happens the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) does not have enough money in its budget-line to pay outright. The proposal here is to transfer some money from under used budget-lines, in to the EUSF. This would be budget-neutral and will not require additional funding from taxpayers.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative decision. The proposal is to give over EUR 3.5 million to Finnish workers who have lost their jobs due to Microsoft downscaling its operation in the country. The money will go to areas such as retraining, job seeking, allowances for travel, start-up grants etc. UKIP voted against as we don’t believe UK taxpayers’ money should be used for poor economic decisions in other countries. This is nothing more than EU dole money.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report on aviation. UKIP believe that the EU Emission Trading System is a huge failure for the EU. It forces industries to comply with absurd standards dictated by the EU Commission’s obsession to limit global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. The ETS has destroyed our Industry causing a considerable carbon leakage phenomenon. UKIP believe the only solution to this legislative chaos is to reject the EU energy policy together with the entire ETS system. Once out of the EU, the UK should be free from any EU legislation, including the emission trading scheme in the aviation sector.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this legislative report on land use, land use change and forestry. UKIP rejects the Commission proposal. UKIP denies man—made climate change and believes that CO2 is not a pollutant. New legislation in this field would only bring further bureaucracy and economic damages to this sector. UKIP notes that forestry is not an EU competence.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this legislative report. UKIP fully support measures that seek to tackle illegal migrants being able to easily forge residence permits. We cannot, however, support EU legislation and EU harmonisation practices. For these reasons, UKIP voted to abstain on this report.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted in favour of this motion for resolution, which opposes the Commission position. UKIP believe that the EU Commission’s draft delegated act, if adopted, would result in a lower standard of products being available to consumers

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative amending budget. The proposal has two elements to it. The first (and far more important) is that the budget ceiling for the EU ‘Youth Employment Initiative’ will be increased by an extra EUR 500 million. The second part is minor adjustments to staff posts in the EU decentralised agencies ‘ACER’ and ‘SESAR2’, however no extra staff will be awarded to them. UKIP voted against because we oppose unaccountable EU institutions spending taxpayers’ money. Only our elected and accountable national governments should decide employment policies.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. Arms exports are an intricate part of government policy, linked with both economic well—being and foreign policy interests. Whilst we are concerned at aspects of UK Government policy, in particular regarding Saudi Arabia, there is no justification for the transfer of these powers to the EU which, following Brexit, will be a foreign power.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We do not support the development of any type of EU foreign policy.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding report. This report raises many important breaches of human rights and corruption of which we are concerned. However, we do not support the development of EU foreign policy or see any added value in EU action that cannot already be achieved by state or international level assistance.

2016/11/22

I voted in favour of this legislative report, as in the past I have spoken in favour of geographical indicators on products.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain on this legislative report. UKIP notes this deal between Iceland and the EU to commit to lowering tariffs between the two parties in agricultural produce. We note that every two years the EU and Iceland meet to discuss whether current arrangements are satisfactory. Iceland's membership of the EEA means that agriculture and fisheries are not covered by usual EU free movement of goods. We do not wish to block this deal, so abstained.

2016/11/22

UKIP have voted against this non-legislative, own initiative report. UKIP are against the EU interfering in the judicial process of Member States. The EU is looking to spend more money on training and promotion of mediation. Mediation is a very good idea and at present the UK has a very successful mediation process which is extremely beneficial and also alleviates cost; it would not be beneficial to support a report that is looking to increase costs.

2016/11/22

UKIP have voted against this non-legislative, own initiative report. UKIP believe that Member States should be allowed to decide their own laws on franchising in the retail sector and that the European Commission should not be called upon to act in this area.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative report on the Space Strategy. UKIP is against a further increase in the EU budget for this purpose. UKIP remembers the very recent failure of the EU Galileo satellite that caused a considerable waste of European taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative non-binding report. UKIP opposes EU interference in the education systems of Member States. Whilst we support lifelong learning and accessibility for all in education, particularly in the digital age, we believe that this is solely an issue of national sovereignty. This report dictates how Member States and institutions should run and invest in their own education systems, which goes against the EU’s own treaties, as stipulated in Article 165 of the TFEU.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted for this legislative report. UKIP supports the repeal of unnecessary, obsolete and out—of—date regulations. It is about time that the EU institutions started to get rid of the burdensome red tape that is no longer relevant.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report on WIFI4EU. UKIP understands and supports the importance of improved internet connectivity in our society. However, UKIP is against the financial implications of this project. UKIP is against this attempt at EU harmonisation and we believe that efforts to improve internet access and speed should be made at national level.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report on the safeguard of gas supply. UKIP believes that the EU should repeal its entire energy legislation. UKIP believes in secure and affordable energy. UKIP wants a stable regulatory system that fosters investment. UKIP wants reliable and affordable generating technologies, like coal, gas, nuclear and hydro, and UKIP wants an end to subsidies that punish consumers and taxpayers and distort markets.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs abstained on this motion for a resolution. UKIP believes the practice of mass whale hunting in Norway is brutal and inhumane. However, UKIP believes that this issue should be solved internationally and not by the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP considers violence against women to be a truly abhorrent act and we fully support measures that aim to protect women from violence. With this in mind, UKIP fully supports the UK in its ongoing attempts to fully ratify the Istanbul Convention. UKIP does not, however, support EU accession to this Convention, as we do not believe that the EU has the competency to accede. Moreover, we believe that this report asks the EU to go significantly further than what is outlined in the Convention. We believe that it should be the sole decision of national governments to propose measures that exceed the recommendations outlined in this Convention.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report, as we feel the EU has no right to use trade as a political weapon with which to bully other countries. The EU has a long history of attempting to politicise trade and attaching clauses and demands in trade deals which are purely political in nature. We look forward to an independent Britain forging trade deals that do not include political and economic bullying.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against giving our consent. We do not support the development of an EU foreign policy and so cannot support an agreement that would facilitate this.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We do not support the development of an EU foreign policy and so cannot support an agreement that would facilitate this.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative resolution. This resolution called for more EU spending in next year’s budget including items on migration, security, defence and administration. UKIP opposes all increases in the EU budget as unaccountable EU institutions have no right to spend UK taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted in favour of a rejection amendment that the EFDD group tabled to this legislative second reading report. UKIP firmly reject any proposals to harmonise criminal law in the EU as this is a significant infringement on Member States’ judicial sovereignty. Moreover, UKIP also strongly oppose providing a mandate for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate fraud in Member States.

2016/11/22

This is a legislative first reading report that was without a vote. If it was to be voted on, UKIP would have voted against this because we do not agree with the harmonisation of customs sanctions.

2016/11/22

UKIP fully support all actions taken against fatal epidemics such as HIV and tuberculosis. We believe that national governments should develop and implement specific national plans to work to achieve the best possible results in this area having in mind a community and human rights-based approach for treatment and support. UKIP abstained on this resolution.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative motion for a resolution. UKIP principally reject the notion of calling on the Commission to do anything for the forthcoming year. UKIP tabled a number of amendments to this resolution, which were defeated, on issues regarding the UK’s departure from the European Union. These amendments aimed to ensure that the Brexit the British people voted for, including the end of ECJ jurisdiction in the UK and leaving the Common Fisheries Policy, is delivered. UKIP MEPs also voted against a number of amendments tabled by other political groups. UKIP rejected amendments that refused to recognise Northern Ireland and instead referred to it as the ‘North of Ireland’. UKIP also rejected amendments tabled that called for the dissolution of NATO and nuclear disarmament.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We think that the EU’s cultural programmes are a waste of taxpayers’ money and do not support their incorporation into any kind of EU foreign policy.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We do not support the EU’s participation in the General Assembly and as such do not support Parliament’s recommendations. We are also particularly concerned by the continued efforts towards reform of the Security Council and the aspiration of a seat for the EU on the Security Council

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against giving our consent to the EU-Kosovo Framework Agreement. We do not support spending through EU programmes and therefore cannot support the extension of these programmes.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this budgetary report. The proposal was to give EUR 1 002 264 for 339 workers who have lost their jobs in Spain. The money would be spent on support for those workers in the form of counselling, job search and retraining, etc. UKIP opposes the idea that unaccountable EU institutions should spend UK taxpayers’ money, especially when it is to be used as dole money on account of poor economic decisions in other countries.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report. UKIP are against harmonisation of European standards. Additionally, UKIP do not support calls for the Commission and Member States to provide funding for such projects.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative non-binding report. The report is a step towards harmonising EU bond markets and would encourage further centralisation, accordingly UKIP is against.

2016/11/22

We vehemently oppose this apparently innocuous non-legislative report because, in reality, it functions as a ‘Trojan horse’ whereby recreational fishing and angling get taken over and mired in the surreal, Kafkaesque bureaucracy of the Common Fisheries Policy.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report because the EU is trying to interfere with the limitation time available for claims in traffic accident issues. The UK legal system is possibly the oldest system in the world and our judicial system, based on common law, is very different to continental Europe and this type of harmonisation cannot work.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report because it is harmonisation of civil procedures. This is a power grab by the EU trying to ensure that every legal process falls in line with everyone else. Our legal system, which is a common law legal system, operates in a very different way and cannot be harmonised to fall in line with the rest of continental Europe, which operates on a different legal system.

2016/11/22

We voted against this legislative report as we feel that giving large sums of foreign aid to a country with a well-deserved reputation for official corruption is highly unwise. We feel the money would be very likely to be misappropriated, and therefore cannot consent to this.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative report. The proposals will lead to the Commission being in charge of a public register of information, and are a step towards taxes on wealth.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this resolution which adopted the amending budget. The original proposal from the Commission was to transfer over EUR 6 billion to this year’s EU budget, which was left unused from last year. This money would be used solely to reduce the amount each Member State would have to contribute to the EU this year. This money was not being used to increase the EU budget. However a resolution was intertwined with the original proposal which would adopt the proposal, but also called for more money for certain EU policies and called for the UK to pay more for Brexit. UKIP voted in favour of the separate vote on paragraph 9 to show our support for the proposal to reduce Member States’ contributions this year, but were forced to vote against the resolution as a whole as the resolution was trying to interfere in Brexit negotiations.

2016/11/22

UKIP have voted against this non-legislative, own initiative report. While a longer lifetime for products is ultimately a positive aim, UKIP have voted against the report because it calls on the Commission to implement this, something that should be left to Member States.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We support international work to prevent human rights violations and genocide, and to prosecute persecutors when these gross violations do occur. We cannot however support the development of an EU foreign policy or EU action as we believe it is an unnecessary layer between the bilateral, multilateral and international work that is already on-going

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We do not support the increased militarisation of the European Union, including their use of Private Security Companies. The contribution of the private sector to defence and operations is a matter for Member States and international laws and norms. We cannot support EU legislative initiative in this area

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. Whilst as a party we have been concerned and have drawn up policies fighting precarious employment we do not support EU legislative initiative. Concerning the paragraphs related to the revision of the Posted Workers Directive we have long complained about the negative impact on British workers created by the directive. Whilst the Commission proposals come some way towards addressing wage discrepancies it also aims at increasing labour mobility throughout the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain on this non-legislative report. Although the report is broadly critical of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, and expresses concerns which we share, we cannot endorse the strategy of using public money to shelter private investors from risk – it leads to a misallocation of capital that will in turn lead to asset bubbles. Accordingly UKIP voted against the report as a whole.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report. UKIP are against a ‘European Agenda’ on the collaborative economy. UKIP believe that Member States should be free to create their own laws on the collaborative economy, and that a harmonised approach is not suitable.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative, own-initiative report. UKIP reject calls for more EU legislation to be produced and are against a harmonised approach to online platforms, as this is an issue for individual Member States. UKIP also oppose the creation of the digital single market.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this motion for a resolution because it calls for an end to funding for European parties that do not support the Union. This is inherently undemocratic, especially as it means members of the public who do not support the Union will have no voice.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this legislative report. The EU seeks to reduce emissions within its borders while forcing energy-intensive industries offshore to jurisdictions with lower emission standards. We in UKIP oppose EU climate and energy policy. We reject climate hysteria and we believe the EU should accept that the Paris Agreement is close to its end.

2016/11/22

We supported this objection because it rejects secondary legislation which adds to ‘red tape’ - and completely fails to understand the vital need to remove, simplify and ease the ever-expanding EU bureaucratic burden.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report. Principally we oppose any form of EU action, and this report was looking to create an EU strategy. UKIP wholly believe issues such as the ones contained within the report, gender discrimination, gender pay and gender pension gap are issues that need to be tackled. However, UKIP believe that this is the sole competency of the individual Member States. This report calls for more legislation and regulation and seeks to interfere within the domestic life of men and women, which we cannot support.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We are opposed to any expansion of the European Union and all pre-accession related activities. In particular we are opposed to this reports attempts to infringe on Serbia’s sovereign right to exercise independent foreign relations.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We are opposed to any expansion of the European Union and all pre-accession related activities.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We are opposed to any expansion of the European Union and all pre-accession related activities

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding report. We support efforts to improve standards in labour but are also equally committed to free and open trade and against its politicisation. Any punitive measures that impede this flow of goods will only serve to make both parties poorer.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative report. The report ‘points to the increase in Euroscepticism and in anti-European propaganda that distorts information on Union policies, and calls on the Commission and the Council to analyse and address their causes.’ By the sounds of it, the EU wants to spend more money on dead-end projects that do not convey an accurate message to people living in the EU. The document talked about how the EU wants to increase its dialogue with people in Member States, and it has called on the Commission to focus on an action plan for greater communication. UKIP does not support more money being wasted, nor does it believe that the Commission should be doing anything as it is an illegitimate political entity, and for these reasons voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report regarding the 7th Research Programme. The 7th Research Programme was an EU project which ran from 2007 to 2013 and had a budget of EUR 55 billion. The money would be spent on grants for research in Europe, but these would also have to have a ‘European added value’. The report says that there was no cost-benefit analysis of the 7th Research Programme, that there was an error rate of about 5% and that there were shortcomings in the oversight of the programme. The report goes on to call for more synergies between EU funds, and states that the Commission operated the programme effectively. UKIP believes that taxpayers’ money should not be used by unaccountable EU institutions. If we didn’t have to waste so much money on EU membership and bureaucracy, we would have more money available to support research in the UK.

2016/11/22

I abstained on this vote, as although I am sympathetic to the plight of the stateless in South Asia, I do not believe the EU is the correct vehicle to tackle the problem.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative report, because the proposal for harmonisation of the legal framework could add additional costs; in addition, any matters relating to tax fraud should be dealt with by the Member State and not the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against the legislative report on PRIMA. We in UKIP strongly support the role of research in our society. However, we believe that the EU desperately needs budget cuts as a result of heavy deficiencies in several of its policy areas.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this legislative document. The Commission proposal sought to change some bits of legislation to allow the EU to pay for 100% co-financing of the European Regional Development Fund for reconstruction efforts and also to make it easier to pre-authorise EU money for use in affected countries. The Commission stated that these changes will not need new money or raising of budget ceilings. This proposal has come about primarily because of recent horrendous earthquakes in Italy. This doesn’t mean the EU will be making the UK pay more money - it will just mean the EU will be able to use the money it already has more quickly to help give relief to areas hit by natural disasters.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against the legislative report on energy labelling. Despite the changes proposed by the EU parliament, we in UKIP believe that the new EU Commission proposal on energy labelling will bring great uncertainty for the industry and great confusion to consumers. We believe that this regulation is unnecessary and that it will be a new EU burden to deal with.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative report, which amended the 2014 decision on the establishment of the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020—2033.This we believe is another propaganda scheme, to promote the EU and its values. This report extends the scheme beyond the EU Member States to allow participation from EFTA and EEA countries, which only confirms the self—promotion of the EU on a wider international scale.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative report on building blocks for a post-2020 cohesion policy. The document called on the Commission to ensure that there is better cooperation between the ESI Funds and other Union funds. It also endorsed the Paris climate change agreement and the report underlines that the increased visibility of the cohesion policy is vital to fight against Euroscepticism and can contribute to regaining citizens’ confidence and trust. UKIP does not support the Paris climate change agreement nor does it believe in wasting UK tax payers’ money on vanity projects in order for the EU to promote itself

2016/11/22

We voted against this non-legislative resolution because it details an unworkable plan for a failed policy, the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy)

2016/11/22

The proposal will return some decisions on VAT to Member States (i.e. the UK rate of VAT on e-books could be reduced) and accordingly UKIP voted in favour.

2016/11/22

Today UKIP voted against this own-initiative report. We are against new EU legislation and we oppose further harmonisation in this field.

2016/11/22

UKIP have abstained on this non-legislative report, because the needs of vulnerable adults must be ensured within the Member States. It is important that every Member State ratifies the Hague Convention; it really should not be up to the EU to put pressure on the Member States to force the ratification. Ratification of the Hague Convention should be done in a timely manner and when the Member States are in a position to do so.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this proposal, as we note with outrage that, by ratifying this agreement, the Dutch Parliament completely ignored the wishes of their electorate, by reversing the Dutch people’s democratic decision to oppose the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, in the Netherlands referendum held in April 2016. Continued EU intervention in the Ukraine crisis only serves to further exacerbate this terrible situation.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this legislative report. UKIP MEPs firmly support measures which are designed to combat illegal migration. We do, however, not support further EU harmonisation practices and EU legitimacy in issuing visas.

2016/11/22

As a campaigner on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues, whilst I was unable to support this report as I believe that action should be taken at Member State level and not be forced by the EU, the track record of some Member States in relation to their GRT communities is poor, and for real change to happen in this area, I believe that it has to come willingly, not by being forced through the EU institutions. Member States must have the real wish to address this issue for there to be real benefit for their GRT communities. I did not follow the lead of colleagues who voted against this report, but abstained, as a matter of conscience.

2016/11/22

Today UKIP voted against this own-initiative report. We are against new EU legislation and we oppose further harmonisation in this field.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against the new Consensus on Development in this motion for a resolution. UKIP does not support the European Union trying to further harmonise development policy. The EU wants to see one development policy to override all of the 28 other development policies from the national governments. With this one line of vision the EU will have the authority to instruct nation states where to spend their taxpayer money as well as wanting to push for the further expansion of the influence of the Union though their ‘common vision, values and principles’. UKIP does not want the EU to have more influence and see the further harmonisation of policies and so for these reasons UKIP has voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this motion for a resolution on resilience as a strategic priority of the external action for the EU. This document would like to see the 2013-2020 Action Plan for resilience fully implemented and it would like to promote ‘greater coherence between policies’. This would mean that the EU would like to see further integration of its policies in Member States and harmonisation throughout the European Union. In addition, the document has asked for ‘sufficient resources to be devoted to the promotion of resilience’. This means that the EU wants to put more money into failing and unsuccessful projects to promote resilience. UKIP does not support the EU wasting more money and for the further harmonisation of policies, and for these reasons UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs were permitted a free vote on this non-legislative resolution. UKIP firmly reject all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. As some amendments concerned sensitive issues, such as the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ and the right to criticise Israel, UKIP MEPs were permitted to vote based on their own conscience.

2016/11/22

We opposed this non-legislative resolution because, like the common fisheries policy (CFP) itself, it would block development without delivering the conservation necessary to avoid the ‘tragedy of the commons’.

2016/11/22

We voted against as we note with concern the EU’s attempts to economically bully its neighbouring countries and wanted to send a strong condemnation. We would warn the EU that such an attempt to bully the UK would be foolhardy for both parties, and look forward to an amicable deal between the UK and the EU concerning market access once Brexit is complete.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP does not support the fact that more hard-earned tax-payer money is being thrown down the drain. The UK should have the right to spend its own money wherever it likes, without being directed by an unelected bureaucratic system which pumps vast amounts of money into failing projects. There is also the serious concern about the strong possibility of a repetition of the accumulated backlog of unpaid invoices. If the EU cannot control its finances with the money it already has, then why are national governments giving it more money? For these reasons UKIP voted against this report.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP does not support the growing influence that the EU is having through national governments, and now it wants to expand even further to the local and regional authorities. The EU has no legitimacy to be intervening in any country’s national affairs.In addition, the report advocated increased communication on, and visibility for, the results and successes achieved with the support of the ESI funds which, in the rapporteur’s eyes, could contribute to regaining citizens’ confidence and trust in the European project. UKIP does not agree with the EU gaining more influence over Member States and we do not want to see more money being wasted on the EU promoting itself. For these reasons UKIP voted against this report.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this Regulation as it will allow access to online content across the EU. It is discriminatory against people who are in the EU but their country of residence is not a Member State. This Regulation is calling for harmonisation of cross-portability rules across Member States and ensures that right holders and online service providers from different Member States are subject to the same rules. Harmonisation of copyright legislation is not practical. Furthermore if a one-off annual fee is payable it will not count as online content that can be included in this Regulation.

2016/11/22

. ‒ I abstained on this report as, although I am in favour of free trade, the EU-Korea FTA will cease to apply to the UK once we leave the EU. I therefore felt abstention was the most appropriate vote.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. UKIP supports international and regionally led initiatives to find a viable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict as long as the sovereignty and integrity of Israel is maintained. However, we do not support any foreign-policy role for the European Union, or the two Common Security and Defence Policy missions in the region.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We are appalled at the longevity of the war in Syria and the human suffering this is causing. We support measures to bring a genuine and long-lasting resolution to the war. However we remain firmly against the development of an EU foreign policy.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this motion for a resolution, which covers infrastructure, competition, technological development and workers’ rights, among other things.The main problem here is the belief expressed in the resolution that the obstacles in the EU road transport sector are due to legal and bureaucratic complexities, and that these should be addressed in order to free up the movement of goods and services. The report advocates harmonisation, failing to recognise that the rules Member States have in place in relation to the acceptance of goods and workers are there for a reason.Furthermore, the resolution calls on the Commission to examine ways of reducing the bureaucratic and financial burdens of national legislation in order to facilitate the freedom to provide transport services across the EU. The Commission needs to take a hard look at itself before it turns to any examination of national legislation.

2016/11/22

UKIP abstained on this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. The Dadaab refugee camp represents the difficult balance in offering support for genuine refugees and providing for the security of a state’s own citizens. Ultimately this issue is an internal one for Kenya.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative motion for resolution. UKIP believes that asylum and immigration policy should be decided by national governments. UKIP MEPs also reject calls in this report for the Commission to conduct infringement proceedings against Member States which are not meeting relocation targets set by the EU.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP abstained on this on non-legislative and non-binding resolution. Whilst we share concerns at the gross breaches of human rights and the persecution that this report addresses we cannot support EU action on these issues

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this budgetary vote to give over EUR 2.6 million to 821 Finish workers who have lost their job. This is nothing more than EU dole money. British taxpayers’ money shouldn’t be used to pay for poor economic decisions in other countries

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative report because we cannot support a report that welcomes subsidiarity and proportionality whilst in the same sentence acknowledges that they should be considered integral parts of the EU’s policy making process, UKIP does not agree with any part of EU policy making. In one sentence it seems that it is calling for national parliaments to have a greater say in EU policy making but effectively it is nothing more than an empty gesture leading to the negation of parliamentary sovereignty.

2016/11/22

This non-legislative report calls on the Commission to take further control of financial markets and their regulation; accordingly UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this technically non-legislative report. UKIP support the cooperation between nations to combat terrorism and crime, but oppose this having to be done via the European Union. UKIP would prefer these agreements to be conducted on a bilateral basis.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this legislative report. UKIP MEPs would normally support an objection to a Commission delegated act. On this occasion, however, the report specifically includes calls for the Commission to propose a new delegated act. UKIP MEPs feel that regardless of this rejection the Commission will ultimately still pass a delegated act.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We believe that the full sovereignty of states should be respected; the intrusiveness of the European Union’s criticism, and calls for action against Hungary, run contrary to that concept. In particular, we are concerned about the inclusion of paragraph 7 in the resolution and the launch of Article 7(1) TEU against Hungary.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. Education qualifications and certification should be a matter for individual states and we see no beneficial role unique to the European Union.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against giving consent to this protocol. We do not support the expansion of the European Union, the facilitation of this in EU legislation or EU agreements with third countries.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this technically legislative report. UKIP does not support further financial payments to EU bodies who have been assigned control of the EU’s external borders.

2016/11/22

We voted against this legislative report. Firstly, we object to the EU becoming a member of international bodies in its own right, as it would enable to the EU to bully other countries. Secondly, we note that the concept of the EU joining bodies in its own name is conferred by powers under the Lisbon Treaty, which the EU forced on the people of Europe without their consent.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this non-legislative report. UKIP believe that, whilst there may be some benefits for advancing the digitalisation of public sector bodies, this should be an exclusive competence of national governments and does not require EU funding or harmonisation practices.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report even though the figures and criticisms are very useful. The solutions that it offers suggest that in order to combat the fraud, there needs to be more EU legislation and power. The report highlights the fact that the cost of known fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities in the budget amounts to over EUR 3 billion. It states that, according to ECB estimates, the cost of counterfeiting since the euro was set up in 2002 amounts to approximately EUR 500 million. The report criticises the Commission for the increases in irregularities and because the Commission apparently no longer wants to publish an EU anti-corruption report any more. However, the solutions offered by the report call for more EU legislation and action on VAT and own resources and for support for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The ultimate way to end fraud in the EU budget is to get rid of an EU budget altogether. UKIP voted against, as we oppose calling for any more EU legislation and because we fundamentally disagree with the EU’s spending and wasting any taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative report because not only do we deny climate change hysteria, but we also reject further EU legislation. Food waste is an issue that needs to be addressed by Europe and the world. However, we believe that national parliaments should monitor food safety issues without the creation of further EU legislation.

2016/11/22

We voted to abstain on this own initiative report, as we do not wish to interfere in any measure that could combat fraud and illicit trade.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative report, as it is wishing to create harmonisation with regards to trade marks. Furthermore the original text calls for an office to be responsible for the harmonisation which will have full legal, administrative and financial autonomy.

2016/11/22

UKIP is concerned of the adverse effects of mercury on human and animal health – in humans, mercury affects mostly the central nervous system and the kidneys. Acute inhalation, dermal exposure and chronic exposure are proved to be extremely damaging to human health. This is why UKIP abstained on this Recommendation.

2016/11/22

The proposal is part of a package linked with harmonisation of taxes and the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, accordingly UKIP voted against on this technically non-legislative report.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEP’s have voted to abstain on this technically non-legislative report. UKIP fully respects the will of the Danish people who chose to have less involvement with Europol. UKIP do, however, oppose calls in this report to exhaust all legal possibilities to invite Denmark to be full members of Europol. This without doubt seeks to undermine the democratic will of the Danish people.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report. UKIP does not support the Structural Reform Support Programme that has been put in place to strengthen the capacity of Member States to design and implement growth-enhancing administrative and structural reforms. The EU has no right to be intervening in national state affairs and in addition this vanity project costs the taxpayer EUR 142 million at current prices for the programme. In addition, the EU wants to see the further harmonisation of programmes and policies throughout the Union. For these reasons, UKIP voted against this report.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative report, we oppose the use of taxpayers money for another unnecessary scheme to promote the EU.

2016/11/22

This legislative vote on regulation will increase the 2014-2020 budget for the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group to 57m euros, accordingly UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

This legislative vote on regulation will increase funding by 6m euros for the period 2017-2020, accordingly UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We opposed this non-legislative report as it would lead to more subsidy, which we see as a misuse of taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We opposed this non-legislative proposal as the report is neither sound economic analysis nor a good use of taxpayers’ money.

2016/11/22

. ‒ This non-legislative non-binding report, suggests that the EIB should consider demanding more capital from shareholders (i.e. more money from the UK and other Member States) and calls on the Commission and Member States to increase the budget for external lending. Accordingly UKIP voted against it.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP believes it is important to protect human health and the environment from the improper management of waste facilities that could give rise to major accidents. We believe that measures, procedures and guidance to prevent and reduce adverse effects on the environment and human health resulting from the management of extractive waste should be established by national parliaments. That is why UKIP abstained on this non-legislative report.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this codification vote because it was amending an existing piece of legislation which would affect company law. It is for the Member States to determine what aspects of company law best suit their judicial systems.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this because it is forcing all 28 Member States to ratify and accede to the 2010 Protocol in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous & Noxious Substances by sea. This is a matter for individual Member States to decide and should not be forced into doing.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEP’s have voted against this technically non-legislative report. UKIP oppose any report that facilitates the functioning of the Schengen Area.

2016/11/22

UKIP supported an amendment to reject new EU legislation on medical devices. The role of medical devices is of exceptional importance. This sector has a fundamental role in the diagnosis, prevention, monitoring and treatment of diseases. We agree with the effectiveness of unannounced controls on the production site as well as the importance of increased transparency. However, we believe that the best legislator is the government of the country that faces these problems.

2016/11/22

By restricting the investment products that Money Market Funds can acquire for their portfolio, the EU is not only restricting freedom of contract but also adding to concentration counterparty risk and may produce asset bubbles in certain asset classes. Accordingly UKIP voted to reject the proposals.

2016/11/22

The proposal will authorise the Commission to issue delegated acts and increases the powers of the EU regulator, ESMA. Accordingly UKIP voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against the budgetary proposal as it will expand some of the financial instruments that the EU can use to spend taxpayer’s money outside the normal budget limits. Money to be used by these instruments will now be allowed for ‘migration and security’ reasons. The Global Margin for Payments budget will be increased for 2019 (+ EUR 2 billion) and 2020 (+ EUR 3 billion). The Emergency Aid Reserve will get an extra EUR 20 million (so now a budget of EUR 300 million a year). The Flexibility Instrument will be increased by an extra EUR 129 million (so now a budget of EUR 600 million a year), but also the Commission will be compelled to calculate and increase the amount available for this instrument each year. For the ‘global margin for commitments for growth and employment, in particular youth employment’, migration and security will be added for which money can be spent, but also the text limiting what years extra money can be used is removed – so now any money left over from a budget ceiling from any year can be used for this instrument.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding motion for a resolution because it supported the proposal to expand some of the financial instruments that the EU can use to spend taxpayer’s money outside the normal budget limits. The resolution also included a number of ‘joint statements’ by the Council and EU Parliament regarding political commitments to increase some other budget lines.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this budgetary proposal as it will allow the use of more money in future years. Back in 2014 the EU needed extra money so they used the ‘Contingency Margin’ to mobilise EUR 3.1 billion for 2014. A payment plan for this money of around 900 million would come out of the future budgets 2018, 2019 and 2020. However in 2017 it is found there is over EUR 9 billion available for payments in the budget. So the proposal here is to change the payment plan for the 2018-2020 years, and just pay it all off from the 2017 budget. UKIP are voting against because the original decision will, in theory, reduce the ceilings for future budgets - whereas the new proposal will let them pay it all off now allowing them to use the full budget ceilings for future years. The money involved has already been mobilised and used, nothing can be done about that now - the only decision in this vote, is whether it should be paid back in 2017, or spread out over 2018-2020 as originally intended.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this resolution as it would approve a 2.6% increase in the budget for European Parliament in 2018.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this resolution as it would approve a 2.6% increase in the budget for European Parliament in 2018.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this resolution as it would approve a 2.6% increase in the budget for European Parliament in 2018.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this technically non-legislative report. UKIP support the co-operation between nations to combat terrorism and crime, but oppose this having to be done via the European Union. UKIP would prefer these agreements to be conducted on a bilateral basis.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non—legislative report. UKIP does not support the EU trying to harmonise the external policies of Member States into one policy for the whole of the EU. The EU wants yet more money from Member States to support yet more harmonisation.

2016/11/22

We opposed this legislative report as the EU uses precise definitions and resulting data, not as an objective management tool, but to assert its power and impose control.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report. UKIP do not support EU legislation which harmonises rules across Europe and gives further powers to the Commission. UKIP also rejected calls in this report for the establishment of a new EU body, the European Vehicle Surveillance Agency.

2016/11/22

Yesterday UKIP abstained on the non-legislative report on palm oil. The Malaysian rainforest is the only place in the world where elephants, tigers and rhinos co-exist, as well as being the home of orang-utans, and these species are facing extinction due to mass deforestation caused by palm oil being grown on a huge industrial scale. Nothing can live on palm oil plantations due to it being a monoculture. However, we oppose a single EU certification and we would prefer national parliaments to take decisions on this issue.

2016/11/22

We opposed this non-legislative, own initiative report because the EU does not understand that true equality involves equal treatment, not favouring some over others and adding to the bureaucratic burden.

2016/11/22

UKIP recognises the need to protect people from abuses in war, and welcomes initiatives such as the Kimberley process whereby conflict diamonds are policed. UKIP hopes an independent Britain will continue to be an active player in this and similar areas. We voted abstain as we did not wish to stand in the way of efforts to prevent metals from conflict zones where abuses against children and civilians have occurred.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We opposed this legislative report because EU collection and control of fisheries data fundamentally undermines the UK’s sovereignty and control of its own waters.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We do not support the development of a more militarised EU and are actively against any EU measures that would contradict or undermine the work of NATO. It is NATO that helped to secure Europe during the Cold War, not the EU. Of particular concern to us are the financial aspects of this support, which should not be increased until after the UK has withdrawn from the EU.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. Whilst we recognise the growing importance of the Arctic in economic and geopolitical terms we reject wholeheartedly this report’s attempts to interfere in the sovereign energy and foreign policies of Member States. The Arctic Council is a sufficient forum for the discussion of issues related to the region and there is no necessity for the EU to be granted any official or unofficial status within this body.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We do not support the further expansion of the EU and Montenegro’s accession to NATO should not be used as justification to accelerate this process.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative Report because e-democracy at the moment is not as secure as it should be. Furthermore it is not for the EU to tell Member States how they should be running their elections. If the country is ready to pursue an online voting system then it will pursue it at a time when it is ready to do so.

2016/11/22

We voted to abstain as this was a tidying up exercise to reflect the change in status of Croatia as an EU Member State in international trade law. We do not wish to interfere in these technical updates.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have abstained on this technically non-legislative report. UKIP support the co-operation between nations to combat terrorism, but oppose this having to be done via the European Union. UKIP would prefer these agreements to be conducted on a bilateral basis.

2016/11/22

We in UKIP voted against new EU legislative harmonisation in this legislative report. We oppose the financial impact of this project - we believe that this issue should be regulated by national Parliaments

2016/11/22

UKIP have voted against this resolution because we feel that it is important that Member States keep control over their own fiscal policies in relation to the transport network. What works in one country may not work in another, so the EU stating that they would prefer harmonisation with regard to road tolls is nothing more than a stealthy power grab and a dictatorial stance on how best to ‘tax’.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-binding budgetary report. This vote was Parliament’s position ahead of the 2018 EU budget negotiations. It included all the usual calls for more money to be spent and more EU initiatives. UKIP tabled 10 amendments ranging from rejecting the EU defence initiatives, to cutting administration costs and opposing new powers for the EU. Amendment 26 which UKIP tabled stated that the ‘future MFF proposal should not include the UK’s contribution or entail any legal obligations on the UK regarding its liabilities’. This amendment would ensure there would be no Brexit bill and no liabilities on the UK after 2020. Sadly this amendment was rejected – the Conservative party abstained and the Labour party voted against this amendment.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted by way of a conscience vote on this non-legislative report. Whilst there were aspects of this report that we opposed, such as the EU monitoring Member States, this report contained some highly sensitive issues such as tackling violence against women. The vote was therefore left open to freedom of conscience.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative Report because the amendment called for the adoption of a Directive relating to Data Protection. We currently have an exceptional Data Protection Act in place and adding this to our current legal system would be pointless.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report. UKIP do not believe the legislation is proportionate to its intended objective of combatting terrorism. Furthermore, UKIP strongly condemn the lack of an impact assessment from the Commission. We consider these legislative changes will only harm law abiding citizens who possess or acquire firearms.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted by way of a conscience vote on this non-legislative report. This report contained some highly sensitive issues, with regard to sexual and reproductive rights as well as tackling violence against women. Whilst there were aspects of this report that we opposed, such as calling for the creation of new initiatives, as well as gender quotas, the vote was open to freedom of conscience

2016/11/22

UKIP voted by way of a conscience vote on this non-legislative report. Whilst there were aspects of this report that we opposed, such as the EU monitoring Member States. This report contained some highly sensitive issues such as tackling violence against women. The vote was therefore left open to freedom of conscience.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted by way of a conscience vote on this non-legislative report. Whilst there were aspects of this report that we opposed, such as calling for an increase in the next MFF allocation and the inclusion of gender budgeting within various EU programmes. This report contained some highly sensitive issues such as tackling violence against women. The vote was therefore left open to freedom of conscience.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this non-legislative motion for resolution. UKIP reject calls for further funding and staffing for EU authorities. Moreover, UKIP also oppose calls for the Commission to issue guidelines on big data for law enforcement purposes.

2016/11/22

We abstained on this non-legislative, own initiative report as although rabbits should be well treated, the EU should not be encouraged to act on the topic.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against giving consent to this protocol. We do not support expansion of the European Union or the facilitation of this on European legislation.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs voted against this technically legislative report. UKIP do not support taxpayers’ money going towards facilitating the functioning of the Schengen Area.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this legislative report. The report’s priority is to reach secure, affordable and sustainable energy. However, for many years EU climate and energy policies have directly contradicted these objectives. This proposal shows how the EU Commission keeps reiterating the same mistakes.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted to abstain on this non-legislative resolution. This report only impacts the visa arrangements for Member States who participate in the Schengen agreement.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this non-legislative report. We in UKIP understand the sensitivity of the issues addressed in this report. However, we are firmly against new EU legislation and we believe that this topic should fall within the competence of national parliaments.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative non-binding report. We oppose the existence of the financial guarantee facility of EUR 120 million from the EIF. We further oppose the calls in this report to introduce new initiatives and to increase budgets in order to sustain them.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report. We are inherently against the use of taxpayers’ money for a scheme that has a budget of EUR 185 million to promote the EU. We further oppose any call for an increase in budget for it.

2016/11/22

UKIP does not wish to stand in the way of any measure which aims to tackle trade in products derived from endangered species. Whilst the EU’s track record of protecting animals and their rights is somewhat jaded, we nevertheless did not wish to oppose this, so we abstained, confident it would pass through the Parliament.

2016/11/22

I abstained in this vote. I do not support the EU’s right to negotiate trade agreements, but do not want to block the will of the Canadian Government.

2016/11/22

I abstained as I support Canada’s right to conclude trade agreements as it sees fit.

2016/11/22

I voted against this motion.

2016/11/22

I voted against this motion.

2016/11/22

I voted in favour in order to respect the Danish referendum.

2016/11/22

I voted in favour

2016/11/22

This is a decision for national governments, and I therefore voted against.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non-legislative non-binding report. We oppose the EU intervening in sport policy and oppose interference in the criminal law of Member States, particularly in the case of this report on ‘match fixing’, which is already considered a punishable offence by UK law. Furthermore, we do not support the EU signing Council of Europe treaties on behalf of Member States and are against the use of EU propaganda tools such as the encouragement of the EU flag and symbol at international sports events.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted to abstain on this report. It is extremely important that children are safeguarded and adoption is an important way of ensuring that they are protected. However it is all too obvious to see that the EU is looking at ways to harmonise legislation across the Member States on such an emotive topic. The systems that are in place, for example in the UK, are there to protect the child and UKIP could in no way justify putting children at risk by allowing what only appears to be a further power grab by the EU.

2016/11/22

We voted against this legislative report because of its naked protectionism. We are a free trade party and do not believe that consumers in the UK should be harmed because of the EU’s attempts to impose protectionism. We note that when it comes to bananas, the EU has a track record of triggering needless trade wars. With relief we note Britain will soon no longer be subject to EU trade laws and look forward to Britain being an independent champion of free trade.

2016/11/22

. ‒ We oppose this legislative report, which could trap the UK in the unsustainable Common Fisheries Policy for the foreseeable future.

2016/11/22

UKIP MEPs have voted against this legislative report. UKIP do not support the EU concluding visa waiver programmes with third countries.

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this non-legislative, non-binding report as we are inherently against the use of taxpayers’ money for such a glorified mobility scheme. The UK is able to conduct its own exchange schemes outside of the Erasmus+ programme. We further oppose the calls in this report to introduce new initiatives and to increase budgets in order to sustain them. Erasmus+ has already received a 12.7% increase in its budget for 2017, and another budget increase would be deemed unnecessary.

2016/11/22

We voted against this legislative report, as it is a step towards the eventual EU membership of Kosovo. Kosovo’s poverty, corruption and treatment of its Serb minority make it unsuitable for membership. Whilst we are about to leave the EU, we are in no rush to add corrupt and impoverished countries to the EU to take the place of a vibrant and dynamic independent Britain. We also note the fact that Kosovo is not universally recognised as an independent state by important sections of the international community

2016/11/22

This report concerns the trade in textiles from countries such as Belarus and North Korea. These countries are minimal players in EU trade, and this report was merely a technical tidying up exercise which we saw no need to oppose, so we abstained on this legislative report.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against. We do not support the EU’s membership of such organisations. Furthermore we do not support EU financial expenditure.

2016/11/22

UKIP voted against this non legislative report, because this report is calling for Member States to be punished should there be a delay in the implementation of EU law. Furthermore the report is calling for disciplinary action to be taken against Member States that impede the free movement of goods by deliberately preventing freight flows

2016/11/22

. ‒ UKIP voted against this non-binding, non-legislative report. It included calls for an EU social security card, the creation of an arbitrary EU minimum income scheme and praised the free movement of people across Europe. Unelected and unaccountable EU institutions have no right to interfere with national law in this way. Only our elected and accountable national government should take these decisions.

2016/11/22

Major interpellations (1)

G-000008/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(53 KB) DOC(18 KB)

Written questions (81)

P-003766/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-003796/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(103 KB) DOC(16 KB)

E-003781/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(17 KB)

E-003780/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(17 KB)

E-003779/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(17 KB)

E-003778/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(16 KB)

E-003777/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-003776/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(96 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-003775/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-002487/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(17 KB)

E-002288/2018 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(18 KB)

E-006070/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-006069/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(16 KB)

E-006068/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(16 KB)

E-006067/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-001601/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-001600/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-000106/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-000105/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-000104/2017 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)

E-004253/2016 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(98 KB) DOC(17 KB)

E-001990/2016 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-001648/2016 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(98 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-001448/2016 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-001447/2016 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-001446/2016 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-001445/2016 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-009283/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-009282/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-009281/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-009280/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-004489/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-004488/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-004487/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-004485/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-001128/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-001126/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-001125/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-001124/2015 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-009551/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(98 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-009550/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-008516/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-008515/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-008514/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-008513/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-008512/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-006567/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-006566/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006565/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006560/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-006556/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006550/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006540/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-006539/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006538/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(102 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-006537/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(25 KB)

E-006536/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006406/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-006405/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-006404/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(93 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006403/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006402/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006116/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006115/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(24 KB)

E-006114/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006113/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006112/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006111/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006110/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006109/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006108/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006107/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006106/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006105/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(93 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006104/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(93 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-006103/2014 - Council

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(96 KB) DOC(22 KB)

P-005868/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(22 KB)

E-005877/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(103 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-005876/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-005875/2014 - Commission

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)

E-005874/2014 - Commission

James CARVER

James CARVER, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 230/2014
Article 3a – paragraph 3 – point c

2017/05/11
Committee: AFET

2016/0207(COD)

James CARVER, Beatrix von STORCH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Regulation (EU) No 230/2014
Article 8 – paragraph 1

(4) In Article 8, paragraph (1) is replaced by the following: ‘1. constitute the general basis for the implementation of assistance pursuant to Articles 4 and 5, and to Article 3a as appropriate. Thematic strategy papers shall provide a framework for cooperation between the Union and the partner countries or regions concerned. ’deleted Thematic strategy papers shall

2017/05/11
Committee: AFET

2016/0207(COD)

James CARVER, Beatrix von STORCH

James CARVER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the EU to strengthen its political dialogue with the Iraqi authorities in order to promote respect for human rights, the strengthening of democratic institutions, the rule of law and good governance; calls, in this context, for the abolition of the death penalty to be prioritised in this dialogue and on the Iraqi authorities to apply a moratorium on the death penalty with immediate effect;deleted

2018/04/26
Committee: AFET