Activities of Marie-Pierre VIEU
Plenary speeches (16)
Enforcement requirements and specific rules for posting drivers in the road transport sector - Daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and rest periods and positioning by means of tachographs - Adapting to development in the road transport sector (debate) FR
The right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force (debate) FR
Use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (debate) FR
Involving workers and citizens in a just transition for a safer planet (topical debate) FR
Interim report on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 – Parliament's position with a view to an agreement (debate) FR
EU Agenda for Rural, Mountainous and Remote Areas (debate) FR
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance FR
Enforcement requirements and specific rules for posting drivers in the road transport sector - Daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and rest periods and positioning by means of tachographs - Adapting to development in the road transport sector (debate) FR
2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework and own resources (debate) FR
Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (A8-0319/2017 - Elisabeth Morin-Chartier, Agnes Jongerius) FR
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance FR
Organic production and labelling of organic products (debate) FR
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance FR
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance FR
General budget of the European Union for 2018 - all sections (debate) FR
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance FR
Reports (1)
REPORT Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Greece – EGF/2017/003 GR/Attica retail PDF (500 KB) DOC (61 KB)
Shadow reports (5)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union and of the Member States, of the Protocol amending the Agreement on maritime transport between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the government of the People's Republic of China, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union PDF (167 KB) DOC (55 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Maritime Single Window environment and repealing Directive 2010/65/EU PDF (234 KB) DOC (104 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 with regard to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union PDF (233 KB) DOC (91 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States PDF (973 KB) DOC (153 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/1/EC on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road PDF (579 KB) DOC (88 KB)
Shadow opinions (6)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 as regards the location of the seat of the European Banking Authority
OPINION on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2018
OPINION on women, gender equality and climate justice
Institutional motions (30)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on climate change – a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy in accordance with the Paris Agreement PDF (190 KB) DOC (61 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on climate change: a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy PDF (178 KB) DOC (66 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on women’s rights defenders in Saudi Arabia PDF (160 KB) DOC (63 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on women's rights defenders in Saudi Arabia PDF (191 KB) DOC (60 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the right to peaceful protest and the proportionate use of force PDF (146 KB) DOC (49 KB)
PROPOSITION DE RÉSOLUTION sur la situation au Togo FR PDF (169 KB) DOC (59 KB)
PROPOSITION DE RÉSOLUTION sur le Soudan FR PDF (165 KB) DOC (57 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part PDF (151 KB) DOC (53 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework PDF (269 KB) DOC (48 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the rule of law in Romania PDF (281 KB) DOC (61 KB)
PDF (280 KB) DOC (51 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the rise in neo-fascist violence in Europe PDF (300 KB) DOC (57 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the UAE, notably the situation of human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor PDF (147 KB) DOC (57 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Yemen PDF (158 KB) DOC (59 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the EU’s input to a UN Binding Instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with transnational characteristics with respect to human rights PDF (305 KB) DOC (60 KB)
PROPOSITION DE RÉSOLUTION sur la situation des EAU, notamment la situation du défenseur des droits de l’Homme Ahmed Mansoor FR PDF (490 KB) DOC (56 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Yemen PDF (280 KB) DOC (51 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the threat of demolition of Khan al-Ahmar and other Bedouin villages PDF (266 KB) DOC (53 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Sudan, notably the situation of Noura Hussein Hammad PDF (290 KB) DOC (56 KB)
PROPOSITION DE RÉSOLUTION sur les défenseuses des droits des femmes en Arabie Saoudite FR PDF (457 KB) DOC (59 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Nicaragua PDF (166 KB) DOC (46 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in the Gaza strip PDF (179 KB) DOC (51 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation of UNRWA PDF (270 KB) DOC (48 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the current human rights situation in Turkey PDF (289 KB) DOC (51 KB)
PROPOSITION DE RÉSOLUTION sur l'esclavage d'enfants en Haïti FR PDF (373 KB) DOC (58 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the current human rights situation in Turkey PDF (179 KB) DOC (56 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation of UNRWA PDF (264 KB) DOC (51 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on El Salvador: The cases of women prosecuted for miscarriage PDF (286 KB) DOC (54 KB)
JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on combating sexual harassment and abuse in the EU PDF (309 KB) DOC (61 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on combating sexual harassment and abuse in the EU PDF (282 KB) DOC (53 KB)
Oral questions (7)
Commission's failure to take urgent measures on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) PDF (50 KB) DOC (19 KB)
Commission's failure to take urgent measures on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) PDF (195 KB) DOC (19 KB)
Request for an investigation into compliance with the Tobacco directive following the Filtergate scandal PDF (195 KB) DOC (19 KB)
Major interpellation - Israel's involvement in projects financed under Horizon 2020 PDF (105 KB) DOC (17 KB)
Investigation in the wake of the Dieselgate 2.0 scandal PDF (197 KB) DOC (19 KB)
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons PDF (193 KB) DOC (19 KB)
Fight against trafficking of women and girls for sexual and labour exploitation in the EU PDF (204 KB) DOC (21 KB)
Written explanations (91)
Protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law (A8-0398/2018 - Virginie Rozière) FR
Les lanceurs d’alertes défendent l’intérêt général au prix de leur avenir professionnel, de leur santé voire de leur liberté. Les négociations interinstitutionnelles sur cette directive ont été houleuses, notamment à cause d’Emmanuel Macron qui s’était joint aux gouvernements de droite extrême en Hongrie et Autriche sur des positions dures concernant les canaux de signalement.On entend par là la hiérarchisation de signalement par un lanceur d’alerte d’un acte répréhensible en délimitant un processus en deux étapes : d’abord un signalement en interne de l’organisation ou externe vers une autorité compétente, puis un signalement en direction des médias et du public. Macron souhaitait une extrême rigidité quant à cette hiérarchie et faisait semblant de méconnaître le risque que ferait peser tout signalement systématique en interne de son entreprise par un lanceur d’alerte sur son développement professionnel par exemple.Le Parlement a fait reculer le Conseil et c’est tant mieux. La directive couvrira les salariés, les sous-traitants, les prestataires et toute personne ayant aidé le lanceur d’alerte. Toute entreprise d’au moins 50 employés devra se doter d’un mécanisme interne.La directive va dans le bon sens et je vote pour.
Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (A8-0173/2019 - Pier Antonio Panzeri, Cristian Dan Preda, Frank Engel, Charles Goerens) FR
Ce texte s’inscrit dans le contexte du cadre financier pluriannuel (CFP) 2021-2027 et contient la proposition de fusionner en un seul instrument l’ensemble des instruments financiers existants concernant la coopération internationale et l’aide au développement. Les instruments actuels sont en particulier le Fonds européen de développement, l’Instrument de voisinage européen et l’Instrument de coopération au développement.Cependant, une telle fusion risque de se faire au détriment du contrôle démocratique. La fusion aura également pour effet de diluer les objectifs en matière de coopération pour le développement, dans la mesure où il sera possible de réaffecter les fonds de la coopération au développement à d'autres objectifs de politique extérieure, notamment en matière de contrôle des migrations et de sécurité. Oxfam craint notamment que «les décisions soient dictées par l'intérêt de l'UE plutôt que par les besoins des populations locales des pays en développement».Mon groupe de la GUE-NGL pense qu'il aurait été possible d'accroître la complémentarité et la coordination entre les différents instruments sans les fusionner. Je vote contre.
Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA III) (A8-0174/2019 - José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Knut Fleckenstein) FR
Depuis 2007, l’«Instrument d’aide de préadhésion» est le principal instrument financier qui appuie les réformes aussi bien structurelles (néolibérales) qu’en matière d’État de droit dans les pays candidats et candidats potentiels, à savoir les six pays des Balkans occidentaux et la Turquie. Ces réformes s’appuient sur les critères de Copenhague (respect pour tout pays candidat des principes de démocratie, d’État de droit et d’économie de marché), le principe de conditionnalité et l’alignement progressif sur les règles, normes et politiques de l’Union.Le texte qui nous était soumis correspond à l’instrument pour la période 2021-2027, important tant d’un point de vue financier (14,5 milliards d’euros) que du fait de la temporalité. En effet, Jean-Claude Juncker a évoqué l’année 2025 comme possible date d’adhésion de certains pays des Balkans. Dans ce texte, Parlement insiste sur l’adhésion sous conditions des pays candidats. Et ces conditions posent problème: il ne s’agira pas prioritairement de lutter contre le changement climatique et les inégalités sociales, mais de «sécuriser» les frontières, de limiter les migrations, ou encore d’éliminer les obstacles au libre-échange, y compris les aides d’État (subventions publiques).Je lutte contre le néolibéralisme au sein de l’UE, ce n’est pas pour le voir appliqué en-dehors. Je vote contre.
Specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) (A8-0470/2018 - Pascal Arimont) FR
Ce règlement a pour but de préciser les objectifs de 2021 à 2027 pour le futur programme «Interreg», c’est-à-dire le volet de la coopération territoriale européenne du fonds de cohésion FEDER. Ce programme organise la simplification des programmes de coopération transfrontalière auxquelles participent un ou plusieurs États membres.La proposition de règlement définit des objectifs spécifiques, prévoit l'intégration des fonds dans les déclinaisons des programmes Interreg et fixe les critères d'éligibilité des pays tiers, pays partenaires et leurs régions. Il y est proposé de renforcer le budget (de 8,43 milliards à 11,17 milliards d’euros), ce qui n’est pas rien compte tenu de la baisse générale des crédits alloués aux politiques de solidarité.Par ailleurs, ce programme est exempté du règlement de l'application des règles sur les aides d’État et prévoit un taux de préfinancement à 3 % pour la première année de programmation, afin d’aider les projets à se lancer le plus facilement possible, notamment au début.Ce programme est important pour la coopération territoriale, j’ai donc voté pour.
EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (A8-0053/2019 - David Martin) FR
Ce texte ratifie l’accord de libre-échange UE-Singapour, le premier conclu entre l'Union et un État membre de l'Association des nations de l'Asie du Sud-Est (ASEAN). Plus de 10 000 entreprises de l'Union sont établies à Singapour et l'utilisent comme plaque tournante pour desservir l'ensemble de la côte du Pacifique. L’objectif principal de cet accord est évidemment d’ouvrir davantage la route de l’Asie aux multinationales européennes, au détriment de l’environnement et des équilibres sociaux et des travailleurs issus des deux ensembles.Je passe sur l’habituelle opacité des négociations de cet accord, le fait que Singapour reste un paradis fiscal et que le secret fiscal y a toujours cours. Cet accord comprend également des dispositions sur la «protection des investissements» et le règlement de leurs différends, ou plutôt une justice d’exception pour les multinationales mécontentes des protections légales que peut adopter tout pays souverain. Selon l'avis de la Cour de justice, ce dernier point relève de la compétence partagée et devra donc être ratifié par les parlements nationaux. Le PCF continuera la lutte à l’Assemblée nationale, en attendant je vote contre et dénonce l’irresponsabilité des néolibéraux.
Multiannual plan for stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks (A8-0310/2018 - Alain Cadec) FR
Ce texte met en place un plan de gestion de la pêche en Atlantique. Les flottes de Belgique, d'Allemagne, de France, d'Irlande, d'Espagne, du Portugal et du Royaume-Uni sont concernées, soit 48 000 pêcheurs et 18 000 navires. Selon l’association Oceana, 40% des stocks de cette zone sont aujourd’hui surexploités.L’objectif de cette proposition est d’établir un plan de gestion des stocks de manière durable et respectueuse d’une approche écosystémique, visant l’équilibre d’ici à 2020.Si l’objectif est louable, le texte souffre de carences graves. Les stocks partagés avec des pays tiers par exemple ne sont pas concernés, la pêche récréative disposerait de règles plus souples et certaines espèces de poisson ne pourraient pas bénéficier de fermetures saisonnières pendant les périodes de reproduction. Par ailleurs, ce texte ignore les enjeux spécifiques de la pêche artisanale et à petite échelle, le développement des communautés côtières par le biais d’activités liées à la pêche et la nécessité de soutenir leur activité professionnelle et leurs revenus.L’approche globale est donc trop centralisée et bureaucratique, éloignée des problématiques du terrain. Elle privilégiera ceux qui ont un accès plus facile et plus rapide aux ressources, grâce à la taille de leurs navires et à la technologie utilisée : la pêche industrielle.J’ai voté contre.
Amendments to Parliament's Rules of Procedure (A8-0462/2018 - Richard Corbett) FR
Dans ce texte, le Parlement européen revoit son règlement intérieur, afin d’améliorer son fonctionnement en vue de la future législature.Des avancées significatives y figurent. Désormais, les députés à des postes à responsabilité devront publier en ligne toutes les réunions faites avec des lobbies - et ce malgré la tentative de la droite européenne d’y faire obstacle. J’aurais souhaité que le texte aille plus loin et rende obligatoire de ne rencontrer que les lobbyistes inscrits au registre de transparence, mais c’est néanmoins un pas dans la bonne direction.L’interdiction du harcèlement moral ou sexuel est désormais introduite dans le code de conduite des élus, et s’ils ne la signent pas ils ne pourront pas accéder aux postes prestigieux.Enfin, la transparence en matière d’utilisation d’une enveloppe, dite de « frais généraux », est accrue.Sous la pression de la grande coalition, ce texte a failli limiter la libre formation des groupes politiques, ce qui se serait fait au détriment de ceux qui ne participent pas au « cercle de la raison ». Heureusement, la GUE et d’autres y ont fait échec.Le règlement intérieur du Parlement reste imparfait et faiblement démocratique, mais ces changements vont globalement dans le bon sens. Je vote pour.
European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) (A8-0445/2018 - Maria Arena) FR
Il s’agissait ici pour le Parlement de s’exprimer sur la forme que prendra le futur «Fonds d’ajustement à la mondialisation» sur la période 2021-2027.Pour rappel, ce Fonds intervient en cas de plans de licenciement massifs du fait, soit de la crise économique, soit de la «mondialisation», ou plutôt lorsque des entreprises entendent augmenter leurs profits au détriment de l’emploi. Il s’agit donc d’un simple palliatif qui ne répond pas aux enjeux de dumping social et de libre-échange aveugle.Pour autant, ce Fonds bénéficie in fine aux travailleurs en cofinançant leur reconversion et leur accompagnement vers le retour à l’emploi. Les nouveautés proposées dans le prochain CFP sont positives (abaissement du nombre de travailleurs licenciés pour débloquer un financement de 500 à 250 emplois supprimés, soutien à la création de coopératives...).Je m’abstiens donc, sans illusion sur l’utilité réelle de cet instrument.
Union’s authorisation procedure for pesticides (A8-0475/2018 - Norbert Lins, Bart Staes) FR
En juin 2017, l’affaire des «Monsanto papers» révélait les nombreuses failles de la procédure d’autorisation de mise en vente des pesticides sur le marché européen. Le Parlement s’est alors doté d’une commission spéciale, dont les conclusions sont présentées dans ce rapport.Ce rapport pointe les manquements au principe de précaution, demande la transparence totale des études utilisées tout au long de la procédure d’autorisation et l’interdiction du plagiat des études. Le Parlement y demande à la Commission de promouvoir les alternatives écologiquement viables et non chimiques aux pesticides, ainsi qu’une agriculture durable.Cependant, la droite du Parlement a refusé de remettre en cause le renouvellement de l’autorisation du glyphosate, pourtant largement discrédité par les «Monsanto papers», et le rapport ne prend pas position sur la cancérogénicité du produit. Le jour où l’on apprend que le dossier sur lequel l’Agence européenne de sécurité des aliments s’était basée pour autoriser le Roundup était le fruit d’un plagiat massif de Monsanto, c’est d’autant plus dommageable.Le rapport demeure cependant globalement cohérent quant aux pistes de révision de la procédure qu’il propose. Je vote pour.
Assessing how the EU budget is used for public sector reform (A8-0378/2018 - Brian Hayes) FR
Ce rapport s’inscrit dans le cadre de la doxa habituelle selon laquelle l’administration publique a besoin d’être réformée, a fortiori en période de ralentissement économique. Il encourage la Commission européenne à davantage mettre son nez dedans, notamment via la création d’un poste de commissaire à «l’amélioration de l’administration publique et de la gouvernance» lors de la prochaine mandature.Il y est question de «gouvernance» de l’administration publique – soit la confiscation de la politique au profit de la gestion managériale, dans la novlangue néolibérale – et le rapport propose la réintroduction d’un chapitre consacré à l’administration publique et à la gouvernance dans l’examen annuel de la croissance.Je vote évidemment contre.
New general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019 - all sections FR
Pour l'exercice 2019, le budget de l'Union s'établit à 165,8 milliards d'euros en crédits d'engagement et 148,2 milliards d'euros en crédits de paiement. Il reste donc en-deçà du 1 % symbolique du PIB communautaire, ce qui ne permet évidemment pas de faire face aux défis économiques et sociaux européens.L'idéologie générale de ce budget est celle d’une augmentation des fonds dédiés à la sécurité/migration (+55,9 % par rapport à 2018 pour cette dernière) et le financement de la défense au détriment des besoins importants pour la politique de cohésion ou la PAC.Mon groupe de la GUE-NGL a déposé plusieurs dizaines d’amendements reflétant nos priorités: la politique de cohésion et le budget en général bien insuffisant pour endiguer les différentiels entre États et la montée de la pauvreté, la PAC, le manque de lutte contre l’évasion fiscale, notamment des GAFA, etc.Ils ont tous été rejetés. Je vote donc contre le texte final.
New general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019 (A8-0454/2018 - Daniele Viotti, Paul Rübig) FR
Pour l'exercice 2019, le budget de l'Union s'établit à 165,8 milliards d'euros en crédits d'engagement et 148,2 milliards d'euros en crédits de paiement. Il reste donc en-deçà du 1% symbolique du PIB communautaire, ce qui ne permet évidemment pas de faire face aux défis économiques et sociaux européens.L'idéologie générale de ce budget est celle d’une augmentation des fonds dédiés à la sécurité/migration (+55,9% par rapport à 2018 pour cette dernière) et le financement de la défense au détriment des besoins importants pour la politique de cohésion ou la PAC.Mon groupe de la GUE-NGL a déposé plusieurs dizaines d’amendements reflétant nos priorités: la politique de cohésion et le budget en général bien insuffisant pour endiguer les différentiels entre États et la montée de la pauvreté, la PAC, le manque de lutte contre l’évasion fiscale, notamment des GAFA, etc.Ils ont tous été rejetés. Je vote donc contre le texte final.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (A8-0366/2018 - Pedro Silva Pereira) FR
Depuis José Manuel Barroso, l’Union européenne s’est lancée dans une frénésie d’accords de libre-échange. C’est ici le cas pour le Japon, avec lequel se négocie en plus une fameuse cour d’arbitrage des différends entre États et investisseurs, qui accorde à ces derniers l’accès à une justice d’exception.Le traité de libre-échange UE-Japon (JEFTA) vise à libéraliser les échanges et baisser les droits de douane, en particulier sur les automobiles et les produits agricoles. Cette libéralisation va mettre les entreprises européennes en concurrence directe avec des producteurs japonais très compétitifs, et bénéficier d’abord aux grands groupes spécialisés dans ce type de marché.Cet accord est le plus poussé jamais négocié concernant la «coopération réglementaire» entre deux parties. Cet euphémisme signifie en réalité que la définition démocratique des normes sociales, environnementales, etc. s’éloigne au profit d’instances technocratiques et autres comités de régulation euro-japonais confisqués par les groupes d’intérêts privés.Enfin, les chapitres «développement durable» de l’accord, soi-disant pour défendre l’environnement et les droits sociaux, ne changent rien aux pratiques japonaises par rapport à la pêche à la baleine et à la pêche au thon bleu, aux coupes de bois illégales, ni au fait que, sur les huit conventions fondamentales de l’Organisation internationale du travail, deux ne sont pas ratifiées par le Japon.Je vote contre.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (resolution) (A8-0367/2018 - Pedro Silva Pereira) FR
Depuis José Manuel Barroso, l’Union européenne s’est lancée dans une frénésie d’accords de libre-échange. C’est ici le cas pour le Japon, avec lequel se négocie en plus une fameuse cour d’arbitrage des différends entre États et investisseurs, qui accorde à ces derniers l’accès à une justice d’exception.L’accord de libre-échange UE-Japon (JEFTA) vise à libéraliser les échanges et baisser les droits de douane, en particulier sur les automobiles et les produits agricoles. Cette libéralisation va mettre les entreprises européennes en concurrence directe avec des producteurs japonais très compétitifs, et bénéficier d’abord aux grands groupes spécialisés dans ce type de marché.Cet accord est le plus poussé jamais négocié concernant la «coopération réglementaire» entre deux parties. Cet euphémisme signifie en réalité que la définition démocratique des normes sociales, environnementales, etc. s’éloigne au profit d’instances technocratiques et autres comités de régulation euro-japonais confisqués par les groupes d’intérêts privés.Enfin, les chapitres «développement durable» de l’accord, soi-disant pour défendre l’environnement et les droits sociaux, ne changent rien aux pratiques japonaises par rapport à la pêche à la baleine et à la pêche au thon bleu, aux coupes de bois illégales, ni au fait que, sur les huit conventions fondamentales de l’Organisation internationale du travail, deux ne sont pas ratifiées par le Japon.Je vote contre.
EU-Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement (A8-0383/2018 - Alojz Peterle) FR
Depuis José Manuel Barroso, l’Union européenne s’est lancée dans une frénésie de négociations d’accords de libre-échange, parfois assortis d’accords de coopération politique renforcée. C’est ici le cas pour le Japon, avec lequel se négocie en plus une fameuse cour d’arbitrage des différends entre États et investisseurs, qui accorde à ces derniers l’accès à une justice d’exception.Ce texte concernait la dimension politique de l’accord. La résolution vient rappeler un certain nombre de manquements du Japon: peine de mort toujours en vigueur, chasse à la baleine autorisée, conventions de l’Organisation internationale du travail non ratifiées (concernant la discrimination en matière d’emploi et de profession et sur l’abolition du travail forcé), etc. Dommage que ces aspects ne soient nullement contraignants et que ces mentions ne soient condamnées à rester que des paroles verbales! En outre, et la résolution le rappelle, cet accord politique fait partie du même paquet que l’accord de libre-échange UE-Japon (JEFTA). Pour ces raisons, j’ai voté contre.
EU-Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement (resolution) (A8-0385/2018 - Alojz Peterle) FR
Depuis José Manuel Barroso, l’Union européenne s’est lancée dans une frénésie de négociations d’accords de libre-échange, parfois assortis d’accords de coopération politique renforcée. C’est ici le cas pour le Japon, avec lequel se négocie en plus une fameuse cour d’arbitrage des différends entre États et investisseurs, qui accorde à ces derniers l’accès à une justice d’exception.Ce texte concernait la dimension politique de l’accord. La résolution vient rappeler un certain nombre de manquements du Japon: peine de mort toujours en vigueur, chasse à la baleine autorisée, conventions de l’Organisation internationale du travail non ratifiées (concernant la discrimination en matière d’emploi et de profession et sur l’abolition du travail forcé), etc. Dommage que ces aspects ne soient nullement contraignants et que ces mentions ne soient condamnées à rester que des paroles verbales! En outre, et la résolution le rappelle, cet accord politique fait partie du même paquet que l’accord de libre-échange UE-Japon (JEFTA). Pour ces raisons, j’ai voté contre.
Multiannual plan for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (A8-0337/2018 - Ruža Tomašić) FR
L'Adriatique représente environ un tiers de la valeur totale des prises en Méditerranée, avec principalement les sardines et anchois du fait de l'Italie et de la Croatie pour l’essentiel.La particularité de ces espèces est qu’elles ont une courte durée de vie, ce qui signifie qu’elles sont pêchées plus tôt que d’autres stocks, ce qui rend leur gestion à long terme différente de celle d’autres espèces. Les évaluations scientifiques confirment que les stocks sont en mauvais état et que la pression de la pêche doit être réduite.Ce plan pluriannuel pour la mer Adriatique affiche pour objectif de lutter contre la surpêche persistante qui pourrait conduire à un effondrement des stocks. Cependant, du fait de la droite de l’hémicycle et d’une partie des sociaux-démocrates, ce rapport introduit des réductions bien inférieures aux mesures nécessaires et non conformes aux recommandations scientifiques. Par conséquent, afin de garantir que des réductions conformes aux avis scientifiques soient introduites pour protéger les stocks et la viabilité de la pêcherie, nous avons voté des amendements visant à proposer une gestion alternative à l'approche du rapporteur. Ces amendements ont été rejetés. Autre problème, la proposition ignore complètement les petites pêcheries.J’ai donc voté contre et déplore l’adoption de ce rapport.
The rule of law in Romania (B8-0522/2018) FR
Comme lors du vote concernant la situation en Hongrie, il s’agit ici de réaffirmer l’importance du respect de l’État de droit en Roumanie.Or, le Conseil de l’Europe a ces derniers mois souligné le manque d’indépendance et la corruption qui frappent le pays: code pénal, Conseil supérieur de la magistrature ou encore loi sur les juges et procureurs en Roumanie. Il a notamment été constaté que la législation sur le contrôle des services secrets devrait être revue, que des projets de loi imposant des obligations supplémentaires aux ONG devraient être rejetés, et que le renvoi de 50 procureurs dont celui en charge de la Direction Nationale Anticorruption était un très mauvais signal.Plus récemment, le gouvernement social-démocrate a même revu la Constitution afin d’inscrire que le mariage ne peut être qu’entre un homme et une femme. Cette manœuvre de division était une façon de détourner l’attention du fait que le président du PS roumain a été condamné deux fois à la prison pour fraude électorale et trafic d’influence. Il fait d’ailleurs l’objet d’une enquête pour avoir détourné 20 millions d’euros de fonds européens et va comparaître en appel dans une affaire d’emplois fictifs qui lui a valu de la prison ferme en première instance.Je vote pour.
Public procurement strategy package (A8-0229/2018 - Carlos Coelho) FR
Cette résolution avait pour but d’évaluer la politique européenne en matière de passation de marchés publics, excessivement soumis à la politique de concurrence.Loin d’en faire un état des lieux critique, ce texte « rappelle que la mise en concurrence est essentielle dans la passation de marchés publics ». Surtout, il « demande à la Commission de veiller à ce que les entreprises européennes jouissent d’un accès au marché semblable à celui dont bénéficient les concurrents étrangers à l’égard du marché de l’Union, sans recourir à des mesures protectionnistes » et « demande à l’Union d’intervenir afin d’améliorer l’accès des fournisseurs de l’Union aux marchés publics des pays tiers, étant donné que les marchés publics de l’Union sont parmi les plus ouverts au monde ». Il s’agirait donc de contraindre les autres pays à pratiquer le libre-échange et de commettre les mêmes erreurs que nous.Pour ces raisons, j’ai évidemment voté contre.
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2018/001 NL/Financial service activities (A8-0294/2018 - Ivana Maletić) FR
Cette demande de mobilisation du Fonds d’ajustement à la mondialisation concerne plus de 1 300 travailleurs licenciés dans les succursales régionales de 20 banques dans trois régions des Pays-Bas où le taux de chômage moyen est déjà supérieur au taux national. Rabobank, ING, BNP et Santander sont par exemple concernées. La plupart des personnes licenciées sont celles qui traitent directement avec les clients et dans des activités administratives connexes (celles dont le niveau de formation est faible, et principalement des femmes).Bien que ces licenciements aient eu lieu en 2017, il nous est prétendu que la crise financière est directement responsable de la « baisse de la rentabilité qui a créé un besoin urgent de réduction des coûts ». En réalité, les banques ont fermé certaines de leurs succursales régionales et se sont tournées vers la banque en ligne pour augmenter leurs profits.Encore une fois, des entreprises qui en auraient pourtant les moyens (que ces banques mobilisent leur pactole caché dans les paradis fiscaux !) tentent de faire payer au contribuable leurs responsabilités sociales. Je vote contre, et déplore qu’une majorité du Parlement se laisse encore prendre.
The situation in Hungary (A8-0250/2018 - Judith Sargentini) FR
Pour la première fois, le Parlement a décidé de demander aux États-membres de déclencher une procédure pouvant mener à la suspension du droit de vote d’un pays dans les instances européennes. Le pays en question est bien entendu la Hongrie, où les droits fondamentaux sont régulièrement foulés aux pieds. Cette décision fait suite à de nombreux rapports sur le sujet. Le gouvernement d’extrême-droite de Viktor Orban a ainsi fait passer de nombreuses lois réactionnaires sur le code pénal, les frontières, la police et la défense nationale, toutes incompatibles avec le droit international et européen. Un paquet de lois adopté en 2017 autorise ainsi la détention générale de la quasi-totalité des demandeurs d'asile, y compris les enfants de plus de 14 ans, dans des «zones de transit» pendant toute la durée du processus de requête. Si Orban jouissait jusqu’à présent d’une certaine impunité du simple fait que ses élus siègent dans le groupe de la droite européenne, avec par exemple Les Républicains, ses excès ont fini par excéder jusque certains de ses alliés qui n’ont eu d’autre choix de lui adresser cet avertissement. J’ai évidemment voté pour, contrairement à la droite et extrême-droite françaises qui se radicalisent toujours plus et se placent à la marge du champ politique européen.
European Solidarity Corps (A8-0060/2018 - Helga Trüpel) FR
Annoncé en grande pompe par Jean-Claude Juncker, le Corps européen de solidarité aura pour principal objectif de permettre à 100 000 jeunes (18-30 ans) de prendre part d’ici à 2020 à des activités de solidarité, qu’il s’agisse de volontariat ou d’une expérience professionnelle contribuant à remédier à des situations difficiles partout en Europe. Le corps européen de solidarité entend soutenir les autorités et organismes nationaux et locaux, les ONG et les entreprises dans leurs efforts pour faire face à des difficultés insuffisamment traitées par les États membres, tels que l’extrême pauvreté, le sans-abrisme, la misère au sein des minorités et l’exclusion des demandeurs d’asile.L’objectif est donc louable : créer un sens de la collectivité, de la solidarité et de la responsabilité sociale. Là où le bât blesse, c’est que rien n’est prévu à propos de la question des rémunération ou couverture sociale de ces jeunes gens. Tout dépendra du contrat et de la législation de l’État membre concerné. Le risque est donc grand de créer des emplois bon marché voire non payés qui ne seraient donc pas une réponse appropriée au chômage des jeunes. Autre élément alarmant : tant les organisations à but non lucratif que celles à but lucratif pourront participer.C’est pourquoi j’ai voté contre.
Violation of rights of indigenous peoples in the world (A8-0194/2018 - Francisco Assis) FR
Ce texte non contraignant traite des peuples autochtones et de la violation de leurs droits dans le monde. Rappelons que la population totale des 5000 peuples autochtones est estimée à plus de 370 millions de personnes vivant dans plus de 70 pays dans le monde. On compte parmi eux les Samis d'Europe du Nord, les Aborigènes d'Australie et les Maoris de Nouvelle-Zélande. La Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones leur reconnaît des droits collectifs et individuels, mais ceux-ci sont régulièrement enfreints.Par conséquent, ce texte rappelle la nécessité de donner priorité à « la pleine reconnaissance » des peuples indigènes par l'UE et ses États membres, en mettant particulièrement l’accent sur l'égalité de genre, la protection des droits vis-à-vis des industries extractives, la criminalisation de ceux qui luttent contre l'accaparement des terres... Il propose aussi l’établissement d'un mécanisme international de lutte contre la vente illégale d'objets d'art indigènes.Ce rapport est donc globalement bon, mon groupe y a d’ailleurs contribué et j’ai voté pour. Je regrette seulement que la droite et l’extrême-droite aient réussi à supprimer certains passages critiques envers les politiques de l'UE concernant les populations autochtones et l'accaparement des terres.
Climate diplomacy (A8-0221/2018 - Arne Lietz, Jo Leinen) FR
Une nouvelle édition de la COP aura lieu en fin d’année à Katowice en Pologne. Dans cette perspective, ce texte rappelle que les effets du changement climatiques impactent évidemment les relations internationales (montée des eaux, raréfaction de l’eau, perte de biodiversité, multiplication des catastrophes naturelles, migrations climatiques, etc.). Le rapport appelle donc à réhausser les engagements européens pris à la COP21 et dans le cadre de l’agenda 2030 de l’ONU, par exemple en rendant obligatoire la ratification de la COP21 dans tous les accords bilatéraux et d’investissements. Il souligne la responsabilité qui incombe à l’UE et aux autres pays riches, étant donné qu’ils sont historiquement les principaux contributeurs au réchauffement climatique, à faire preuve d’une plus grande solidarité envers les États vulnérables. L’annonce par Donald Trump de retrait de l’accord de Paris y est enfin dénoncée.Certes, ce texte ne développe pas de vision commerciale alternative au tout-libre échange et encore moins du rôle pernicieux des multinationales dans la violation et la confiscation des biens communs. Il ne rappelle pas à ce titre les travaux onusiens en cours pour un mécanisme contraignant pour les multinationales. Il ne pose pour autant pas de problèmes majeurs et j’ai voté pour.
Use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (A8-0193/2018 - Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar) FR
Ce rapport vise à ouvrir la possibilité aux entreprises de louer des véhicules sans chauffeurs pour le transport de marchandises au niveau de l’Union. Cela n’est pas mauvais en soi et peut aider les entreprises à faire face aux aléas de leur activité. Mais cela implique que ce texte soit exempt de toute faille juridique qui encouragerait les fraudes, tant au niveau social que fiscal. Dit autrement, il nous faut des gardes fous clairs et fermes pour encadrer cette ouverture. J’ai proposé dans mon travail de co-rapporteure une limitation de temps de location à un mois maximum, deux fois par an, et une limitation en volume avec un maximum de 25% de la flotte. Ces propositions ont été balayées pour faire place à l’ouverture totale et sans limites au mépris le plus total des risques engendrés. J’ai bien sûr voté contre ce texte et j’ai soutenu la motion de renvoi en commission.
Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations: Enforcement requirements and specific rules for posting drivers in the road transport sector (A8-0206/2018 - Merja Kyllönen) FR
Ce rapport est le second rapport du paquet mobilité et concerne le statut des travailleurs détachés de la route qui ont été exclus de la directive générale des travailleurs détachés. Le rapport est absolument inacceptable avec l’exclusion de toutes les opérations de transport international du statut de détachement. C’est une très large majorité des travailleurs de la route qui sont ainsi purement et simplement privés de leurs droits. Comme pour les autres textes j’ai tout fait pour obtenir le retrait de ce mandat de négociation en récoltant les signatures nécessaires. J’ai voté CONTRE ce mandat afin que ce texte soit présenté devant la plénière en Juillet.
Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations: Amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards on minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (A8-0205/2018 - Wim van de Camp) FR
Ce rapport est le premier rapport du paquet mobilité et concerne le temps de travail et de repos des travailleurs de la route. Le texte est accablant: autorisation du temps de repos hebdomadaire dans la cabine du camion, flexibilisation des temps de conduite et de repos (en pratique, 2 jours seulement de repos pour 3 semaines de conduite), flexibilisation des temps de pause. C’est avec détermination que je me suis battue auprès des syndicats pour obtenir le retrait de ce mandat de négociation en récoltant les signatures nécessaires à la mise au vote du mandat. J’ai bien entendu voté contre ce mandat afin que ce texte soit présenté devant la plénière en juillet.
Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations Amending Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 with a view to adapting them to developments in the sector (A8-0204/2018 - Ismail Ertug) FR
Ce rapport est le troisième rapport du paquet «mobilité» et concerne la pratique du cabotage, qui se définit comme une succession de transports courts sur un territoire autre que son territoire national. Cette pratique est une forme de dumping social qui s’est largement développée ces dernières années, notamment en France et en Belgique. Le compromis proposé d’une autorisation de 7 jours de cabotage avec limitation de 48 heures consécutives dans un État membre est largement insuffisant. Comme pour les autres textes, j’ai participé à la récolte des signatures pour m’opposer au mandat puis voté contre ce mandat afin que ce texte soit présenté devant la plénière en juillet.
Negotiations on the modernisation of the EU-Chile Association Agreement (A8-0158/2018 - Charles Tannock) FR
Ce texte s’inscrit dans le cadre des négociations visant à moderniser l’Accord d’association avec le Chili, en vigueur depuis 2003. Cet accord était déjà à l’époque de son adoption l’un des plus poussés en matière de libre-échange, couvrant notamment l’accès réciproque aux marchés publics. D’ailleurs, les échanges commerciaux entre UE et Chili ont doublé depuis. L’UE exporte surtout du matériel de transport tandis que le Chili exporte vers l’UE des produits agricoles (vin, fruit), du cuivre et autres métaux.Cela ne suffit manifestement pas aux partisans du libre-échange de la Commission qui souhaitent une «mise à jour» de l’accord d’association, en parallèle avec la négociation actuelle des accords avec le Mexique et le Mercosur. Il s’agit donc de baisser encore davantage les barrières tarifaires et non tarifaires, afin de contrer les efforts d’autres acteurs, tels que la Chine et la Russie, qui tentent de gagner en influence dans la région. Et tant pis pour nos agriculteurs qui vont subir la concurrence directe de produits comme l’huile d’olive, et tant pis pour l’environnement qui pâtirait aussi de l’augmentation des importations (viande par exemple). Je vote contre ce texte, favorable à la poursuite des négociations.
EU-NATO relations (A8-0188/2018 - Ioan Mircea Paşcu) FR
Ce rapport est en lien avec la préparation du prochain sommet de l’OTAN à Bruxelles en juillet 2018. Dans un contexte de montées de tension avec la Russie où l’OTAN effectue des déploiements en quatre groupements multinationaux en Estonie, Lettonie, Lituanie et Pologne, dirigés respectivement par le Royaume-Uni, le Canada, l'Allemagne et les États-Unis, le rapport « se félicite de la présence renforcée de l'OTAN sur le flanc Est ». De plus le rapport se place en soutien total à la politique de l’Europe de la défense et adoube sans discuter la consigne d’augmentation des dépenses à 2 % du PIB. J’ai évidemment et sans hésiter voté contre ce rapport et continuerai à me battre contre ces dérives va-t’en guerre irresponsables et dangereuses.
State of play of recreational fisheries in the EU (A8-0191/2018 - Norica Nicolai) FR
Ce rapport traite de la pêche de loisir, à laquelle ne s’appliquent pas les dispositions générales de la politique européenne de la pêche. Cependant, pour certains poissons, les captures de loisir représentent une part importante de la mortalité totale. Il a donc été récemment décidé d’introduire quelques dispositions en matière de quotas (limites de capture annuelles) pour limiter les captures de la pêche de loisir. Les principaux exemples concernent notamment la morue dans la mer Baltique et le bar dans l'Atlantique.Le principal objectif du rapport est donc de veiller à ce que ces captures soient prises en compte dans la gestion de la pêche commerciale, afin qu’elles ne s'ajoutent pas simplement aux quotas commerciaux. Les quotas commerciaux sont déjà parfois trop élevés, de sorte que l’ajout permettrait des captures encore plus importantes et nuirait à la durabilité des stocks. Ce rapport souligne leur impact sur les stocks et insiste sur le fait que de meilleures données soient collectées sur celles-ci afin d'analyser leur impact. Je vote pour.
Towards a sustainable and competitive European aquaculture sector (A8-0186/2018 - Carlos Iturgaiz) FR
En Europe, l'aquaculture représente environ 20% de la production de poisson, emploie directement quelque 85 000 personnes et est principalement composée de PME ou de micro-entreprises dans les zones côtières et rurales. Le contexte économique est néanmoins difficile avec une diminution de la production d’environ 100 000 tonnes entre 2009 et 2013, en raison de la crise.C’est dans ce cadre que s’inscrit ce texte. Le rapport stipule que l’aquaculture contribue à la sécurité alimentaire à long terme et représente un vrai potentiel en tant qu'industrie locale. Il préconise une attention particulière à l'aquaculture dans l'aménagement du territoire et critique également la mauvaise utilisation et l'utilisation du financement de l'UE pour aider le secteur.Certes, l'aquaculture n'est pas une solution à la surpêche. Elle ne va pas sans effets négatifs non plus : déchets, surpêche pour nourrir les poissons... Mais globalement, l'accent est mis dans ce rapport sur la nécessité d’une aquaculture qui contribue à protéger les écosystèmes marins et les populations locales, en évitant le déplacement et la destruction de la pêche artisanale et de la petite pêche. Je vote pour.
Objection pursuant to Rule 106: genetically modified maize GA21 (MON-ØØØ21-9) (D056125) (B8-0232/2018) FR
Au mépris total du principe de précaution et alors même que les évaluations menées par l’EFSA (Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments) sur les risques des produits génétiquement modifiés restent largement insuffisantes, la Commission persiste et signe.Cette fois, elle demande au Parlement d’approuver la mise sur le marché de deux nouveaux types de maïs génétiquement modifiés, rendus tolérants au glufosinate et au glyphosate, les deux herbicides les plus répandus au sein de l’Union européenne.C’est une véritable aberration de demander au Parlement européen d’autoriser la culture de plantes OGM résistantes au glyphosate, alors même que ce même Parlement a décidé, en octobre dernier, la suppression progressive de cette substance d’ici 5 ans.Pour rappel, le glyphosate est classé depuis 2015 comme substance « cancérogène probable » pour l’homme par le Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer (CIRC).J’ai comme toujours voté en faveur de ces nouvelles objections formulées par la commission ENVI et me félicite que le Parlement tienne bon et fasse encore une fois front commun contre les OGM.Il est grand temps que la Commission européenne cesse de jouer avec la santé des citoyens européens et que la France prenne également les siennes et ne diffère pas à demain une question majeure de santé publique.
2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework and own resources (B8-0239/2018, B8-0240/2018, B8-0241/2018) FR
Le Parlement devait se prononcer mercredi 30 janvier sur la proposition de la Commission pour le prochain budget européen 2021-2027. La résolution proposée adoube les nouvelles priorités de l’Union: Europe militarisée avec la création d’un budget consacré à la défense, Europe forteresse avec un contrôle accru des frontières... Les choix politiques ne sont pas remis en cause, si ce n’est la critique des coupes dans l’agriculture (-15%) et la cohésion (-10%).J’ai donc voté contre, d’autant que mon groupe de la GUE/NGL avait déposé sa propre résolution qui développe toutes nos priorités politiques: renforcement de l’investissement public, soutien aux secteurs productifs, création d’emplois protecteurs des droits des travailleurs et de services publics de qualité...
Minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (A8-0168/2018 - Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Angelika Mlinar) FR
Ce rapport vise à évaluer la mise en œuvre de la directive sur les normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité dans les États membres de l’Union européenne. Il évalue l’efficacité et l’application concrète de la directive et formule des recommandations.Cette directive va dans le bon sens et garantit que les personnes victimes d'actes criminels soient reconnues, traitées avec respect et reçoivent un soutien et un accès appropriés à la justice.Je suis particulièrement contente du travail fourni par mon groupe, la GUE/NGL, qui a largement travaillé à la prise en compte la perspective de genre ainsi que des besoins spécifiques de groupes spécifiques de victimes exigeant par exemple plus de protection et de services pour les sans-papiers, les personnes LGBTI et les survivant.es de violence.Le rapport souligne également l'importance de la Convention d'Istanbul en tant qu'outil crucial pour lutter contre la violence à l'égard des femmes. J’ai évidemment voté pour ce rapport.
Annual report on the implementation of the Common Commercial Policy (A8-0166/2018 - Tokia Saïfi) FR
Ce rapport fait le bilan de la politique commerciale européenne sur la dernière période. Et c’est peu dire que le bilan est lourd, avec l'adoption du CETA (Canada), l’accord avec le Japon, le Mercosur (Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentine, Brésil) ; l'ouverture de négociations avec l’Australie, la Nouvelle-Zélande ; la poursuite de celles avec le Mexique, Chili, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, Chine, Inde, Indonésie ; les accords de partenariat économique imposés aux pays en développement... Ajoutons-y le tour de passe-passe de la Commission pour soustraire la conclusion des futurs accords commerciaux du contrôle des parlements nationaux qui constitue un nouveau déni de démocratie.Ce rapport correspond à un satisfecit global donné à la Commission. C’est ne rien comprendre aux millions de citoyens qui se sont mobilisés contre le TTIP, le CETA et les autres accords de libre-échange. Je vote contre.
Annual report on the control of the financial activities of the European Investment Bank for 2016 (A8-0139/2018 - Marco Valli) FR
Ce rapport vise à évaluer les principales réalisations et l'impact du financement de la Banque européenne d’investissement (BEI) en 2016, cette institution financière publique qui emprunte sur les marchés pour financer des projets et investissements stratégiques au sein de l'Union européenne.Ce texte rappelle que la BEI a mobilisé 280 milliards d'euros d'investissements et financé directement des projets pour 83,8 milliards d'euros. Dans des termes fermes, il émet un certain nombre de critiques et formule des recommandations quant à la manière dont sont menées les affaires de la BEI. Gouvernance, lutte contre la fraude fiscale, intégration d’objectifs environnementaux dans la sélection des projets... Quand bien même ce rapport n’est pas contraignant, son approche critique est pertinente et va dans la bonne direction. Je vote pour.
Protection of children in migration (B8-0218/2018) FR
A la date du 1er septembre 2016, 821 enfants étaient maintenus dans des centres de rétention pour migrants dans neuf États membres de l’Union européenne. Le chiffre pour l’ensemble de l’Union européenne est probablement largement supérieur car la majorité des États ne fournissent ni ne collectent systématiquement des données de ce type.Cette résolution rappelle quelques principes fondamentaux. Ainsi, les informations nécessaires relatives aux droits des enfants, aux procédures et aux possibilités de protection devraient être mises à leur disposition d’une manière qui leur soit adaptée ; les enfants non accompagnés doivent être hébergés dans des installations séparées des adultes afin d’éviter les risques de violence et d’abus sexuels ; les enfants ne peuvent être placés en rétention dans le cadre des procédures d’immigration et doivent être logés avec leurs familles dans des structures adaptées. Surtout, ce texte rappelle à la Commission qu’elle se devrait de lancer des procédures d’infraction contre les États membres où sont constatés des cas de rétention prolongée et systématique d’enfants migrants et de leur famille.Au moment où Emmanuel Macron et sa majorité adopte une loi permettant la rétention des enfants jusque 90 jours, ce texte me paraît salutaire. Je vote pour.
Composition of the European Parliament (A8-0007/2018 - Danuta Maria Hübner, Pedro Silva Pereira) FR
Le projet d’Emmanuel Macron et consorts est de prendre prétexte de la crise politique et démocratique sans précédent que traverse l’Union pour refonder celle-ci vers toujours plus de libéralisme et d’accaparement des pouvoirs aux mains d’une minorité. Les listes transnationales voulues par Emmanuel Macron participent de cet objectif et de fait ne répondent pas à la construction d’une véritable démocratie en Europe.Plus dangereux encore: le gouvernement allemand et d’autres défendent un «seuil européen de représentation». Quid de la proportionnalité? Ce seuil, s’il est instauré, menacerait le pluralisme et gommerait toute voix divergente au sein des institutions. L’Union traverse aujourd’hui une crise démocratique majeure. Le Brexit tout comme la défiance croissante des peuples vis-à-vis des institutions européennes demande une réponse structurelle afin de répondre aux aspirations populaires. Je pense pour ma part que la question démocratique vaut bien plus que des tractations de couloirs et de répartition des sièges. Pour cette raison, je me suis abstenue sur ce rapport.
Objection to a delegated act: Adding Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago and Tunisia to the list of high-risk third countries (B8-0074/2018) FR
À la suite des scandales de blanchiment d’argent, d’évasion fiscale ou de financement des groupes terroristes qui surgissent tous les trois mois, la Commission se veut agissante. Le règlement entré en vigueur en septembre 2016 prévoit des contrôles bancaires rehaussés pour les pays sur la liste noire.La Commission n’ayant pas d’organisme propre de contrôle, elle se fie normalement au Groupe d’action financière. S’ensuivent des tractations de couloirs où chacun veut retirer «ses amis» de la liste. Résultat: 11 pays, dont aucun pays membre de l’UE. Le Panama est sorti de la liste le 23 janvier dernier par le Conseil. D’autres comme l’Arabie saoudite n’y ont jamais figuré.Je pense qu’il faut arrêter de jouer la comédie, que la question de l’évasion fiscale doit être traitée de façon structurelle et non par une liste absurde. Si la Commission est incapable d’effectuer ce travail, elle n’a qu’à se reposer sur celui des ONG, qui elles luttent réellement contre le blanchiment et l’évasion fiscale. L’ajout du Sri Lanka, de Trinité-et-Tobago et de la Tunisie à la liste ne changeant en rien le problème de fond, bien au contraire, j’ai voté pour l’objection au règlement délégué.
Request for waiver of the immunity of Steeve Briois (A8-0011/2018 - Evelyn Regner) FR
Je me félicite de l’adoption à une large majorité par le Parlement Européen de la levée de l’immunité du député-maire d’Hénin Beaumont Steeve Briois. Celle-ci intervient à la suite des propos injurieux et aux calomnies proférés à l’encontre de David Noël (conseiller municipal PCF) et d’autres élus de l’opposition. Cet appel au lynchage datant de décembre 2015 fait suite à la demande des élus de voir retirer la crèche de Noël installée dans les locaux de la mairie d'Hénin-Beaumont en dépit de tout respect de la neutralité républicaine. Ces insultes sont toujours présentes sur la page Facebook de Steeve Briois. Je tiens ici à réaffirmer qu’au sein de la République Française, la laïcité n’est pas une « option facultative » mais un devoir, en particulier des élus et représentants des institutions. En outre, les violences et injures dont font l’objet nos camarades, les associations et les représentants de l’opposition républicaine dans les mairies tenues par le FN, se font de plus en plus virulentes et sont instituées en système. J’ai donc voté cette levée d’immunité afin que la justice soit rendue. Je continuerais par ailleurs à dénoncer les modes de fonctionnements des mairies tenues par le FN visant par l’intimidation et le harcèlement à faire taire toute opposition.
Cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments (A8-0003/2017 - Julie Girling) FR
Il s'agissait avec ce texte de la réforme du «marché carbone» (le système d'échange des droits d'émission de gas CO2 par les industries lourdes et centrales électriques européennes), pierre angulaire de la politique européenne de lutte contre le changement climatique.Le rapporteur commence fort dans son exposé des motifs en estimant que ce «mécanisme, fondé sur le marché, est la solution qui présente le meilleur rapport coût-efficacité». Plus concrètement, le rapport se prononce pour un facteur de réduction linéaire de 2,2 % (taux de réduction annuel d'émission des quotas, car ce marché souffre d'une suroffre de droits à polluer), quand un taux de 2,4 % minimum était nécessaire pour que cela ait un réel effet.De plus, selon ce rapport, les bénéfices du marché carbone seraient en partie reversés à deux fonds soutenant l'innovation et la modernisation énergétique. C'est bien mais largement insuffisant pour contrebalancer d’une part la faiblesse de cette réforme et d’autre part le fait que le prix du CO2 ne saurait être l’alpha et l’oméga de la politique climatique. Celle-ci doit prioritairement passer par la mobilisation des citoyens, les normes publiques et des investissements dans la transition.Je vote contre.
Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (A8-0392/2017 - José Blanco López) FR
Avec ce texte, le Parlement européen a fixé l’objectif de 35 % d’énergies renouvelables d’ici 2030 ainsi que de 12 % dans le domaine des transports. Mes réserves sur ce texte sont les mêmes que pour l’ensemble du paquet énergie, c’est-à-dire le manque d’objectifs contraignants nationaux, mais aussi une mauvaise prise en compte de la précarité énergétique et bien sûr une logique mortifère de mise en concurrence et de libéralisation du secteur.Concernant les biocarburants, si le texte conserve quelques avancées, et notamment l’arrêt du soutien à l’huile de palme à partir de 2021 et une légère limitation des biocarburants de 1ère génération, néanmoins il reste bien en deçà de ce que l’on pouvait espérer en la matière. Enfin, l’inclusion de la biomasse, c’est à dire la combustion de bois, dans les objectifs d’énergie renouvelable sans aucun critère de durabilité digne de ce nom est parfaitement inacceptable. La définition fine et précise de qui constitue une énergie renouvelable ou non doit se faire à la lumière de critères scientifiques précis et mesurables dans le temps, sans quoi cela constitue un non-sens absolu et rend caduc toute notre démarche.J’ai choisi de m’abstenir sur ce vote.
Energy efficiency (A8-0391/2017 - Miroslav Poche) FR
L’efficacité énergétique est l’un des enjeux majeurs pour l’évolution de nos modèles énergétiques et pour la transition écologique à l’échelle nationale comme européenne. Ce texte pose comme objectif un gain de 35 % d’efficacité énergétique à l’horizon 2030.Cependant, si cet objectif est plus important que la proposition de la Commission (30 %) reprise également par le Conseil, elle n’est néanmoins pas à la hauteur des 40 % qui avaient été votés en commission. En outre, ces objectifs ne sont contraignants qu’à l’échelle de l’Union européenne et les propositions de mettre en place des objectifs contraignants pays par pays ont été évincés du texte. Je regrette que les amendements posés par mon groupe concernant la lutte contre la précarité énergétique, qui est pourtant un enjeu majeur, aient également été exclus du rapport.C’est donc un texte qui va dans le bon sens, mais qui est loin d’être suffisant pour soutenir les changements qui s’imposent dans ce domaine. La transition énergétique ne doit pas reposer sur le bon vouloir de quelques pays bons élèves, mais bien être une démarche ambitieuse, concertée et collective, qui mette au premier plan les objectifs humains et environnementaux. En cohérence avec mes autres votes sur le paquet énergie, j’ai choisi de m’abstenir.
Governance of the Energy Union (A8-0402/2017 - Michèle Rivasi, Claude Turmes) FR
Le Parlement arrêtait ici sa position quant au règlement accompagnant les textes du « paquet énergie », qui vise à donner à l’Union et ses États membres les moyens de répondre collectivement aux engagements pris à la COP21.Ce texte comporte des avancées indéniables. Sont notamment adoptés un objectif zéro émissions en 2050, un budget carbone à ne pas dépasser pour l’UE, la création de stratégies climat nationales détaillées jusqu’en 2050 et la consultation des autorités locales lors de l’élaboration de ces plans.Cependant, ce texte s’inscrit aussi dans une politique d’ensemble qui reste toujours la même.La transition énergétique devrait s’appuyer sur des mécanismes de marché (par exemple le marché carbone, pourtant inopérant).Ce texte appelle également à « l’accroissement de la flexibilité du système, en particulier par la suppression des obstacles à la libre formation des prix » - soit la fin des tarifs réglementés, ce qui rendrait les consommateurs plus perméables aux changements des prix mondiaux et renforcerait la précarité énergétique.Enfin, aucun lien n’est fait avec une politique industrielle européenne de développement de filières créatrices d’emplois, au contraire de la tendance actuelle d’importation de matériels conçus et fabriqués hors UE et les suppressions d’emplois (Siemens, GE et demain peut-être Alstom).Je me suis donc abstenue.
Implementation of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (A8-0368/2017 - Anna Maria Corazza Bildt) FR
. – Ce rapport concerne la mise en œuvre d’une directive adoptée en 2011 à propos de la lutte contre les abus sexuels et l’exploitation sexuelle des enfants. Cette directive imposait aux États membres l’obligation de fournir à leur police et justice des instruments efficaces pour enquêter sur les délits sexuels sur mineurs et identifier les victimes à un stade précoce. Or, il s’avère que les enquêtes et les poursuites liées aux délits sexuels sur mineurs restent difficiles à mener. Plusieurs facteurs réduisent l’efficacité des techniques d’enquête notamment en ligne : le chiffrement des communications sur l’internet, les divergences entre les règles de conservation des données en vigueur dans les différents États membres, le recours croissant à des outils d’anonymisation... Dans ces situations, il est souvent délicat de déterminer quel pays est compétent et quelle législation s’applique au recueil des preuves. Ce rapport appelle en conséquence à renforcer la coopération interne à l’Union. En outre, la directive donne la possibilité aux États membres de prendre des mesures pour bloquer l’accès aux contenus pédopornographiques. Seule la moitié des États membres ont choisi de transposer cette disposition, ce que déplore ce rapport. Ces recommandations vont dans le bon sens. Je vote pour.
Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions 2016 (A8-0387/2017 - Notis Marias) FR
. – Comme chaque année, la commission des pétitions informe l’ensemble du Parlement du résultat de ses délibérations. Le présent rapport vise dès lors à récapituler, en les synthétisant, les activités de la commission au cours de l’année 2016. L’ordre du jour des travaux de la commission est dicté par les préoccupations exprimées par les citoyens qui exercent leur droit de pétition auprès du Parlement. Selon les statistiques, le Parlement européen a reçu 1 569 pétitions en 2016, ce qui représente une augmentation de 9,6 % par rapport à 2015. Une part significative de ces pétitions concerne le Brexit mais aussi les obstacles auxquels se heurtent les personnes handicapées dans divers domaines, tels que l’accès aux transports publics, l’utilisation d’une langue des signes, la finance ou l’accès à l’éducation. J’ai voté pour ce rapport.Cependant, je lie ce sujet à celui des plus de 40 initiatives citoyennes présentées par un million de citoyens à la Commission qui n’a pas jugé bon de donner de suite législative à une seule d’entre elles – sur le CETA, l’interdiction du glyphosate ou le droit d’accès à l’eau, par exemple. C’est dire le peu de cas qui est fait de la démocratie dans les institutions européennes.
A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (A8-0356/2017 - Bas Eickhout) FR
. – Ce rapport porte sur la stratégie européenne pour une mobilité à faible taux d’émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Si le texte comporte quelques éléments positifs, comme le fait de souligner que les transports publics présentent un large potentiel pour réduire le volume du trafic routier et les émissions qui y sont associées, il n’est pas pour autant satisfaisant. En effet, toute la stratégie est développée dans une logique ultralibérale de privatisations et de mise en concurrence qui est non seulement inefficace mais aussi contre-productive. Par exemple, la libéralisation du fret sur rail et sa mise en concurrence directe avec le secteur de la route amène à une augmentation massive des émissions. De la même manière, le quatrième paquet ferroviaire ou encore le ciel unique européen sont un total non-sens d’un point de vue écologique.La transition écologique et la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre sont une priorité absolue pour lutter contre le réchauffement climatique. Cette démarche est vouée à l’échec si elle est subordonnée aux lois du marché et de l’ultralibéralisme. Je vote contre.
State of play of negotiations with the United Kingdom (B8-0676/2017, B8-0677/2017) FR
. – Dans cette résolution, le Parlement salue le rapport d’avancement conjoint sur le Brexit tel que présenté par les négociateurs de l’UE et du Royaume-Uni le 8 décembre, qui conclut la première phase de négociations visant à mettre un terme aux relations actuelles entre les deux parties, avant d’entamer une 2e phase relative aux relations futures. Le Parlement européen a tenu à préciser que les négociations ne peuvent avancer durant la seconde phase que si le gouvernement britannique respecte tous les engagements pris dans le rapport conjoint et les traduisent entièrement dans le projet d’accord de retrait, à savoir :- les droits des citoyens européens au Royaume-Uni doivent être étendus aux futurs partenaires ;- une procédure légère de déclaration administrative doit être disponible pour les citoyens de l’UE et du Royaume-Uni qui souhaitent obtenir un statut de ‘‘résident permanent’’ ;- les décisions de la Cour européenne de justice relatives aux droits des citoyens doivent être contraignantes ;- le droit à la liberté de circulation pour les citoyens britanniques résidant actuellement dans les États membres de l’UE27 doit être garanti ; et- les engagements du Royaume-Uni relatifs à l’Irlande du Nord doivent être mis en œuvre.Je vote pour.
Objection to an implementing act: use of phosphoric acid – phosphates – di – tri – and polyphosphates (E 338-452) in frozen vertical meat spits (B8-0666/2017) FR
. – La Commission européenne a présenté devant le Parlement Européen son projet d'autoriser dans l'Union européenne l'utilisation des additifs phosphorés E 338-452 dans la viande des kebabs, qu’elle provienne de mouton, d’agneau, de veau, de bœuf ou de volaille. Ces additifs sont potentiellement dangereux pour l’Homme, notamment concernant les maladies cardio-vasculaires, et c’est la raison pour laquelle j’ai voté pour cette objection qui demandait le retrait du texte. Contrairement à ce qu’ont affirmé de nombreux médias européens et notamment allemands, il ne s’agit pas ici d’interdire la viande de kebab mais bien de veiller à sa qualité ainsi qu’à la sécurité alimentaire des consommateurs et consommatrices de ces produits. Bien que la motion de rejet ait été largement soutenue par une grande majorité d'eurodéputés (373 voix pour, 272 contre et 30 abstentions), l’objection a manqué d’à peine trois voix pour atteindre la majorité absolue et permettre son adoption.
Amendments to various Regulations in the field of agriculture and rural development (A8-0380/2017 - Albert Deß) FR
. – Il s'agissait avec ce texte de simplifier les règles financières applicables au budget de l’Union en ce qui concerne l'octroi des fonds communautaires aux États membres et aux autres bénéficiaires en matière de dispositions agricoles. Ce règlement a donc pour but de simplifier la PAC et de renforcer les outils de gestion des risques et les Organisations de producteurs. Ce texte permettra de garantir la sécurité juridique ainsi qu'une mise en œuvre harmonisée et non discriminatoire de l’aide aux jeunes agriculteurs. Il prévoit aussi la possibilité pour les États membres, dans des cas dûment justifiés, d’aider les agriculteurs au moyen d'instruments sectoriels de stabilisation des revenus, notamment pour les secteurs touchés par de fortes baisses de revenus. Enfin, les changements apportés à la définition de «prairies permanentes» constituent une amélioration, les changements apportés donneront aux États membres plus de flexibilité pour déterminer l'assimilabilité des terres avec la possibilité d'étendre ce qui peut être considéré comme prairie et donc éligible au paiement dans les zones marginales. Outre la restauration des emplois et des activités nécessaires à la revitalisation de ces zones, ce changement devrait donner à ces territoires souvent marginalisés une véritable fonction agricole. Je vote pour.
EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS): continuing current limitations of scope for aviation activities and preparing to implement a global market-based measure from 2021 (A8-0258/2017 - Julie Girling) FR
. – Ce rapport concerne la réforme du système d’échange de quotas d’émission (ETS) de l’UE pour la période 2021-2030. Il s’agit du maintien de l'actuelle restriction du champ d'application pour les activités aériennes civiles et de la préparation de la mise en œuvre d’un mécanisme de marché mondial à partir de 2021. S’il est évident que la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique passe par une réduction des émissions de gaz à effets de serre, dont celles produites par l’aviation civile, la cohérence environnementale des quotas d’émission est plus que douteuse. En effet, en plus d’être peu ambitieux, ce système, fondé sur le marché et la mise en concurrence ne permet pas un véritable contrôle de ces émissions. Ce rapport propose néanmoins deux éléments positifs : la création d’un fonds d'innovation avec des quotas gratuits pour les solutions innovantes et une clause positive pour la Grèce. J’ai choisi de m’abstenir pour ne pas bloquer ces deux éléments positifs mais reste attentive et lucide sur le système ETS. La lutte contre le changement climatique a besoin de véritables mesures de contrôle et de plus d’ambition.
Rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes (A8-0378/2017 - Tiemo Wölken) FR
. – Le règlement « câble et satellite » (CABSAT) établit des règles sur l’exercice du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins applicables à certaines diffusions en ligne d’organismes de radiodiffusion et retransmissions d’émissions de télévision et de radio. La proposition faite le 14 septembre 2016 par la Commission remet en cause les accords d’exclusivité territoriale qui sont pourtant la clé de voûte de la distribution et du financement de nos produits culturels, notamment audiovisuels et radiophoniques.Je soutiens la position de la commission des affaires juridiques, compétente sur le fond, qui affirme le principe du pays d’origine comme règle absolue en matière de préservation du droit d’auteur. De même, ce compromis permet qu’une exception s’applique pour les « actualités et affaires courantes » qui sont des services déjà accessibles à tous sur le net. Je suis profondément attachée à la préservation de la diversité des espaces culturels et linguistiques ainsi qu’à la juste rémunération de celles et ceux qui produisent cette diversité. Je vote pour.
EU-USA Air Transport Agreement (A8-0376/2017 - Theresa Griffin) FR
. – En juin 2003, la Communauté européenne et ses États membres ont reçu le mandat de négocier un accord avec les États-Unis en vue d’un accord sur le transport aérien. L’objectif des négociations était l’établissement d’un «espace aérien sans frontières» entre les parties. Il s’agit d’un marché unique des transports aériens où les transporteurs européens et ceux des États-Unis seraient en mesure de fournir des services aériens sans aucune restriction, et à l’intérieur même des marchés intérieurs des deux parties. Pour conclure l’accord entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres, d’une part, et les États-Unis d’Amérique, d’autre part, le Conseil a besoin de l’approbation du Parlement européen. C’est avec fermeté que je m’oppose à cet accord inacceptable et que je vote contre. La mise en concurrence du secteur du ciel est un danger tant pour des questions de normes et de sécurité que pour les droits des travailleurs et des passagers. A l’heure des luttes sociales de Ryanair, à qui j’apporte tout mon soutien, le rejet de la mise en concurrence doit être une priorité.
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2017/003 GR/Attica retail (A8-0367/2017 - Marie-Pierre Vieu) FR
Il s’agissait de mon premier rapport au Parlement européen. Il appelle à la mobilisation du Fonds d’ajustement à la mondialisation, et concerne 725 salariés grecs du commerce au détail dans la région de l’Attique. Pour plus des deux tiers, ces salariés ont plus de 55 ans et la plupart auront toutes les difficultés à retrouver un emploi.Dans ce rapport, concernant la huitième mobilisation de ce Fonds pour la Grèce, je me suis attachée à montrer que les remèdes austéritaires dictés par la Troïka n’ont eu aucun effet sauf rajouter de la crise à la crise et de la précarité à la précarité. Je suis en effet parvenue à inclure une analyse politique de ces licenciements, en particulier sur la pression de la dette extérieure, le manque de liquidités bancaires, la chute des revenus des ménages qui ont sévèrement touché ces petits magasins de détail, mais aussi l'absence d'une politique communautaire cohérente, notamment en matière de politique industrielle.Si je tiens à saluer cette aide qui répond à une urgence humaine, il m’a semblé important de souligner les limites d’un dispositif qui fait de l’Union un pompier social alors que le dumping est devenu la règle.
2018 budgetary procedure (A8-0359/2017 - Siegfried Mureşan, Richard Ashworth) FR
Le budget général de l’Union pour 2018 a enfin été voté (à Bruxelles, et non pas à Strasbourg comme le prévoient pourtant les traités). Si la Commission avait initialement avancé un projet de budget à 160,6 milliards d’euros, le Conseil avait fait une contre-proposition à 159,9 milliards et le Parlement à 162,6 milliards: ce sera finalement 160,1 milliards d’euros, soit comme d’habitude un résultat très proche de la position initiale du Conseil, qui ne lâche que des miettes.Le Conseil a justifié cette baisse par rapport à la proposition de la Commission en disant que les États membres allaient bientôt devoir se partager 3 milliards supplémentaires de contributions nationales pour renouveler l’accord avec la Turquie (au nom de la «gestion des flux migratoires»).Il s’agit certes d’une hausse par rapport à 2017 (157,9 milliards d’euros) et les postes éducation, recherche, Erasmus, agriculture... sont quelque peu revalorisés. Cependant, ce budget reste bien trop faible aux regards des enjeux économiques et sociaux qui parcourent l’Europe. Surtout, les priorités de ce budget (migrations, volet sécuritaire, austérité) ne sont pas les miennes. Je vote contre.
Instrument contributing to stability and peace (A8-0261/2017 - Arnaud Danjean) FR
Le rapport soutient l’initiative de la Commission visant à élargir la portée de l’instrument contribuant à la stabilité et à la paix pour y inclure le renforcement des capacités militaires. Avec ce rapport, l’Union Européenne contourne ses propres règles et bafoue la souveraineté des États membres qui avaient pourtant fermement établi la défense comme une compétence exclusive des États. De plus, cette militarisation est conçue au détriment du budget total de l’aide au développement. J’ai bien évidemment voté contre ce texte car je suis résolument opposée tant à l’Europe de la défense qu’à l’utilisation de l’aide au développement à des fins militaires.J’appelle à ce que le budget de l’Union européenne ne serve en aucun cas au financement militaire, que l’article 41, paragraphe 2, du traité UE fasse l’objet d’une interprétation stricte et que la souveraineté des États membres soit respectée.
Situation in Yemen (RC-B8-0649/2017, B8-0649/2017, B8-0650/2017, B8-0651/2017, B8-0652/2017, B8-0653/2017, B8-0654/2017, B8-0655/2017, B8-0656/2017) FR
La situation au Yémen est alarmante. Plus de 50 000 civils ont été blessés ou mutilés depuis le début du conflit, qui compte déjà plus de 10 000 morts, dont la moitié de civils. Quinze millions de Yéménites étaient déjà en situation de crise alimentaire avant le renforcement du blocus en novembre, et la situation ne fait que s’aggraver, faisant du Yémen la plus importante crise de sécurité alimentaire au monde. La résolution appelle à reprendre le processus de négociation sous l’égide des Nations unies, sans poser de conditions préalables et condamne les attaques des deux parties. J’ai voté pour.Néanmoins j’aurais aimé une position plus ferme, dénonçant les actions de la coalition et en particulier des États-Unis, et le rôle de l’Arabie saoudite dans ce conflit. J’insiste également sur la nécessité absolue de mettre fin aux ventes d’armes à grande échelle qui lient divers pays de la région et des États membres de l’Union, tels que le Royaume-Uni, l’Espagne, la France et l’Allemagne.
Respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications) (A8-0324/2017 - Marju Lauristin) FR
Ce vote portait sur l’approbation du consensus trouvé en commission LIBE sur l’«e-privacy» et l’autorisation d’entamer des négociations avec le Conseil sur cette base. Il s’agissait ici de renforcer la protection de la vie privée en ligne, en établissant comme principe de base que les données personnelles ne peuvent être utilisées que dans le seul but pour lequel l’utilisateur a donné son accord. Les numéros appelés, sites Internet visités, localisation géographique, etc. doivent rester confidentiels et ne devraient pas être utilisés pour de la publicité ciblée ni transmis à des tierces parties. Le traçage des personnes par le biais de points d’accès publics (centres commerciaux, gares...) devrait également être interdit.Consciente que certains sites Internet et notamment une partie de la presse dépendent du financement via la publicité en ligne, je me suis penchée sur la question et suis désormais convaincue que ce texte n’est pas excessif mais a su trouver un juste milieu. Ce modèle n’est pas proscrit mais requiert l’autorisation expresse de l’utilisateur. Je vote pour.
Combating sexual harassment and abuse in the EU (RC-B8-0576/2017, B8-0576/2017, B8-0577/2017, B8-0578/2017, B8-0579/2017, B8-0580/2017, B8-0581/2017, B8-0582/2017) FR
Suite aux révélations Weinstein, les témoignages de victimes de harcèlement sexuel se sont multipliés et ont envahi la sphère publique avec la campagne #Metoo, provoquant une véritable prise de conscience. Ces violences massives et taboues sont présentes partout dans la société, quels que soient les domaines professionnels et les milieux sociaux. La sphère politique a été largement concernée, avec de très nombreux témoignages, et le Parlement européen n’est pas en reste, notamment sur des cas d’actes de députés sur des assistantes ou des membres du personnel des institutions.Cette résolution vient en réponse à cette situation et propose par exemple d’examiner et de revoir les procédures de signalement des actes, ainsi que la composition des organes compétents, de revoir la réglementation notamment pour inclure les stagiaires dans les comités consultatifs, d’enquêter sur les affaires signalées et de tenir à jour un registre confidentiel recensant les affaires.La clé de ce processus est la mise sur pied d’un comité d’évaluation de la situation du harcèlement et des abus sexuels au sein du Parlement et la création d’un plan d’action efficace de prévention, de formation et de soutien aux victimes. J’ai voté pour cette résolution et soutient fermement ce processus. La tolérance zéro doit être appliquée.
Negotiating mandate for trade negotiations with Australia (A8-0311/2017 - Daniel Caspary) FR
Profitant de la mort du Partenariat transpacifique décidée par Trump, la Commission Juncker tente de relancer les négociations de libre-échange avec l’Australie et la Nouvelle Zélande.Ces deux pays sont cependant des géants des exportations agricoles, bénéficiant d’avantages comparatifs imbattables. Ainsi, les coûts de production de l’élevage bovin sont par exemple 70 % moins élevés en Australie qu’en Europe. De surcroît, ces exportations se font dans des secteurs qui sont en crise chez nous, en particulier l’élevage et le lait, quand l’Australie est le troisième exportateur de bœuf au monde et la Nouvelle-Zélande le premier exportateur mondial pour le beurre et le second pour la poudre de lait.Opposée à la mise en concurrence mondiale permanente de tout et tous, et favorable tant aux circuits courts qu’à une agriculture raisonnée et de proximité, je vote contre ce texte.
Negotiating mandate for trade negotiations with New Zealand (A8-0312/2017 - Daniel Caspary) FR
Profitant de la mort du Partenariat transpacifique décidée par Trump, la Commission Juncker tente de relancer les négociations de libre-échange avec l’Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande.Ces deux pays sont cependant des géants des exportations agricoles, bénéficiant d’avantages comparatifs imbattables. Ainsi, les coûts de production de l’élevage bovin sont par exemple 70 % moins élevés en Australie qu’en Europe. De surcroît, ces exportations se font dans des secteurs qui sont en crise chez nous, en particulier l’élevage et le lait, quand l’Australie est le troisième exportateur de bœuf au monde et la Nouvelle-Zélande le premier exportateur mondial pour le beurre et le second pour la poudre de lait.Opposée à la mise en concurrence mondiale permanente de tout et tous, et favorable tant aux circuits courts qu’à une agriculture raisonnée et de proximité, je vote contre ce texte.
Fundamental rights aspects in Roma integration in the EU: fighting anti-Gypsyism (A8-0294/2017 - Soraya Post) FR
Les discriminations envers les personnes tsiganes et roms sont des discriminations structurelles profondes qui sont présentes dans tous les pays de l’Union européenne. Je me félicite de l’adoption de ce rapport d’initiative et salue le travail de la rapporteure, Soraya Post, qui a fourni un rapport documenté et complet, couvrant de très nombreux enjeux.Le constat de l’anti-tsiganisme est celui d’une véritable discrimination de masses. Que ce soit pour l’accès à la santé, aux politiques publiques, notamment de logement ou encore de justice, la liberté de circulation, les situations d’apatridie, de ségrégation des enfants dans des écoles séparées, les populations roms et tsiganes en général subissent des discriminations qui touchent tous les domaines de la société, et tous les aspects de leurs vies.J’ai voté pour ce rapport utile et nécessaire, qui appelle à faire «avec» et non «pour» les Roms et qui va dans la bonne direction. Comme le pointe si justement le rapport: «Nous ne demandons rien de plus, mais également rien de moins pour la communauté rom que ce que nous demandons pour le reste de la population».
EU-Morocco Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement (A8-0303/2017 - Dominique Riquet) FR
Cet accord s’ancre dans les politiques de libéralisation et de privatisation des services aériens misent en œuvre avec le « Ciel Unique ». Je me suis toujours opposée à de telles politiques qui ont pour conséquence en France la privatisation d’Air France, des aéroports et des services aériens tant au sol qu’en vol ainsi qu’une détérioration des conditions de travail et de sécurité. En outre, les négociations opérées entre la Commission et l’Etat du Maroc sont tenues secrètes. Ainsi on voudrait que le Parlement ratifie un accord auquel il n’a pas accès. Ceci est un déni pur et simple de démocratie ! C’est d’autant plus important que depuis l’arrêt de la CJUE du 21 décembre 2016, l'inclusion du Sahara occidental dans les accords UE-Maroc constitue une violation du droit international et européen. Or visiblement celui-ci n’est pas exclu explicitement de cet accord !Pour toutes ces raisons et parce que je défends un service public avec des normes sociales, environnementales et de sécurité forte, mais aussi parce que le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes est un principe inaliénable, je vote contre cet accord.
Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking: financial contributions (A8-0293/2017 - Miroslav Poche) FR
L’entreprise commune Bio—industries est un organisme chargé de la mise en œuvre d’un partenariat public-privé. Le consortium de Bio-industries a proposé souhaite un autre mode de versement de la contribution financière, afin de ne financer que les projets directement vecteur de profits. La Commission valide ce projet en introduisant la possibilité de verser les contributions financières au niveau des projets, en plus du mode existant de versement au niveau du programme.Nous ne pensons pas que le partenariat public-privé soit la solution pour développer une recherche de qualité ayant comme objectif les progrès humains et écologiques au sens large. En outre, de nouveau la Commission décide de souscrire aux demandes du lobby industriel faisant de la recherche du profit le principal critère au détriment de l’indépendance de la recherche. Par ce mode de financement, quand bien même il resterait un «fond général» pour le programme, celui-ci sera évidemment relégué au second plan au profit des projets rentables à court terme. Je vote donc contre cette proposition.
Renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate (Objection pursuant to Rule 106) (B8-0567/2017) FR
Rappelons d'abord que le glyphosate est un herbicide extrêmement puissant, que nous connaissons commercialisé sous le nom de RoundUp. Sa nocivité est avérée, et ce malgré une pression sans relâche du lobbying du secteur et notamment de Mosento. Dès 2015 le Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (CIRC, organe de l'OMS) parlait de produit «cancérogène probable pour l'Homme». Ces dernières années, un mouvement d'opinion a grandi pour demander son interdiction, nous interpellant sur l'urgence sanitaire que constitue ce dossier. Depuis plusieurs mois, la Commission hésite et, sacrifiant le principe de précaution sous la pression de Monsanto et des lobbies, était même prête à renouveler la licence du glyphosate pour 10 années supplémentaires. S'il est normal que le Parlement européen s'y soit opposé, la proposition d'une sortie progressive en 5 ans est un compromis loin d'être à la hauteur des enjeux. C'est une proposition encore moins satisfaisante que l'option de sortie en 3 ans pourtant adoptée en commission. J'ai voté contre ce texte pour protester contre ces délais trop longs et cette réticence à prendre la mesure de l'urgence sanitaire. Le principe de précaution et la sécurité alimentaire collective doivent passer avant les intérêts des groupes tels que Monsanto.
Authorisation of genetically modified soybean 305423 x 40-3-2 (Objection pursuant to Rule 106) (B8-0570/2017) FR
En 2012 et 2013, deux géants de l’agrochimie allemande et américaine ont soumis une demande de mise sur le marché européen de deux graines de soja génétiquement modifiées.Malgré le refus à répétition du Parlement sur des sujets similaires, la Commission s’entête à proposer l’autorisation de variétés d'OGM, au mépris tant du principe de précaution que de la position de la seule institution européenne directement élue. Une fois de plus, le Parlement a rejeté ces propositions et je m’y suis associée.
Draft amending budget No 5/2017: financing for the European Fund for Sustainable Development and increasing the Emergency Aid Reserve (A8-0301/2017 - Jens Geier) FR
En avril dernier a été décidée la création du mal nommé « Fonds pour le développement durable ». Loin de chercher à accomplir l’ambition première de toute politique de développement - l’éradication de la pauvreté - et encore moins de se tenir aux Objectifs de développement durable décidés à l’ONU, ce Fonds a « vocation à lutter contre les pressions migratoires ». Outre l’objectif, les moyens pour y parvenir sont tout aussi contestables : plutôt que d’essayer de respecter l’engagement européen de porter l’aide publique au développement à 0,7 % du RNB, ce Fonds a été créé pour lever des investissements privés.Ce rapport, technique de nature, était soumis au vote pour faciliter la mise en place du FEDD. Opposée par principe à ce dernier, et de manière générale à toute politique migratoire répressive polluée de surcroît par des considérations de profit, je vote contre.
Legitimate measures to protect whistle-blowers acting in the public interest (A8-0295/2017 - Virginie Rozière) FR
Les lanceurs et lanceuses d’alerte sont exposés à des risques très importants. Pour la défense de l’intérêt public, ils mettent en jeu leur liberté, et même leur vie comme on vient de le voir avec l’assassinat de la journaliste maltaise Daphne Caruana Galizia, qui travaillait notamment sur les Panama Papers. Faisant face à de nombreuses demandes, la Commission européenne a dû lancer une consultation en vue d’une législation spécifique sur la protection des lanceurs d’alerte. Ce rapport d’initiative du Parlement européen apporte sa contribution pour qu'une protection législative efficace et ambitieuse soit mise en place. Il propose notamment une définition large du statut de lanceur d’alerte et dénonce le rôle néfaste de certains acteurs du secteur privé et des clauses de confidentialité. On l’a vu dans de nombreux cas ; lorsque les alertes internes à une entreprise ou une administration ne suffisent pas, il devient indispensable de rendre public certaines informations pour arriver à un résultat. Il est donc essentiel de protéger au mieux ceux qui sont à l’initiative de la divulgation des informations ; le rôle des lanceurs d’alertes étant essentiel à un bon fonctionnement de la démocratie. Malgré les pressions et les nombreuses tentatives pour l'édulcorer, ce rapport est positif. J'ai donc voté pour.
Enhanced cooperation: European Public Prosecutor's Office (A8-0290/2017 - Barbara Matera) FR
A la suite de scandales à répétition concernant la fraude à la TVA par des multinationales et l’utilisation abusive de fonds structurels par des politiques corrompus, il est apparu que les autorités nationales ne pouvaient (et parfois ne voulaient) pas engager des poursuites de manière efficace.Ce texte propose donc de donner le feu vert à la création d’un Parquet européen qui permettra un échange plus fluide d’informations entre procureurs européens, une meilleure coordination des enquêtes de police, un gel plus rapide des actifs ainsi que des arrestations de suspects au-delà des frontières nationales. Il travaillera de façon complémentaire avec l’Agence européenne pour le renforcement de la coopération judiciaire ainsi qu’avec l’Office européen de lutte antifraude, afin de garantir un recouvrement plus efficace de l’argent détourné des contribuables.La lutte contre la fraude fiscale est une exigence forte de justice sociale. Si je ne défends pas le projet d'un fédéralisme européen qui porte en lui l'éloignement des structures de décision des salariés et citoyens, il m'apparaît que ce Parquet européen anticorruption peut être un outil utile à une démarche éthique partagée et de pression sur les marchés si elle est relayée de manière citoyenne. Je vote pour.
Prison systems and conditions (A8-0251/2017 - Joëlle Bergeron) FR
La France a été condamnée à 17 reprises par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme en raison de conditions de détention violant l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme.La question des conditions de vie dans les prisons est un sujet particulièrement sensible pour moi. L'exemple de la France, avec 30% des détenus présentant des pathologies psychiatriques et psychologiques ne pouvant être traitées en milieu pénitentiaire, montre combien il est urgent de faire évoluer nos politiques pénales. Il faut au plus vite sortir des logiques répressives et économiques qui font abstraction de la dignité humaine pour ne considérer la prison que sous l'angle punitif.Au contraire, le rapport réaffirme qu’il n’y a pas de corrélation entre la sévérité des peines et la baisse du taux de criminalité et que la réinsertion est un point clé pour éviter la récidive. De plus, la privatisation grandissante des systèmes pénitentiaires dans l’Union est un vrai danger pour les conditions de vie des détenus et les conditions de travail du personnel pénitentiaire, qui ont besoin d’un soutien réel et de formations adaptées.J’ai voté pour ce rapport qui va dans le bon sens.
Agreement establishing the EU-LAC International Foundation (A8-0279/2017 - Javier Couso Permuy) FR
La Fondation UE-ALC a été créée par les chefs d’État ou de gouvernement de l’UE et de la Communauté des États latino-américains et des Caraïbes (CELAC) en 2010 dans le but de renforcer et de promouvoir le partenariat stratégique birégional.La ratification par le Parlement de l'accord instituant cette fondation est pour moi une très bonne chose et ce pour deux raisons:- l'UE doit sortir de l'exclusivité des relations avec l'OEA en ce qui concerne l'Amérique latine et de cette vision ultralibérale et souvent néocoloniale des relations avec le continent latino-américain qu'on a trop souvent l'habitude de considérer de ce côté-ci aussi de l'Atlantique comme notre «arrière-cour».- la CELAC depuis sa fondation à l'initiative du président vénézuélien Hugo Chavez prône une autre forme d'intégration régionale basée sur le développement mutuel et la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable de l'ONU. C'est cette vision-là que l'Europe devrait prôner en lieu et place de la mise en concurrence entre les peuples et des réformes ultralibérales.Cette Fondation, et à travers elle la CELAC, peut être des exemples qu'une alternative à l'Europe prônée par Macron, Merkel et consorts est possible! C'est pour cette raison que j'ai voté pour ce rapport.
Schengen acquis provisions relating to the Visa Information System in Bulgaria and Romania (A8-0286/2017 - Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra) FR
La République de Bulgarie et la Roumanie ne sont toujours pas considérées comme des États membres à part entière de l’espace Schengen. Malgré tous leurs efforts pour se plier aux demandes du Conseil, et le fait que les deux pays remplissent déjà toutes les conditions nécessaires depuis 2011, leur intégration pleine et entière est encore refusée et retardée par le Conseil, notamment pour des motifs comme la grande population Rom présente dans ces pays ou encore les routes migratoires. L’objet de la décision concerne l’accès au Système d’information sur les visas de Schengen, dit VIS. À ce jour, les deux pays peuvent délivrer des visas aux ressortissants de pays tiers uniquement pour l’échelle nationale. Cette situation d’Europe à plusieurs vitesses est inacceptable et c’est pourquoi j’ai voté pour cette décision. Je resterai néanmoins attentive au développement du système de contrôle dit «d’entrée et sortie» qui risque d’être mis en place aux frontières extérieures de Schengen dans les années à venir.
Objection to an implementing measure: scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (B8-0542/2017) FR
Depuis 2009, l'Europe n'arrive pas à se mettre d'accord sur des critères de définition des perturbateurs endocriniens.Selon la définition de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), ce sont des substances chimiques d'origine naturelle ou artificielle étrangères à l'organisme qui peuvent interférer avec le fonctionnement du système endocrinien. Ils sont considérés par l’OMS comme une «menace», en se référant notamment aux tendances à la hausse de nombreux troubles liés à l'endocrine: troubles de la reproduction, anomalies de la fonction cérébrale, obésité, problèmes de métabolisme, etc.La Commission a avancé en 2016 une liste de critères permettant de les définir. Cependant, ces critères sont rejetés par la Société européenne d’endocrinologie, au motif qu’ils «échoueront probablement à identifier les PE [perturbateurs endocriniens ] qui causent des dommages chez l’Homme aujourd’hui». La France s’opposait à cette liste... jusqu’à l’élection d’Emmanuel Macron, trop heureux de donner un gage à l’Allemagne (un de plus!) et à son industrie agrochimique.Cette résolution, qui a bénéficié du travail des parlementaires écologistes mais également de la GUE, critique vivement les critères retenus et rejette la proposition de la Commission. J’ai voté pour et elle a été adoptée. La Commission doit revoir sa copie et je serai vigilante quant à sa nouvelle proposition.
Objection pursuant to Rule 106: draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 x A5547-127 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (B8-0540/2017) FR
En 2012 et 2013, deux géants de l’agrochimie allemande et américaine ont soumis une demande de mise sur le marché européen de produits contenant du soja génétiquement modifié.Malgré le refus à répétition du Parlement sur des sujets similaires, la Commission s’entête à proposer l’autorisation de variétés d’OGM, au mépris tant du principe de précaution que de la position de la seule institution européenne directement élue. Une fois de plus, le Parlement a rejeté ces propositions et je m’y suis associée. Espérons que cela serve de leçon à la Commission.
Objection pursuant to Rule 106: draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-44406-6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (B8-0541/2017) FR
En 2012 et 2013, deux géants de l’agrochimie allemande et américaine ont soumis une demande de mise sur le marché européen de produits contenant du soja génétiquement modifié.Malgré le refus à répétition du Parlement sur des sujets similaires, la Commission s’entête à proposer l’autorisation de variétés d'OGM, au mépris tant du principe de précaution que de la position de la seule institution européenne directement élue. Une fois de plus, le Parlement a rejeté ces propositions et je m’y suis associée. Espérons que cela serve de leçon à la Commission.
Ending child marriage (B8-0535/2017) FR
Cette résolution proposée par la Commission des droits de la femme et l’égalité des genres (FEMM) est une bonne résolution qui propose une vision intéressante pour la lutte contre les mariages d’enfants. Les mariages d’enfants sont une problématique d’ampleur, qui se joue tant au niveau mondial qu’au sein des États membres de l’UE. On estime aujourd’hui que plus de 250 millions d’enfants, dont une écrasante majorité de filles, ont été mariés avant leurs 15 ans. Le texte insiste sur le respect de la convention d’Istanbul et le programme d’action de Beijing, qui sont des outils adaptés pour travailler à l’élimination des violences et discriminations, et notamment celles subies par les femmes dès le plus jeune âge. La proposition de procéder à une collecte de données ventilées par sexe pour pouvoir mieux évaluer l’ampleur du problème est tout à fait pertinente et est même nécessaire pour se donner les moyens de lutter efficacement contre ce phénomène. Je me félicite que le rapport souligne que des procédures spécifiques doivent être développées et mises en place pour garantir la protection des enfants parmi les réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile, qui sont particulièrement vulnérables aux violences dont le mariage forcé fait partie. J'ai voté pour ce rapport.
2017 UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany (COP23) (B8-0534/2017) FR
Après la COP21 à Paris en 2015 et la COP22 de Marrakech en 2016, la conférence climat des Nations unies se réunira du 6 au 17 novembre prochain à Bonn («COP23») et une délégation du Parlement européen s’y rendra. Cette résolution permet à notre assemblée de prendre position dans cette perspective.Elle demande aux dirigeants de l’Union européenne de mettre en œuvre l’accord via une législation européenne, et à revoir à la hausse les ambitions européennes en matière d’objectifs et d’instruments politiques: la résolution demande à la Commission de préparer d’ici 2018 une stratégie européenne «zéro émission pour 2050», avec pour objectif de limiter l’augmentation de la température bien en-deçà des 2°C et de poursuivre les efforts pour la limiter à 1,5°C ; elle appelle également à des engagements européens et internationaux concrets afin de trouver des sources de financement, notamment en supprimant progressivement les crédits à l’exportation pour les investissements liés aux combustibles fossiles.Je vote pour.
State of play of negotiations with the United Kingdom (B8-0538/2017, B8-0539/2017) FR
. – À la suite de la décision par référendum des Britanniques de sortir de l’Union européenne, des négociations ont été engagées en mars dernier pour établir les modalités du Brexit. Le Parlement européen a été saisi sur l’état de l’évolution de l’accord de retrait avant que les chefs de gouvernement n’évaluent les progrès réalisés lors du sommet du 20 octobre prochain. Ces progrès sont bien limités, principalement du fait d’un gouvernement britannique conservateur divisé sur le sujet et sans vision claire de l’après. Le risque est que les 3,2 millions de citoyens européens vivant au Royaume-Uni et les 1,3 million de Britanniques résidant dans l’UE ne fassent les frais d’un accord mal construit et élaboré à la dernière minute.La résolution porte trois exigences que je partage.Elle appelle à ce que leurs droits soient pleinement garantis.Elle demande à ce que le Royaume-Uni honore ses obligations financières envers l’Union.Elle souligne l’urgence de résoudre la question de la frontière entre la République d’Irlande et l’Irlande du Nord, en pleine conformité avec l’accord du Vendredi Saint. Je vote pour.
Women’s economic empowerment in the private and public sectors in the EU (A8-0271/2017 - Anna Hedh) FR
Les inégalités au travail comme les inégalités salariales, la discrimination à l’embauche, les violences au travail et le blocage des carrières constituent des inégalités profondes et structurantes qui alimentent et perpétuent la domination et l’exploitation des femmes. Inversement, l'égalité est un facteur de croissance économique et de développement profitable à tous.Ce rapport est un bon rapport dans l’ensemble, qui pose les bonnes questions, comme celle de l’impact des politiques austéritaires sur les conditions de vie et de travail des femmes. Il affirme également le rôle essentiel des services publics dans leur processus d’autonomisation et de conciliation entre vie professionnelle et personnelle. Le rapport apporte des propositions intéressantes comme des mesures contraignantes en termes de transparence salariale ou encore la revalorisation des filières massivement féminisées comme la santé, le social ou l’éducation. Il engage les États membres à lutter contre toutes les formes de violences, notamment à travers la ratification sans réserves de la Convention d’Istanbul, et à garantir l’accès universel à l’ensemble de la santé et des droits sexuels et génésiques, dont l’IVG sûr et légal. L’émancipation des femmes passe par une pleine autonomie économique et financière – bonne nouvelle puisque l’égalité des sexes permettrait, d’ici à 2050, de créer jusqu’à 10,5 millions d’emplois. J’ai voté pour ce rapport.
Addressing shrinking civil society space in developing countries (A8-0283/2017 - Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio) FR
Ces dernières années se multiplient les restrictions, mesures répressives et sécuritaires à l'encontre des mouvements sociaux combats progressistes et écologistes, luttes politiques. Si le rapport dresse un constat juste des attaques contre la viabilité de ces organisations et de la criminalisation de l’action politique, son propos ethnocentriste est porteur de préjugés donnant lieu à une lecture erronée de l'actualité qui est inacceptable.En effet, se focalisant presque exclusivement sur les pays en développement, il fait peser sur eux l'unique responsabilité et réalité du rétrécissement de l’espace dévolu à la société civile. C'est omettre les États membre de l’UE qui sont aussi bel et bien concernés. À l’heure des répressions policières en Catalogne, une telle hypocrisie est inadmissible.De plus le rapport suggère que l'UE aurait une légitimité à recommander aux ONG quel devrait être leur comportement, mais également à s'ingérer directement dans les politiques des pays tiers en finançant et promouvant certains groupes politiques avec des instruments comme l’IEDDH (Instrument européen pour la démocratie et les droits de l'homme).Il apparaît que la notion d’espace doit elle-même être définie, non pas se limitant à un jeu d’influence sur les politiques menées, mais bel et bien comme un espace politique de mobilisation et d’organisation. J’ai voté contre ce rapport.
EU political relations with ASEAN (A8-0243/2017 - Reinhard Bütikofer) FR
L’Association des nations de l’Asie du Sud-est (ANASE) est une organisation intergouvernementale régionale comprenant 10 États d’Asie du Sud-Est: Bruneï, Cambodge, Indonésie, Laos, Malaisie, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapour, Thaïlande, Vietnam. Les relations avec l’UE sont régies par un partenariat renforcé adopté en mars 2007.Du fait des relations historiques privilégiées du Royaume-Uni dans la région et des évolutions que va donc introduire sur ce point le Brexit, le rapport insiste sur la nécessité de renforcer les relations entre les deux ensembles et appelle, au passage, à un partenariat stratégique. Il souligne la nécessité d’un dialogue politique pour aborder les questions de droits de l’homme, le respect des conventions de l’OIT, les défis écologiques et d’autres défis commun comme la coopération maritime.Cependant le texte censé se concentrer sur les relations politiques se place volontairement dans la poursuite de la libéralisation des échanges. La majorité libre-échangiste de ce Parlement n’a pas pu s’empêcher d’ajouter un paragraphe estimant que «d’un point de vue géopolitique il existe de très bonnes raisons de plaider pour la reprise des négociations sur un accord de libre-échange régional entre l’Union européenne et l’ANASE» (paragraphe 13).Une très bonne raison de voter contre ce texte.
EU political relations with India (A8-0242/2017 - Cristian Dan Preda) FR
L’Union européenne et l’Inde travaillent actuellement à un renforcement du partenariat stratégique UE-Inde, créé en 2004, qui concerne les domaines de coopération politique étrangère, de sécurité et de droits de l’homme, la coopération économique et certaines problématiques larges comme le changement climatique, les migrations ou encore la mobilité internationale. Si ce rapport aborde sous un bon angle certaines thématiques importantes comme la lutte contre la pauvreté, les enjeux environnementaux ou les droits de l’homme, il n’en reste pas moins une préparation et un appel pour un traité de libre-échange entre l’Inde et l’UE. En effet, le projet est d’augmenter leurs échanges de biens, services et investissements à travers notamment la négociation d’un accord de libre-échange, mieux connu sous son nom élargi « accord de commerce et investissement » qui a été lancé en 2007. Un traité de libre-échange entre l’UE et l’Inde, dans la droite lignée du TAFTA et du CETA, ne profiterait encore une fois qu’aux grandes entreprises, mettant en concurrence les travailleurs dans un dumping social et fiscal dévastateur, et déconstruisant méthodiquement les droits de chacun pour le profit de quelques-uns. J’ai voté contre ce rapport dont les quelques bonnes volontés ne suffisent pas à cacher la visée résolument libérale.
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2017/002 FI Microsoft 2 (A8-0278/2017 - Petri Sarvamaa) FR
Le Fond Européen d’Ajustement à la Mondialisation a été sollicité concernant trois régions finlandaises (Helsinki-Uusimaa, Etelä-Suomi, Länsi-Suomi), spécialisées dans l’industrie technologique mobile. Après l’acquisition de l’entreprise de téléphonie mobile Nokia par Microsoft, Microsoft Mobile Oy Finlande a été créé en 2014. Cependant, après seulement quelques mois d’activité, l’échec commercial du système d’exploitation mobile « Lumia » (50% des parts de marché en 2009, 4% en 2012, 0.5% en 2015), la fermeture des sites provoque le licenciement de 1248 personnes. S’il est évident que ce sont en premier lieu les travailleurs et travailleuses qui pâtissent de ces fermetures, il n’est en aucun cas logique que ce soit à l’Union Européenne de leur porter secours. En effet, avec plus de 21 milliards de dollars de bénéfices prévus en 2017 avec une augmentation de 26% par rapport à 2016 pour le groupe Microsoft, on voit assez peu au nom de quoi, même Microsoft Mobile, pourrait être considéré comme « en difficulté », critère pour l’obtention de ce fond. De plus, ce rapport ne pause aucune interrogation sur l’erreur de stratégie du groupe Microsoft et ses conséquences sur l’emploi local. J’ai voté contre ce rapport qui voudrait faire payer les États membres et les populations européennes pour les erreurs d’une multinationale peu scrupuleuse.
Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry into the 2030 climate and energy framework (A8-0262/2017 - Norbert Lins) FR
La délibération tend à proposer un cadre stratégique stable en matière de changement climatique pour une économie pauvre en carbone. L'agriculture et les forêts y jouent un rôle important tant du point de vue écologique que du point de vue social et économique. Il est important que les mesures incitatives en faveur de la réduction du gaz à effet de serre soient en cohérence avec le principe de sécurité de l'approvisionnement et avec un engagement clair pour le maintien de l'Europe comme lieu de production de denrées alimentaires et de biomasses durable. Dans le même temps l’agriculture et la foresterie ne doivent pas devenir des puits à CO2 pour les émissions d'autres secteurs. Notre groupe GUE NGL mène un combat pour que l’utilisation des terres, le changement d’affectation des terres et à la foresterie (UTCATF) ne donne pas lieu à des manipulations de la part des États, qui accumulent les crédits sans pour autant lutter réellement contre la déforestation. Nous insistons pour ne pas considérer comme éligible pour obtenir des crédits de carbone une gestion forestière ordinaire mais seulement son amélioration et son extension, voire une déforestation raisonnable qui n'affecte ni la biodiversité ni le droit des populations. La résolution va à l'encontre de ces recommandations. J'ai voté contre.
Arms export: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (A8-0264/2017 - Bodil Valero) FR
Ce rapport sur les transferts internationaux d’armements de 2012 à 2016 éclaire sur les évolutions récentes de la vente d’armes par l’UE. Les chiffres qui y sont présentés sont les plus élevés jamais enregistrés depuis la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale, ils placent l’UE comme le deuxième fournisseur d’armements au monde, après les États-Unis (33 %) et avant la Russie (23 %). Les exportations d’armes vers le Moyen-Orient ont augmenté de 86 % en à peine 5 ans. Le rapport confirme pleinement les détournements de certains transferts vers des groupes terroristes et cite également à de nombreuses reprises des pays, comme l’Arabie Saoudite ou encore le Qatar, qui pourtant continuent à commercer en toute tranquillité avec nos États membres.J’ai voté pour ce rapport car il pose un constat tranchant et nécessaire. De plus, les propositions législatives du principe de précaution et de la mise en place de sanctions contre les États membres ne respectant pas les positions établies sont les bienvenues. L’hypocrisie entourant la vente d’armes, qui alimente les conflits à travers le monde doit cesser de toute urgence pour laisser place à une véritable prise en conscience, y compris en France.
EU political relations with Latin America (A8-0268/2017 - Javi López) FR
Malgré quelques points positifs dans ce rapport, notamment le renforcement des liens avec la CELAC (Communauté d’États latino-américains et des Caraïbes) et l’achèvement des objectifs de développement durable (ODD), celui-ci reste ancré dans une vision néolibérale des échanges avec l’Amérique latine. Accords de libre-échange, libéralisation des services et ingérence sont les pierres angulaires de cette stratégie. Ceci est particulièrement vrai à propos de Cuba ou du Venezuela. Dans le premier cas, on voudrait conditionner l’accord de dialogue politique, pourtant ratifié en juillet par le Parlement. Dans le cas du Venezuela, après avoir soutenu pendant des années «l’opposition» la plus réactionnaire, la droite du Parlement à fait adopter un amendement rejetant toute pacification de la situation et niant la souveraineté du pays. Quelle que soit la vision que l’on puisse porter sur le gouvernement Maduro, cette position néocoloniale de l’Union européenne est simplement scandaleuse. Parce que je crois au contraire que les relations avec l’Amérique latine devraient être basées sur le respect, le développement mutuel et l’intérêt des peuples, j’ai voté contre ce rapport.
Corruption and human rights in third countries (A8-0246/2017 - Petras Auštrevičius) FR
Le point fort du rapport est l’invitation à intégrer dans les accords conclus entre l’UE et des pays tiers une clause anticorruption, en sus des clauses concernant les droits de l’homme. Ces clauses proposées pourraient être l’objet d’un contrôle, ainsi que de consultations pouvant conduire à appliquer des sanctions ou la suspension desdits accords. Le rapport encourage également les États membres de l’UE à appliquer les principes directeurs des Nations unies relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme. Il est favorable à la mise en œuvre de normes de rapports pays par pays, afin que les multinationales soient tenues de tenir des rapports contenant des informations financières de base pour chaque juridiction dans lesquelles elles exercent leurs activités, mesure positive pour prévenir la corruption ainsi que l’évasion fiscale. Cependant, en s’inscrivant dans une logique comptable et libérale, ce rapport défend la réduction de l’intervention des États dans la lutte anticorruption, au profit des entreprises et de leur capacité à agir sur ce terrain. Je me suis abstenue sur ce rapport, car l’intention ne suffit pas sans moyens pour la servir.
Academic further and distance education as part of the European lifelong learning strategy (A8-0252/2017 - Milan Zver) FR
On ne peut que souscrire à la volonté, face aux mutations de la société et aux évolutions de l'économie en Europe, d'instaurer une sécurité d'emploi et de formation tout au long de la vie. C'est le seul moyen de lutter durablement contre la précarisation du salariat et la flexibilité de l'emploi. En outres, cela permet de remettre en dynamique des groupes sociaux ou des catégories sociales qui n'entrent pas dans le système éducatif traditionnel, et qui trouveront ici un cadre de formation favorisant une évolution positive de leur vie active, comme par exemple les femmes et la facilitation de leur reprise de parcours dans le supérieur, les enseignants pour valoriser leurs statuts, les étudiants réfugiés en zone de conflit, des salariés sorti trop tôt du système scolaire. Cependant, en conditionnant la mise en œuvre de cette stratégie aux seuls besoins du marché, le rapport met à mal ses objectifs. Cette mise en œuvre doit rester dans le cadre d'un service public de la formation et bénéficier de moyens adéquats. Je me suis donc abstenue sur ce rapport.
Measures to safeguard the security of gas supply (A8-0310/2016 - Jerzy Buzek) FR
La Commission propose ici un nouveau règlement sur la sécurité de l'approvisionnement en gaz dans le cadre de son paquet sur la sécurité énergétique durable. Le but était d’apporter une réponse européenne aux risques liés à l'approvisionnement en gaz naturel des États membres, question soulevée suite à la crise russo-ukrainienne de 2009. Si l’intention de protéger les peuples des coupures d’approvisionnement est louable, cet impératif de mise en commun des ressources gazières nationales en cas de crise, permet surtout de renforcer le rôle du marché de l’énergie ainsi que le contrôle de la Commission sur les approvisionnements des États. De plus, aucun dispositif de contrôle des prix n’est mentionné dans le rapport. Or, ce sont bel et bien les mécanismes de marché qui mènent à l’augmentation des prix, et à la précarité énergétique. La précarité énergétique est grandissante au sein de l’UE, et concerne aujourd’hui plus de 125 millions de personnes. La sécurité énergétique est un enjeu qui ne sera pas réglé par les logiques de libéralisation et les ajustements du marché, mais bien par un pôle public de l’énergie, pour garantir une énergie durable et abordable pour toutes et tous. J’ai voté contre ce rapport.
EU accession to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (A8-0266/2017 - Christine Revault d'Allonnes Bonnefoy, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt) FR
La Convention de 2011 du Conseil de l’Europe, dite convention d’Istanbul, est l’un des traités internationaux les plus aboutis dans la lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes. A l’heure où, dans l’UE, une femme sur trois a été victime de violences physiques ou sexuelles, et où plus de la moitié des femmes ont subi du harcèlement sexuel au cours de leur vie, seulement 12 États membres ont ratifié cette Convention. Ces violences massives et quotidiennes traversent tous les pays de l’UE et toutes les classes sociales et il y a une vraie urgence à agir. J’ai voté pour ce rapport qui affirme le droit à l’avortement sûr et légal, systématiquement remis en cause dans les débats, et qui reconnait que le refus d’accorder des droits et services de santé sexuelle et génésique constitue une forme de violence à l’encontre des femmes. Néanmoins, si la ratification de la Convention d’Istanbul par l’UE est une avancée importante, sa mise en œuvre concrète nécessite le déploiement de réels moyens d’action pour impulser une véritable politique de prévention, ainsi que de garantir dans les faits l’accès aux services publics de soins génésiques et psychologiques, et notamment le planning familial.
Major interpellations (1)
Israel's involvement in projects financed under Horizon 2020 PDF (105 KB) DOC (17 KB)
Written questions (11)
Scandal involving espionage and sabotage operations against political opponents in Spain PDF (46 KB) DOC (19 KB)
VP/HR - Detention of a Belgian citizen in Morocco PDF (101 KB) DOC (16 KB)
VP/HR - The sentencing of Rif leaders PDF (102 KB) DOC (16 KB)
Ituango dam PDF (5 KB) DOC (18 KB)
EU trade with Israeli settlements PDF (101 KB) DOC (18 KB)
Freedom of expression under threat in Spain PDF (198 KB) DOC (21 KB)
Reduction in US funding for UNRWA PDF (104 KB) DOC (19 KB)
Misuse of sanitary and phytosanitary barriers PDF (5 KB) DOC (17 KB)
Butter crisis PDF (5 KB) DOC (18 KB)
EU trade offer in the negotiations with Mercosur PDF (101 KB) DOC (18 KB)
Measures to support Member States with long-term and youth unemployment rates above the Eurozone average PDF (199 KB) DOC (18 KB)
Amendments (404)
Amendment 10 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to P8_TA- PROV(2018)0475, European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework (2018/2900(RSP))
Amendment 18 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
- having regard to P8_TA(2016)0453 European Parliament resolution of 24 November 2016 on towards a definitive VAT system and fighting VAT fraud(2016/2033(INI))
Amendment 42 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that capitalistic globalisation and the free movement of capital created the perfect conditions for the design of base erosion and profit shifting schemes and, at the same time, enshrined a structural bias in policymaking to the benefit of capital owners and multinational enterprises (MNEs), which has served to promote divergences and asymmetries between countries and social classes; emphasises, furthermore, that the free movement of capital, the deregulation and liberalisation of the financial and banking system, and the increasing tax competition among Member States – all promoted by EU institutions and legislation with the support of the European right wing and social democracy –are at the root of the rise of tax evasion and tax avoidance schemes and scandals;
Amendment 46 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Notes that the lowering of wealth taxes, which prioritize the wellbeing of the most privileged casts of the society, can lead to social unrest, as has been the case in the recent episodes in France, as the rest of the society which does not benefit from such tax cuts, but is more and more affected by the reduction of the welfare state, is bound to feel abandoned and neglected by its governing State1a _________________ 1a See comments by Piketty of 9 December 2018; URL: https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/ 12/08/thomas-piketty-gilets-jaunes-et- justice-fiscale_5394443_3232.html
Amendment 55 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomNotes the fact that during its current term the Commission has put forward 22 legislative proposals aimed at closing some of the loopholes, improving theallegedly to fight against financial crimes and aggressive tax planning, and enhancing tax collection efficiency and tax fairness; calls for the swift adoption of initiatives that have not yet been finalised andbut which have had in origin sufficient loopholes, or thresholds so high so as not to affect the current level of tax evasion and continue legalising avoidance; calls for careful monitoring of their implementation to ensure efficiency and proper enforcement, in order to keep pace with the versatility of tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning;
Amendment 62 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Recalls the observation of the European Parliament in the interim report on MFF noting that effective measures against corruption and tax evasion by multinationals and the wealthiest individuals would make it possible to return to the Member States’ budgets an amount estimated by the Commission at one trillion euros per year, and that in this field there has been a serious lack of action by the European Union1a; _________________ 1a Par. 49 of theInterim report on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021- 2027 adopted inPlenary
Amendment 79 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Deplores the fact that the Council has not yet made any progress to enter into negotiations with the Parliament on the proposal for CBCR; notes however that Member States have already started implementation of OECD BEPS Action 13 on Country-by-Country Report, and DAC4; calls for the Commission to request information collected from the Member States under CBCR for quantitative impact assessments;
Amendment 95 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1.3
Subheading 1.3
Tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning (ATP)tax avoidance
Amendment 99 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that the fight against tax evasion and fraud tackles illegal acts, whereas the fight against tax avoidance addresses situations that are a priori within the limits of the law but against its spirit;– unless deemed illegal by the tax authorities or, ultimately, by the courts1a– but against its spirit. _________________ 1a 1] ‘Member States' capacity to fight tax crimes, Ex-post impact assessment’, Elodie Thirion and Amandine Scherrer, European Parliamentary Research Service, July 2017
Amendment 106 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that ATP describes the setting of a tax design aimed at reducing tax liability by using the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatchesarbitrating between two or more tax systems that go against the spirit of the law; that such acts, in the same way as tax avoidance, could be deemed illegal by tax authorities or by the courts
Amendment 110 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Understands then that there is no practical difference between tax avoidance, tax planning and aggressive tax planning; and that tax planning can also be considered systemic tax avoidance3a _________________ 3a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 117 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission and the Council to propose and adopt a comprehensive definition of aggressive tax planning indicators, building on both the hallmarks identified in the fifth review of the Directive on administrative cooperation (DAC6)26 after being strengthened in order to require the mandatory disclosure of dividend arbitrage schemes and all information on capital gains, including the granting of dividend and capital gains tax refunds1a and the Commission’s relevant studies and recommendations27 ; calls on Member States to use those indicators as a basis to repeal all harmful tax practices deriving from existing tax loopholes; _________________ 1a P8_TA-PROV(2018)0475. European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on thecum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework(2018/2900(RSP)) 26 Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements, OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1. 27 https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/ taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation /gen_info/economic_analysis/tax_papers/ta xation_paper_61.pdfand https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/ taxation/files/tax_policies_survey_2017.pd f
Amendment 124 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the similarity between corporate tax payers and high-net-worth individuals in the use of corporate structures and similar structures such as trusts and offshore locations for the purpose of ATPtax evasion and tax avoidance; recalls the role of intermediarieenablers and promoters in setting up such schemes;
Amendment 132 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Regrets that 7 EU Member States have been identified for their tax avoidance by the European Commission in the European Semester, namely, Ireland, The Netherlands, Cyprus, Malta, Belgium, Hungary and Luxembourg, and that little measures have been taken by such Member States to modify their legislation in order to make it less attractive for tax evasion and avoidance;
Amendment 134 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Notes that company restructures can be observed in the macro-economic data of Ireland from 2014-2017, particularly in the first quarter of 2015; notes that major changes occurred in Ireland’s GNP, GDP, exports, imports, investment, external debt and more; regrets that despite the relocation of sales income and intellectual property to Ireland, there was no observable corresponding increase in corporation tax received by Irish Revenue1a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 135 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Regrets that even when in Ireland, the capital allowance for depreciation of intangible assets has been lowered from a rate of 100% to 80% from 2017, this reduction was not applied to the intangible assets brought onshore from 2015-2016, which could still benefit from the 100% rate1a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 136 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Calls on the Commission to list the EU jurisdictions identified for providing opportunities for aggressive tax planning as tax havens and prepare a proposal on deterrent actions to be applied against such Member States;
Amendment 137 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13 c. Deplores that the Irish government introduced the 100% rate on capital allowances for intellectual property (IP) following a recommendation made by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland in 20141a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 138 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13 c. Regrets that the Irish government introduced the 100% rate on capital allowances for intellectual property (IP) following a recommendation made by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland in 20141a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 146 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Notes however, that self-regulation cannot be the answer to tackling tax fraud, tax evasion and avoidance; which can only be fought with adequate legislation, transparency, intra and inter institutional cooperation, inter- jurisdictional cooperation,and sufficient personnel and technical equipment employed by tax administrations
Amendment 172 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Notes however, that any debate concerning minimum taxation should make reference to minimum effective taxation, measured by the total income taxes paid by a corporation over its total profits, including in this measurement tax breaks to the base (that is, the income on which taxes are charged), as effective rates can often be much lower, and in many cases half, of the statutory rate;
Amendment 176 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Notes that the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Tax (ICRICT), observed that setting a minimum effective taxation would put a floor under tax competition1a _________________ 1a ICRICT (2016) FOURWAYS TO TACKLE INTERNATIONAL TAX COMPETITION, November 2016
Amendment 178 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16 c. Notes that a debate that does not consider effective taxation risks ending in lowering statutory rates even more and increasing tax competition;
Amendment 184 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Notes that taxing all earnings without deduction for interest and license fee payments in and by the source country could and should be at the center of any measures against tax avoidance1a _________________ 1a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 185 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Notes that any individual EU country can unilaterally enforce both withholding taxes and conditioned limitations on deductions, as comprehensive taxation at the source, including earnings paid for interest, license fees, and the like, is by no means ruled out by the relevant EU directive1a _________________ 1a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 186 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17 c. Notes that many countries have introduced withholding taxes, in particular for interest and license fee payments to related parties outside the EU. However, existing tax treaties considerably reduce the withholding tax rate1a _________________ 1a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) ‘What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS’, Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697; and Hearson M. (2018) ‘The European Union’s Tax Treaties with Developing Countries– Leading By Example?’, September 2018.
Amendment 187 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17 d. Regrets, that within the EU, no withholding taxes are levied on payments between related parties even when the other party is not effectively subject to tax on the income deriving from those payments in that other Member State. Notes however, that recital 3 of the interest and royalty directive1a clearly states that “It is necessary to ensure that interest and royalty payments are subject to tax once in a Member State”. Therefore, the EU directive on interest and royalty payments does not forbid source taxation of all earnings produced by an enterprise, whether declared as profit or transferred to another enterprise domestic or abroad as payment for interest or license fees2a _________________ 1a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States 2a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 188 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)
Paragraph 17 e (new)
17 e. Encourages EU Member States to apply withholding taxes to payments within and outside the EU in order to ensure that interests and royalty payments are subject to tax once in a Member State; and to make the necessary re-negotiations of their tax treaties in order to allow for withholding taxes to be applied at source1a _________________ 1a Jarass, L. and Obermair, G.M. (2015) What an Individual EU Country Can Do Unilaterally to Counteract BEPS. Reprinted from Tax Notes Int’l, August 24, 2015, p. 697
Amendment 194 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that the G20/OECD 15-point BEPS action plan is being implemented and monitored and further discussions are taking place, in a broader context than just the initial participating countries, through the Inclusive Framework; calls on Member States to support a reform of both the mandate and the functioning of the Inclusive Framework to ensure that remaining tax loopholes and unsolved tax questions such as the allocation of taxing rights among countries are covered by the current international framework to combat BEPS practices;
Amendment 217 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls on the Commission to review ATAD I in order to eliminate the 2 alternatives for implementing CFC rules and leave only the stronger, most efficient one in Article 7(2)(a): to tax interest, royalties and other relevant types of income of all low-tax foreign subsidiaries, as the second option (to tax income of low-tax subsidiaries arising from non- genuine arrangements which have been put in place for the essential purpose of obtaining a tax advantage)is very weak and open to abuse, because it only protects against profit-shifting out of the home country and requires the tax authority to analyse many individual transactions of low-tax subsidiaries;
Amendment 229 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Calls for the definition of a permanent establishment to be more in line with the concept of a permanent establishment as defined in the UN model tax convention considering also the definition in the CCTB proposal, in a way that allows for the definition of permanent establishment not only to comprise tax payers with a fixed place of residence in a Member State, but also economic activities performed without the need of physical presence;
Amendment 233 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls its concerns relating to the use of transfer prices in ATP and consequently recalls the need for adequate action and improvement of the transfer pricing framework to address the issue; stresses the need to ensure that they reflect the economic reality, provide certainty, clarity and fairness for Member States and for companies operating within the Union, and reduce the risk of misuse of the rules for profit-shifting purposes, taking into account the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administration 2010;to ensure that taxable earnings reflect the economic reality, and reduce the risk of misuse of the rules for profit-shifting purposes.
Amendment 235 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Notes that as has been highlighted repeatedly by numerous experts and publications, the use of the ‘independent entity concept’ or ‘arm’s length principle’ recommended by the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations of 1979, 1995, 2010 and 2017, is at the core of the problem of tax evasion, tax avoidance and double non-taxation;
Amendment 238 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Emphasises that the EU actions aimed at addressing BEPS and ATPtax avoidance have equipped tax authorities with an updatedinsufficient toolbox to ensure fair tax collection; stresses that tax authorities should be responsible for making effective use of the tools without imposing an additional burden on responsible taxpayers, particularly SMEs and to tackle tax avoidance from multinational companies; stresses that tax authorities should be cautious not to end up imposing an additional burden on SMEs, when incapable of taxing multinational companies ;
Amendment 248 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2.2
Subheading 2.2
Strengthening EU actions to fight against corporate aggressive tax planning (ATP)tax avoidance and supplementing BEPS action plan
Amendment 251 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2.2.1
Subheading 2.2.1
Scrutinising Member States’ tax systems and overall tax environment – ATPtax avoidance within the EU (European Semester)
Amendment 291 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Notes that CCCTB impact assessments have been carried out on the basis of incomplete data at a time when tax administrations will soon have access to more precise and complete information following the Member States’ implementation of country-by-country reporting, and that going ahead without proper analysis would be deeply irresponsible; calls on the European Commission to conduct a new impact assessment based on high-quality data which would allow for a more informed decision to be made between different possible apportionment formulas;1a _________________ 1a ‘Assessing the impact of the CC(C)TB: European tax base shifts under a range of policy scenarios’; a GUE/NGL Study by Alex Cobham, Petr Janský, Chris Jones and Yama Temouri (Tax Justice Network); November 2017;
Amendment 295 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Paragraph 33 b (new)
33 b. Believes that, as regards proceeding with the CCTB and CCCTB proposals, if aggregation were to take place without considering the differences between Member States’ accounting rules the inconsistencies in the EU tax base might end up being exploited by those seeking to secure advantage from regulatory arbitrage; calls on the Council to consider that ‘consolidated tax base’ should mean the consolidated net taxable revenue of the corporate group members, as calculated on a consistent accounting basis applicable to all group members;
Amendment 297 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 c (new)
Paragraph 33 c (new)
33 c. As already stressed by the PANA recommendations, implementing the CCCTB at EU level runs the risk of creating a situation in which current losses from Member States to the rest of world could be locked in, as could the exploitation of the rest of the world by some Member States; notes that an EU- only approach could eliminate the incentives to shift profit within the EU, but open the door to further incentives and opportunities to shift profit out of the EU1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 298 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 d (new)
Paragraph 33 d (new)
33 d. Calls on the Council to take note of PANA recommendations and consider strengthening the anti-tax avoidance provisions of the CCCTB to eliminate transfer pricing to third-country jurisdictions leading to a reduction in the taxable base of companies in the Union1a; in particular this means considering using the stronger, simpler and most efficient approach regarding the implementation of CFC rules in ATAD I Article7(2)(a); _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion(Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 307 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34 a. Notes that digitalisation affects the whole economy with many firms using multi-channel models; thus, instead of creating special regimes for digital businesses, international tax rules should be reformed, based on a principle of neutrality between different business models, both digital and non-digital, and regardless of the extent or form of digitalisation, including multi-channel models, recognising the economic reality businesses operate in today;
Amendment 319 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35 a. Notes that changing the definition of permanent establishment to make it more aligned with that of the UN model tax convention in a way that also includes digital significant presence, would be the optimal solution to tackle problems not only affecting the digital market but rather the digitalization of the economy and the earnings created in jurisdictions where companies do not have any physical presence;
Amendment 336 #
2018/2121(INI)
36a. Notes that the interim solution needs to be swiftly replaced by a change in the definition of permanent establishment; calls for the Council to consider the need for the digital service tax to be set at a level that takes the effective taxation of multinational companies within the scope of this proposal to that of other smaller companies in the same sector and other economic sectors, and that for that reason, the rate should be no lower than 5%;
Amendment 369 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Calls for DAC6 hallmarks to be strengthened in order to require the mandatory disclosure of dividend arbitrage schemes and all information on capital gains, including the granting of dividend and capital gains tax refunds1a _________________ 1a P8_TA-PROV(2018)0475. European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework(2018/2900(RSP))
Amendment 402 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Stresses that the proposal for public CBCR was submitted to the co-legislators just after the Panama papers scandal on 12 April 2016, and that Parliament adopted its position on it on 4 July 2017; recalls that the latter called for an enlargement of the scope of reporting and protection of commercially sensitive information; deplores the lack of progress and cooperation from the Council since 2016; urges for progress to be made in the Council so that it enters into negotiations with Parliament;
Amendment 404 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Recalls the position of the European Parliament in the PANA recommendations when it called for ambitious public country-by-country reporting (CbCR) in order to enhance tax transparency and the public scrutiny of multinational enterprises (MNEs) as this would allow the wider public to have access to information about the profits made, subsidies received and the taxes paid by MNEs in the jurisdictions where they operate; urges the Council to reach a common agreement in order to adopt a public CbCR, one of the key measures for achieving greater transparency in relation to companies’ tax information for all citizens; 1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion(Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 411 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Notes that tax competition, with its detrimental effects, is not only allowed but encouraged by the European Commission, excluding only ‘special deals’ which are treated as State Aid, in an attempt to attract foreign investment even when the effectiveness of this strategy has been greatly questioned1a; _________________ 1a ICRICT, 'Four ways to tackle international tax competition', December 2016
Amendment 426 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Is concerned with the fact that the Commission ruled that double-non taxation achieved by McDonald’s stemmed from a mismatch between Luxembourg and US tax laws and the Luxembourg-United States double taxation treaty, a mismatch from which McDonald’s profited by arbitrating between such jurisdictions; and that such tax avoidance is enabled by the current legal framework in the EU to a point that the only means found effective by the European Commission to tackle it is through State Aid rules, something which has proved not to be possible in the case of McDonald’s;
Amendment 432 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Reiterates its calls for guidelines clarifying what constitutes tax-related State aid and ‘appropriate’ transfer pricing, with a view to removing legal uncertainties for both compliant taxpayers and tax administrations, and providing a framework for Member States’ tax practices accordingly;
Amendment 435 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)
Paragraph 51 a (new)
51a. Regrets the fact that the current framework for tackling profit shifting between related parties through transfer pricing is based on the ‘arm’s length’ principle, a principle that grants a higher regard to the contractual arrangement among related parties than to the economic reality of the transactions taking place between one party and another one subject to it; deplores that the generalization of the ‘arm’s length principle’ has resulted in the ‘legalization’ of tax avoidance through transfer pricing; notes that in this context, the only effective solution within the European Union to tackle the tax evasion and tax avoidance of multinational companies has been through the identification of abuses to State aid rules;
Amendment 438 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 b (new)
Paragraph 51 b (new)
51b. Deplores that Apple’s new European tax structure remains shrouded in secrecy, partially due to a lack of financial transparency in Ireland and Jersey; and that most of its financial information remains secret globally1a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 439 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 c (new)
Paragraph 51 c (new)
51c. Deplores that with the assistance of the Irish government, Apple has successfully created a structure that has allowed it to gain a tax write-off against almost all of its non-US sales profits; calls on the Commission to further investigate Apple’s case in the context of State Aid rules;
Amendment 440 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 d (new)
Paragraph 51 d (new)
51d. Notes that the law governing the use of capital allowances for IP is not subject to Ireland’s transfer pricing legislation, but it includes a prohibition from being used for tax avoidance purposes; deplores that Apple is potentially breaking Irish law by its restructure and it exploitation of the capital allowance regime for tax purposes; notes that if the same legal reasoning used in the European Commission’s state aid ruling on Apple and Ireland is applied, Apple is in breach of Irish tax law, and owes Irish Revenue at least 2.5 billion additional euros in unpaid tax annually from the period 2015-2017;1a _________________ 1a Brehm Christensen, M.; Clancy, E. (2018) ‘Exposed: Apple’s delicious tax deals, Is Ireland Helping Apple Pay less than 1% in the EU?’; GUE/NGL; June 2018.
Amendment 453 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
Paragraph 53 a (new)
53a. Regrets however that the banning of letterbox companies in Latvia cannot be used to ban letterbox companies resident in EU Member States, as that would be considered discriminatory in the current EU legislative framework1a;calls for the European Commission to propose changes in the current legislation that would enable to ban letterbox companies even if resident in EU Member States; _________________ 1a TAX3 Delegation to Riga (Latvia), 30- 31 August 2018, MISSION REPORT
Amendment 462 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Highlights that the high level of inward and outward foreign direct investment as a percentage of GDP in seven Member States (Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, and the Netherlands) can only be partially explained by real economic activities taking place in these Member States;40and therefore is a clear indicator of tax avoidance opportunities granted by such Member States; _________________ 40 Kiendl Kristo I. and Thirion E., An overview of shell companies in the European Union, EPRS, European Parliament, October 2018, p.23.
Amendment 470 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55 a (new)
Paragraph 55 a (new)
55a. Recalls that the European Parliament has called on the Commission to assess the role of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) and Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) revealed by the cum-ex papers and, where appropriate, to propose limiting the use of these instruments1a;calls on the European Commission to assess the role of the special purpose entities holding foreign direct investment in Malta, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; _________________ 1a P8_TA- (2018)0475European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework (2018/2900(RSP))
Amendment 474 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Notes that economic indicators such as an unusually high level of foreign direct investment, as well as foreign direct investment held by special purpose entities are ATPtax avoidance indicators42 ; _________________ 42 IHS, Aggressive tax planning indicators, prepared for the European Commission, DG TAXUD Taxation papers, Working paper No 71, October 2017.
Amendment 481 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
57. Notes that the ATAD anti-abuse rules (artificial arrangements) cover letterbox companies, and that the CCTB and CCCTB would ensure that the income is attributed to where the real economic activity takes place;
Amendment 488 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58 a (new)
Paragraph 58 a (new)
58a. Deplores that shell companies associated with anonymity, circumvention of the Posting of Workers Directive and treaty abuse, can generate serious risks of tax avoidance, tax evasion, money laundering and abuse of social rights; and that such abuses have an impact in the rise of inequalities and decreased trust in public institutions1a _________________ 1a Kiendl Kristo I. and Thirion E., An overview of shell companies in the European Union, EPRS, European Parliament, October 2018.
Amendment 491 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 a (new)
Paragraph 59 a (new)
59a. Notes that abusive conversions, mergers or divisions constituting artificial arrangements or social dumping, but also reducing fiscal obligations or undercutting social rights of employees are therefore to be avoided in order to respect Treaty principles;1a _________________ 1a OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions (COM(2018)0241 – C8 0167/2018 –2018/0114(COD))
Amendment 493 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 b (new)
Paragraph 59 b (new)
59b. Notes that cross-border conversions should be conditioned to the company moving its registered office together with its head office in order to carry out a substantial part of its economic activity in the Member State of destination1a _________________ 1a OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions (COM(2018)0241 – C8 0167/2018 –2018/0114(COD))
Amendment 494 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 c (new)
Paragraph 59 c (new)
59c. Calls for Member States to request that a set of financial information be published ahead of the execution of cross- border conversions, mergers or divisions; and for that financial information to be accompanied by public country by country reporting;
Amendment 569 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 a (new)
Paragraph 79 a (new)
79a. Recalls that effective cross checks of the data held by tax authorities with data held by customs authorities are crucial to detect and eliminate VAT fraud linked to imports; and recalls on Member States and on the Commission to act in order to facilitate the flow of information between tax and customs authorities regarding imports under Customs Procedure 42, as recommended by the European Court of Auditors1a ;considering that experience has shown that administrative cooperation between tax authorities is suboptimal;1b _________________ 1a P8_TA(2016)0453European Parliament resolution of 24 November 2016 on towards a definitive VAT system and fighting VAT fraud (2016/2033(INI))[ 1b Study entitled ‘VAT fraud: Economic impact, challenges and policy issues’, European Parliament, Directorate- General for Internal Policies, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, 15 October2018.
Amendment 570 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 b (new)
Paragraph 79 b (new)
79b. Notes that among the most used crimes in VAT fraud, the one known as "Missing Trader fraud (MTIC fraud) or Carousel fraud" is the most widespread and most used; notes that a particularity of this fraud is that it is carried out, for the most part, by organized crime; notes that in recent years, this fraud has diversified to include online commerce; notes that the extension of this type of fraud to online commerce is partly due to the suboptimal cooperation between tax administrations1a;calls for EU Member States and the European Commission to keep on developing swift cooperation between tax administrations; _________________ 1a Study entitled ‘VAT fraud: Economic impact, challenges and policy issues’, European Parliament, Directorate- General for Internal Policies, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, 15 October2018.
Amendment 571 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 c (new)
Paragraph 79 c (new)
79 c. Notes that the extension of e- commerce is posing an important challenge for the economic and fiscal authorities, to whom, this type of economic transactions, poses enormous difficulties, e.g. absence of registration, VAT declarations well below the real value of the declared transactions, ghost transactions for criminal purposes, fraudulent use of customer data; notes that national legislations continue to present enormous deficiencies in the control of e-commerce; notes that the improvement of cooperation between administrations and a more efficient use of the resources available at European level can help to reduce the impact of this type of crime and its consequences, as well as the improvement of European legislation;
Amendment 572 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79 d (new)
Paragraph 79 d (new)
79d. Notes that the "reverse charge mechanism" should be used only and exclusively in exceptional cases, and that the Commission and the Council should encourage countries to use existing resources more effectively; notes that at present, a group of bodies and institutions such as Eurofisc, OLAF, Europol or EPPO (European Public Prosecutor Office) provide a panel of options with a very high potential to combat VAT fraud;
Amendment 576 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80 a (new)
Paragraph 80 a (new)
80a. Deplores that VAT fraud in the European Union reaches colossal magnitudes: approximately 150 billion euros in 2017; notes that the figure hide, however, huge differences between countries, from percentages of fraud of minor importance (less than 2%); to countries with fraud indicators of around 30%;1a _________________ 1a European Parliament; VAT Fraud, economic impact, challenges and policy issues. October2018.
Amendment 579 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80 b (new)
Paragraph 80 b (new)
80b. Notes that the preservation of VAT fraud has, in addition to the negative economic effects, perverse consequences for inadequate social commitment with the payment of taxes and with a view to improving tax justice;
Amendment 580 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80 c (new)
Paragraph 80 c (new)
80c. Regrets that tax fraud has become a crime whose effects are to be managed, rather than a crime to be suppressed; calls on the Commission and the EU Member States to have policy design as a guiding principle, and for such policy design to be driven by efficiency considerations; notes that when efficiency is focused only in the enforcement, but not in the policy design, the credibility of the tax system is undermined, representing a serious risk to the rule of law1a _________________ 1a De la Feria, Rita (2018) ‘Tax Fraud and the Rule of Law’; WP18/02; Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation; January 2018.
Amendment 604 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 a (new)
Paragraph 84 a (new)
84a. Notes that corporation and wealth taxes play a crucial role in reducing inequality through redistribution within the tax system and in providing revenues to fund social provisions and social transfers;
Amendment 606 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 b (new)
Paragraph 84 b (new)
84b. Calls on the Member States to eliminate gender gaps in wealth across the EU in terms of financial assets, property ownership, business assets, insurance entitlements, pension savings and stock options1a; notes that the reduction in capital gains and property taxes primarily benefits men, as they are more likely to control such resources1b; _________________ 1a Action Aid. Making tax work for women’s rights 1b Institute of Development Studies (2016). Redistributing Unpaid Care Work – Why Tax Matters for Women’s Rights. Policy Briefing. Issue 109.
Amendment 607 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 c (new)
Paragraph 84 c (new)
84c. Deplores the fact that, overall, the contribution of wealth-based taxes to overall tax revenues has remained rather limited, at 5.8 % of overall tax revenues in the EU-15 and4.3 % in the EU-281a; _________________ 1a European Parliament Policy Department C, Gender equality and taxation in the European Union, 2017.
Amendment 608 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 d (new)
Paragraph 84 d (new)
84d. Deplores the fact that the share of taxes on capital has shown a declining trend since 2002 as a consequence, inter alia, of the general tendency of no longer applying the regular personal income tax schedule to capital incomes, but rather taxing them at relatively moderate flat rates, observable in many Member States1a _________________ 1a European Parliament Policy Department C, Gender equality and taxation in the European Union, 2017.
Amendment 681 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. Urges the Commission to finalise its study on CBI and RBI schemes in the Union; urges the Commission to examine whether, and, if so, which of these schemes posed a threat to EU legislation; in particular AMLD and ATAD;
Amendment 699 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100 a (new)
Paragraph 100 a (new)
Amendment 713 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103
Paragraph 103
103. RecCalls the need to use amnesties with extreme caution in order not tofor Member States to refrain from using tax amnesties as they encourage tax avoiders to wait for the next amnesty; calls on the Member States which enact tax amnesties to always require the beneficiary to explain the source of funds previously omitted;
Amendment 714 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 a (new)
Paragraph 103 a (new)
103 a. Recalls the European Parliament’s position in the PANA recommendation whereby it called on the Member States to identify and stop all use of any form of tax amnesties that could lead to money laundering and tax evasion or that could prevent national authorities from using the data provided to pursue financial crime investigations1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 717 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 b (new)
Paragraph 103 b (new)
103 b. Regrets the fact that EU Member States have prioritized short-term revenue benefits over the elimination of tax fraud by providing tax amnesties;1a _________________ 1a De la Feria, Rita (2018) ‘Tax Fraud and the Rule of Law’; WP18/02; Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation; January 2018.
Amendment 718 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 c (new)
Paragraph 103 c (new)
103 c. Notes that tax amnesties allow tax fraudsters to voluntarily repay all or parts of unpaid taxes without being subject to criminal prosecutions or full penalties; regrets that tax amnesties have become popular in the last few years in the context of the financial crisis1a and the austerity policies; _________________ 1a De la Feria, Rita (2018) ‘Tax Fraud and the Rule of Law’; WP18/02; Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation; January 2018.
Amendment 719 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103 d (new)
Paragraph 103 d (new)
103 d. Notes that tax amnesties are very negative they affect the most affluent sectors of society and extend the idea that having many resources guarantees impunity and makes it easy to circumvent legality; calls for Member States to stop tax amnesties and that economic and penal sanctions against the fraudsters be increased;
Amendment 731 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107
Paragraph 107
107. Stresses that money laundering can assume various forms, and that the money laundered can have its origin in various illicit activities ranging from terrorismdifferent types of crimes such as corruption, weapon and human trafficking and drug dealing to tax evasion and fraud; notes with concern that the proceeds from criminal activity in the EU are estimated to amount to EUR 110 billion per year64 , corresponding to 1 % of the Union’s total GDP; highlights that the Commission estimates that in some Member States up to 70 % of money laundering cases have a cross-border dimension65 ; further notes that the scale of money laundering is estimated by the UN66 to be the equivalent of between 2 to 5 % of global GDP, or around EUR 715 billion and 1.87 trillion a year; _________________ 64 From illegal markets to legitimate businesses: the portfolio of organised crime in Europe, Final report of Project OCP – Organised Crime Portfolio, March 2015. 65 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pre ss-room/20171211IPR90024/new-eu-wide- penalties-for-money-laundering; Commission proposal of 21 December 2016 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on countering money laundering by criminal law (COM(2016)0826. 66 UNODC - https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/money- laundering/globalization.html
Amendment 732 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107 a (new)
Paragraph 107 a (new)
107 a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to report on the effects money laundering on women’s rights, as money laundering impacts on gender inequality by concealing the origin of assets obtained via human trafficking, in which women and girls amount to 70%of the victims, as reported by FATF1a,UNODC2a,among others; _________________ 1a FATF (2011) Money Laundering Risks Arising from Trafficking in Human Beings and Smuggling of Migrants. Seehttp://www.fatf- gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Tra fficking%20in%20Human%20Beings%20 and%20Smuggling%20of%20Migrants.pd f 2a See UNODC’s reports on Trafficking in Persons.
Amendment 760 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112 a (new)
Paragraph 112 a (new)
112 a. Is concerned with the reliance of the AMLD on self-regulation by obliged entities; and notes that this is a matter of concern as all leaks so far have exposed the role of banks, lawyers, traders, insurance companies, and other enablers and promoters, as accomplices in money laundering cases;
Amendment 779 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 a (new)
Paragraph 116 a (new)
116 a. Regrets that no action were taken by EU institutions in relation to the ABLV Bank, in advance of those by the US Fin CEN; is concerned by what seems to be acknowledged by experts in this matter which observe that US standards are much stricter than European ones, that even when EU banks manage to apply EU rules, they are not sufficiently capable of applying US rules, and that the EU system seems to be guaranteed by the US one 1a _________________ 1a TAX3 Delegation to Riga (Latvia), 30- 31 August 2018, MISSION REPORT
Amendment 792 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 a (new)
Paragraph 117 a (new)
117 a. Calls on the Commission to take into consideration the recommendations of the EPRS study on ‘Offshore activities and money laundering: recent findings and challenges’ from 20171a,and consider that in order to reach a harmonized anti- money laundering policy in Europe, it needs to be noted that European countries are too different to all comply in the same way, and therefore different groups of countries within the EU should be targeted differently and some be trained and supported by other Member States; _________________ 1a http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e tudes/STUD/2017/595371/IPOL_STU(201 7)595371_EN.pdf
Amendment 798 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117 b (new)
Paragraph 117 b (new)
117 b. Calls on the Commission to assess the way in which derivatives can be used for money laundering, as ‘mirror trading’ can allow brokers to create multiple trades where it can conveniently locate washed funds1a; calls on the Commission to investigate whether this has been the case in the exposed cum-ex and cum-cum scandals; _________________ 1a EPRS (2017) ‘Offshore activities and money laundering: recent findings and challenges’. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e tudes/STUD/2017/595371/IPOL_STU(201 7)595371_EN.pdf
Amendment 824 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125 a (new)
Paragraph 125 a (new)
125 a. Recalls the request made by the European Parliament resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal, on ESMA and EBA to assess potential threats to the integrity of financial markets and to national budgets; to establish the nature and magnitude of actors in these schemes; to assess whether there were breaches of either national or Union law; to assess the actions taken by financial supervisors in Member States; and to make appropriate recommendations for reform and for action to the competent authorities concerned;
Amendment 861 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 a (new)
Paragraph 129 a (new)
129 a. Calls for the Commission to report on the status quo and improvements in EU Member States FIUs in relation to dissemination, exchange and processing of information, following the PANA Recommendations and the mapping report carried out by the EU FIUs Platform 1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 880 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133 a (new)
Paragraph 133 a (new)
Amendment 923 #
2018/2121(INI)
141. Recalls that EU AML legislation requires Member States to lay down sanctions for breaches of anti-money laundering rules against banks and intermediaries that are knowingly, wilfully and systematically involved in illegal tax or money laundering schemes; stresses that these sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive;
Amendment 931 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 143 a (new)
Paragraph 143 a (new)
143 a. Recalls the position of the European Parliament in the PANA recommendations regarding the application of sanctions to enablers and promoters involved in illegal, harmful proven to have facilitated illegal, harmful or wrongful corporate tax arrangements; that the sanctions should be targeted towards the companies themselves as well as the management-level employees and board members responsible for the schemes; calling for the stringent application of effective sanctions on banks, providing for the suspension or withdrawal of the banking licence of financial institutions that are proven to be involved in promoting or enabling money laundering, tax evasion or aggressive tax planning; and encouraging Member States to ensure that the fines and pecuniary sanctions imposed on tax evaders and intermediaries are not tax- base deductible; 1a _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 934 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5.7 a (new)
Subheading 5.7 a (new)
An EU anti-money laundering list of high-risk third countries
Amendment 937 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145 a (new)
Paragraph 145 a (new)
145 a. Notes that EU Member States are not treated in the same way as third countries, when they should be according to the Financial Action Task Force, and that this represents a problem when aiming at having common standards in respect of AML; calls for Member States to be peer reviewed in the same way third countries are in FATF; calls the Commission, as a founding member in 1989 of the Financial Action Task Force, to be peer reviewed by FATF as well1a _________________ 1a TAX3 PUBLIC HEARING“RELATIONS WITH SWITZERLAND IN TAX MATTERS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST MONEYLAUNDERING” held on October 1, 2018.
Amendment 938 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145 b (new)
Paragraph 145 b (new)
Amendment 952 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 149 a (new)
Paragraph 149 a (new)
149 a. Notes that two FATCA Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) were developed to help FATCA fit with international laws: an IGA Model 1 by which foreign financial institutions report relevant information to their home authorities, which then passes this on to the US IRS, and an IGA Model 2 by which foreign financial institutions do not report to their home governments but directly to the IRS; notes that under Model 1 there are 2 versions, one of which is reciprocal and is the most common one; deplores that reciprocity is highly unbalanced with the US getting far more information from overseas than foreign governments; deplores that even in the best scenario of a reciprocal FATCA, the information compiled by the US institutions is full of loopholes, as it allows for senior managers to be registered if there is no person owning more than 25% of the bank's corporate client1a; calls on the EU Member States, to ensure that they are receiving reliable information when they get into a reciprocal FATCA with the US; _________________ 1a https://financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/U SA.pdf
Amendment 955 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 149 b (new)
Paragraph 149 b (new)
149 b. Calls on the Commission and EU Member States to demand that the US enters into the CRS instead of following with the exchange of information under FATCA;
Amendment 962 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150 a (new)
Paragraph 150 a (new)
150 a. Considers that tax havens, tax evasion and tax avoidance have been contributing to the rise in inequalities, by depriving countries of the revenue needed to provide public, quality and free education and healthcare services, social security, and affordable housing and transportation, and to build essential infrastructure for achieving social development and economic growth;
Amendment 968 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 151
Paragraph 151
151. WelcomNotes the adoption by the Council of the first EU list on 5 December 2017 and the ongoing monitoring of the commitments made by third countries; notes that the list has been updated several times on the basis of the assessment of those commitments; underlines that this assessment is based on criteria deriving from a technical scoreboard and that Parliament had no legal involvement in this process; calls in this context on the Commission and the Council to inform Parliament in detail ahead of any proposed change to the list; calls on the Council to publish a regular progress report regarding black- and grey-listed jurisdictions as part of the regular update from the CoC Group to the Council;
Amendment 969 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 151 a (new)
Paragraph 151 a (new)
151 a. Regrets that given that 2 out of the 3 criteria used by the Council refer to the OECD, the blacklist process seems more an extortive means of getting developing countries to implement standards that they have not participated in setting; than a serious effort to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance;
Amendment 979 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 152 a (new)
Paragraph 152 a (new)
152 a. Calls on the Council to provide clear information on the specific criteria used to clear 20jurisdictions from the 92 that were originally assessed, as at the moment only the names of such jurisdictions1a and the letters of comfort are available, but those do not allow for a clear understanding on why jurisdictions that are such relevant trade partners of the EU, such as the US who was identified to have a lack of transparency and preferential Corporate Income Tax regimes, were so rapidly cleared and not listed; _________________ 1a Council of the EU.2018, June 8. Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation): Report to the Council/Endorsement. 9637/18
Amendment 993 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 a (new)
Paragraph 154 a (new)
154 a. Is concerned with the fact that even when Switzerland does repeal its non-compliant tax regimes, it may create new ones -as noted by some organizations and experts-, and that in that case the Council would still remove Switzerland from the grey list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions1a;calls for the Council to re- consider their assessment on Switzerland and on any other third country that could be having a similar legislative change; _________________ 1a TAX3 PUBLIC HEARING“RELATIONS WITH SWITZERLAND IN TAX MATTERS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST MONEY LAUNDERING” held on October 1, 2018; and TAX3 Exchange of views with Fabrizia Lapecorella, Chair of the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation, held on October 10,2018.
Amendment 995 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 b (new)
Paragraph 154 b (new)
154 b. Notes that as of December 2018 there are only 5 countries remaining in the list; is concerned by what seems to soon end up in an empty listing process similar to that of the OECD which resulted in only Trinidad and Tobago remaining in the list; calls for the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to work on a more serious, and objective methodology,which does not rely in commitments but rather on an assessment of the effects of effectively implemented legislation;
Amendment 999 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 c (new)
Paragraph 154 c (new)
154 c. Recalls the European Parliament’s position on the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions regretting that the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions approved and published by the Council focuses only on jurisdictions outside the EU, omitting countries within the EU that have played a systematic role in promoting and enabling harmful tax practices and that do not meet the fair taxation criterion1a;and calls for the Commission and the Council to come up with an EU list of EU tax havens; _________________ 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 1003 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 d (new)
Paragraph 154 d (new)
154 d. Points out that for the EU to hold a leading role in the global fight against tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and money laundering, it would be important for the European Commission to get its own house in order by ensuring that those with a commercial or vested interest in promoting tax avoidance and tax evasion should not have a role in guiding or advising the EU’s policy-making on tax avoidance and tax evasion;
Amendment 1013 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156 a (new)
Paragraph 156 a (new)
156 a. Recalls the position of the European Parliament in the interim report on MFF, urging for a genuine fight against tax evasion and avoidance, with the introduction of dissuasive sanctions, for offshore territories and for the enablers or promoters of such activities, particularly and as a first step those operating on the European mainland; believes that Member States should cooperate by establishing a coordinated system for monitoring capital movements in order to fight taxevasion, tax avoidance and money laundering; 1a _________________ 1a Par. 48 of the Interim report on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021- 2027 adopted in Plenary
Amendment 1024 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 a (new)
Paragraph 158 a (new)
158 a. Regrets that the current OECD tax committee cannot be nor is sufficiently inclusive, as it is not the United Nations; the OECD is integrated only by 34 countries that tend to be industrialized ones, is not democratically governed and its decisions on recommendations are not guided by democratic rules
Amendment 1026 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 b (new)
Paragraph 158 b (new)
158 b. Regrets that the G20/OECDBEPS Action Plan did not intend nor did it resulted in addressing the problem of source and residence taxation which is at the core of the base erosion problem;
Amendment 1027 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 c (new)
Paragraph 158 c (new)
158 c. Underlines that given its lack of representation and of democratic governance, the OECD is not the place to discuss the allocation of taxing rights among industrialized and developing countries;
Amendment 1028 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 d (new)
Paragraph 158 d (new)
158 d. Calls on Member States to support the creation of a global body within the UN framework, well-equipped and with sufficient additional resources to ensure that all countries can participate on an equal footing in the formulation and reform of global tax policies1a, and for such body to address unsolved tax questions such as the allocation of taxing rights among countries; _________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 6 July 2016 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0310); and European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted,P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 1031 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 a (new)
Paragraph 159 a (new)
159 a. Acknowledges that the G77and China have also called in 2017 for the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters to be upgraded to an intergovernmental UN Global Tax Body;
Amendment 1034 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 b (new)
Paragraph 159 b (new)
159 b. Calls for Member States to revise their positions regarding the creation of a global tax body within the UN in order to incorporate this global call to their agendas
Amendment 1035 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159 c (new)
Paragraph 159 c (new)
159 c. Regrets that the G20/OECD’s inclusive framework is stopping a discussion on international taxation that should take place in the context of the United Nations; calls on Member States to support a reform of the United Nations tax committee to turn it into a UN tax body; and ensure that the such body has sufficient resources to ensure all countries can participate on an equal footing;
Amendment 1048 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161 a (new)
Paragraph 161 a (new)
161 a. Believes that such support can take different forms, but that care should be taken not to impose models thought for tackling the problems of the North, which are convenient for the economic circumstances of the North, into the South; believes that the best cooperation for the South can most generally come from the South, from developing countries that have similar problems and similar economic circumstances; calls for the EU institutions to respect South-South cooperation;
Amendment 1058 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 164
Paragraph 164
Amendment 1079 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 a (new)
Paragraph 168 a (new)
Amendment 1080 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 b (new)
Paragraph 168 b (new)
168 b. Calls for the Commission to strive for a greater degree of specification of the AML/CFT and tax-related requirements in its free trade and association agreements;1a _________________ 1a Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1081 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 c (new)
Paragraph 168 c (new)
168 c. Calls for the Commission to ensure that all free trade and association agreements contain provisions on tax cooperation and that such provisions guarantee cooperation at the bilateral level in addition to any regional or international instruments or arrangements; 1a _________________ 1a Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1082 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 d (new)
Paragraph 168 d (new)
168 d. Calls on the Commission to include in its free trade and association agreements provisions aimed at combating mispricing and misinvoicing of internationally traded goods and services;1a _________________ 1a Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1083 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 e (new)
Paragraph 168 e (new)
168 e. Calls on the Commission to include in its free trade and association agreements provisions on public country by country reporting of corporate tax, the establishment of public registers of beneficial owners, and the establishment of public commercial registers; 1a _________________ 1a Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1084 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 f (new)
Paragraph 168 f (new)
Amendment 1085 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168 g (new)
Paragraph 168 g (new)
168 g. Calls on the Commission to pursue a strategy of imposing a measure of conditionality during trade negotiations, where structural weaknesses in rule of law enforcement – mainly due to corruption, organised crime and shadow economy – undermine the EU’s trade goals and the trading partner’s legislative and administrative endeavours in combating money laundering and tax evasion; 1a _________________ 1a [1][1] Ioannides, I., Douma, W. T., Güven, O., Jancic, D., Pantaleo, L., van der Velde, S., de Vries, F. (2016). The inclusion of financial services in EU free trade and association agreements: Effects on money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance; EPRS.
Amendment 1101 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 a (new)
Paragraph 171 a (new)
171 a. Notes that developing countries need tax revenue, not least from the profits of multinational companies, to achieve their development goals; yet the taxation of most of those profits is regulated by a global network of bilateral tax treaties; notes that more than half of these treaties, and 40 percent of those with developing countries, have an EU Member State as signatory;1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson(2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1104 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 b (new)
Paragraph 171 b (new)
171 b. Recalls that the European Parliament has resolved that the “global network of tax treaties…often impedes developing countries from taxing profits generated in their territory”1aand that “when negotiating tax treaties, the European Union and its Member States should comply with the principle of policy coherence for development;2a _________________ 1a Tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (TAXE 2) 2a European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2015 on tax avoidance and tax evasion as challenges forgovernance, social protection and development in developing countries(2015/2058(INI)). URL:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides /getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA- 2015-0265 uage=EN˚=A8-2015-0184
Amendment 1105 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 c (new)
Paragraph 171 c (new)
171 c. Notes that the European Economic and Social Committee has recommended that “when negotiating double tax agreements with developing countries, EU Member States take more account of the needs of developing countries”1a _________________ 1a European Economic and Social Committee. EU development partnerships and the challenge posed by international tax agreements. REX/487.https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/o ur-work/opinions-information- reports/opinions/eu-development- partnerships-and-challenge-posed- international-tax-agreements
Amendment 1106 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 d (new)
Paragraph 171 d (new)
171 d. Notes that tax treaties place too much emphasis on the taxing rights of the countries of residence of multinational companies, imposing too many restrictions on the countries that are the source of those companies’ income, often developing countries; 1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson (2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1107 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 e (new)
Paragraph 171 e (new)
171 e. Regrets that on average, the treaties developing countries have concluded with EU Member States impose more restrictions on their source taxing rights than their treaties with other countries, even other OECD members; notes that EU Member States’ treaties with developing countries more closely resemble the OECD model convention, which is not designed with developing countries in mind, than the UN model, which is; notes that a study of 172 treaties signed between EU Member States and developing countries noted that the average EU treaty leaves intact 40% of its developing country signatories’ taxing rights;1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson(2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1108 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 f (new)
Paragraph 171 f (new)
171 f. Calls on EU Member States and the European Commission to conduct spillover analyses incorporating reviews of EU Member States’ double taxation treaties, based on the principle of policy coherence for development and taking into account the recommendations of the European Parliament and the EESC;1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson(2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1109 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 g (new)
Paragraph 171 g (new)
171 g. Calls on EU Member States to undertake a rolling plan of renegotiations with a focus on progressively increasing the source taxation rights permitted by EU Member States’ treaties; calls on such renegotiations to introduce development- friendly measures such as anti-treaty shopping.1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson (2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1110 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171 h (new)
Paragraph 171 h (new)
171 h. Calls on EU Member States and the European Commission to formulate and publish an EU Model Tax Convention for Development Policy Coherence, setting out source-based provisions that EU Member States are willing to offer to developing countries as a starting point for negotiations, not in return for sacrifices on their part; 1a _________________ 1a Martin Hearson(2018) ‘The European Union’s tax treaties with developing countries. Leading by example?’; GUE/NGL; September 2018.
Amendment 1120 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 175 a (new)
Paragraph 175 a (new)
175 a. Recalls relevant Member States to make use of the opportunity afforded by their direct relations with the countries concerned to take the necessary steps in order to put pressure on their overseas countries and territories (OCTs) and outermost regions that do not respect international standards pertaining to tax cooperation, transparency and anti- money laundering; takes the view that the EU transparency and due diligence requirements should be effectively enforced in these territories;1a _________________ 1a PANA recommendations adopted on December 13, 2018.
Amendment 1126 #
Amendment 1127 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177
Paragraph 177
177. Welcomes the broad definition of both ‘intermediary’ and regrets the incompleteness of the ‘reportable cross- border arrangement’ in the recently adopted DAC683 ; _________________ 83 OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1. OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1.
Amendment 1135 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 a (new)
Paragraph 177 a (new)
177 a. Urges the Commission, Member States and all EU bodies to refer to “enablers” or “promoters” as opposed to "intermediaries", which disguises the agency of the facilitators and promoters of tax avoidance schemes; notes that Ireland has already classified them as “promoters” in legislation (eg, Mandatory Disclosure of Certain Transactions Regulation 2011);
Amendment 1136 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 b (new)
Paragraph 177 b (new)
177 b. Recalls that the EU’s existing definition of control required to create a group of companies should be applied to accountancy firms that are members of a network of firms associated by legally enforceable contractual arrangements that provide for the sharing of a name or marketing, professional standards, clients, support services, finance or professional indemnity insurance arrangements, as anticipated by Directive2013/34/EU on annual financial statements1a; and calls for the European Commission to present a proposal for professional networks subject to these arrangements to be required to file full country-by-country reports, adapted to meet the particular needs of the sector, on public record;2a _________________ 2a Murphy, R.; Stausholm, S.N. (2017) ‘The Big Four, a study of opacity’; GUE/NGL, July 2017. 1a European Parliament recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (Texts adopted, P8_TA- (2017)0491).
Amendment 1137 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 c (new)
Paragraph 177 c (new)
177 c. Calls for the Commission to present a proposal whereby the networks of professional service firms (e.g. accountancy firms, tax and legal advisors) to be required to apply for a single license to provide audit, taxation services or legal advice of any sort in the Member States, and that all abusive tax schemes promoted by the firm that have an impact on the tax revenue of a Member State be reported, whether sold in or outside the EU by a network member; 1a _________________ 1a Murphy, R.; Stausholm, S.N. (2017) ‘The Big Four, a study of opacity’; GUE/NGL, July 2017.
Amendment 1138 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177 d (new)
Paragraph 177 d (new)
177 d. Calls on the Commission to present a proposal for all audit firms to be required to be entirely separate from those selling any other service;
Amendment 1177 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 182 a (new)
Paragraph 182 a (new)
182 a. Deplores that even when in the area of financial services, the added value of sectorial whistleblower protection was already acknowledged by the Union legislator, and measures for the protection of whistleblowers were introduced in a significant number of legislative instruments in this area1a,a number of high profile cases involving European financial institutions have proven that protection of whistleblowers within such financial institutionsstill remains unsatisfactory and that fears of reprisals from both employers and authorities still prevents whistleblowers from coming forward within formation on breaches of law;2a _________________ 1a Communication of 8.12.2010 "Reinforcing sanctioning regimes in the financial services sector".[ 2a A8-0398/2018. Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliamentand of the Council on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law (COM(2018)0218 – C8 0159/2018 – 2018/0106(COD))
Amendment 1181 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 183 a (new)
Paragraph 183 a (new)
183 a. Notes that it has been proven that keeping a reporting person’s identity confidential is an essential element in avoiding backsliding and self-censorship. The duty of confidentiality should, therefore, only be waived in exceptional circumstances in which disclosure of information relating to the reporting person’s personal data is a necessary and proportionate obligation required under Union or national law in the context of subsequent investigations or judicial proceedings or to safeguard the freedoms of others including the right of defence of the concerned person, and in each case subject to appropriate safeguards under such laws. Appropriate sanctions should be provided for in the event of breaches of the duty of confidentiality concerning the reporting person’s identity; 1a _________________ 1a A8-0398/2018. Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law (COM(2018)0218 – C8 0159/2018 – 2018/0106(COD))
Amendment 1183 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 183 b (new)
Paragraph 183 b (new)
183 b. Notes that even when appropriate channels should be allowed for internal reporting, experts have noted that internal reporting should not be mandatory and that ultimately a whistleblower must have the right to be able to report externally1a _________________ 1a TAX3 Public hearing “Combatting money laundering in the EU banking sector”, Panel I: Danske Bank and money laundering allegations.
Amendment 1184 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 183 c (new)
Paragraph 183 c (new)
183 c. Notes that in addition to guarding the confidentiality of the identity of whistleblowers as it is essential for the protection of the reporting person, anonymous reporting should be further protected against the generalised threats and the attacks that aim to discredit the anonymously reporting person, by those offended;
Amendment 1205 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188 a (new)
Paragraph 188 a (new)
188 a. Deplores that Swiss libel laws are used to silence critics in Switzerland and worldwide because the burden of proof lays on the defendant not the plaintiff; that this not only affects journalists and whistle-blowers, but also reporting entities in the European Union and obliged persons under the beneficial owner register; as in case of having the obligation of reporting a beneficial owner which is Swiss, then the reporting person may end up being sued in Switzerland for libel and slander, being such criminal offences;1a _________________ 1a TAX3 Public hearing “Relations with Switzerland in tax matters and the fight against money laundering”, October 1, 2018.
Amendment 1209 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188 b (new)
Paragraph 188 b (new)
188 b. Calls on EU Member States and the Commission not to recognise the Swiss and British libel laws because they are used for libel tourism if in an EU Member States it were not possible to sue a journalist or a whistleblower;1a _________________ 1a TAX3 Public hearing “Relations with Switzerland in tax matters and the fight against money laundering”, October 1, 2018.
Amendment 1211 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188 c (new)
Paragraph 188 c (new)
188 c. Notes that money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance often involve highly complex international corporate and financial arrangements, which are likely to be within the remit of differing jurisdictions; and recalls the need for provisions to be taken for a unified point of contact for whistleblowers1a _________________ 1a A8-0398/2018. Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law (COM(2018)0218 – C8 0159/2018 – 2018/0106(COD))
Amendment 1217 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 192
Paragraph 192
192. NotDeplores that, despite requests to the Council, no relevant documents have been made available to the TAX3 Committee; calls into question, therefore, the political will of the Council to enhance transparency and cooperation in the fight against money laundering, tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning or to comply with the TEU and the principle of sincere cooperation;
Amendment 1242 #
2018/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 9.5 a (new)
Subheading 9.5 a (new)
Regrets that even when TAXE, TAX2 and PANA committees have managed to make valuable contributions to the legislative discussions, they have not gone in-depth enough to reveal anything new that had not already been said by the media or by the civil society, partly due to the limitations of the powers granted to European Parliament’s special and inquiry committees.
Amendment 8 #
2018/2059(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that France argues that the redundancies are linked to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and more particularly, the serious economic disruption undergone by the international air transport sector, notably the decline of the Union’s market share in the face of a spectacular rise of three major companies in the Persian Gulf, which receive state aid and subsidies; therefore calls on the Union and Member States to adopt similar economic strategies in order to support a sector subject to international competition;
Amendment 19 #
2018/2059(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Acknowledges that the coordinated package of personalised services has been drawn up in consultation with the representatives of the targeted beneficiaries and the social partners; reiterates that a sustained social dialogue, based on mutual trust and shared responsibility, is the best instrument for seeking consensual solutions and common perspectives in forecasting, preventing and managing restructuring processes; stresses that this dialogue could help to prevent job losses and, consequently, to use the EGF; deplores, in this respect, the poor quality of the social dialogue at Air France and the strategies of circumvention by the management of representative organizations of employees;
Amendment 24 #
2018/2059(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Believes that a coherent strategy of solidarity protectionism would reduce the risk of outsourcing and facilitate the conditions for the relocation of industrial production in the Union; insists that a serious policy of prevention and anticipation of restructuring should prevail over any use of the EGF; also stresses the importance of a genuine European Union-wide industrial policy with sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 4 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that Parliament's reading of the 2019 Budget fully does not fully reflects the political priorities adopted by an overwhelming majority in its abovementioned resolutions of 15 March 2018 on general guidelines and of 5 July 2018 on a mandate for the trilogue; recalls that at the core of those priorities are: sustainable growth, innovation, competitiveness, security, the fight against climate change and the transition to renewable energy and migration, and a particular focus on young people;
Amendment 12 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that Europe's citizens expect the Union to strain every sinew to ensure economic growth and foster job creation; recalls that meeting those expectations requires investments in research and innovation, education, infrastructure, SMEs and employment, particularly among the young people of Europe, and that any failure in that regard will foster disillusionment with the European ideal; expresses wonderment that the Council yet again proposes cuts to the very programmes that are designed to make the Union economy more competitive and innovative; stresses moreover that many of these programmes, for example Horizon 2020, are heavily oversubscribed, which constitutes a poor use resources and means that many excellent projects do not receive funding; highlights also the fact that programmes such as Erasmus +, Horizon 2020 and the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) provide a vivid demonstration of the advantages of working together across the Union and help create a feeling of European belonging; decides therefore to reinforce considerably Erasmus + and to strengthen programmes that contribute to growth and job creation, including Horizon 2020, the components of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) that are not related to defence spending or furthering our reliance on fossil fuels, and COSME;
Amendment 16 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates its commitment to its pledges made during the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) negotiations, namely to minimise the impact of EFSI-related cuts on Horizon 2020 and CEF in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure; proposes, therefore, not only to offset those cuts by restoring the original annual profile of those two programmes, in order to allow them to fully accomplish the objectives agreed during the adoption of the relevant legislation, but also revising the character of the EFSI in order to turn it into an ambitious social and environmental public investment plan for Europe, detached of its condition of financial instrument and engaged with a transition plan for an ecological change of production model;
Amendment 18 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that youth unemployment remains unacceptably high in certain Member States and that the situation of young people in NEET (not in education, employment or training) situations and the long-term unemployed is particularly worrying; stresses that young people are the most at risk of poverty and social and economic exclusion; decides therefore to reinforce the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) beyond the level proposed by the Commission; stresses that such reinforcement should in no way be seen as a frontloading of the YEI allocation endorsed in the context of the MFF mid-term revision; and urges for making this initiative anemployment plan linked to a social and environmental public plan for Europewhich engages to the Member States to increase the level of absorptionof the funding and create more quality youth employment;
Amendment 41 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Insists that in the light of recent security concerns across the Union, funding under Heading 3 should also pay particular attention to measures which will lead to enhancing security of Union citizens; decides for this reason to reinforce agencies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs which, due to increased workload and additional tasks, have been facing shortage of staff and funding in the past years;highlights the need for reflection on the causes of a lack of economic security for the European population, and its links to the lack of social protection, precarious labour conditions, and inequalities which drive social conflicts.
Amendment 43 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Reiterates that part of the solution to the migratory and refugee crisis as well as to the security concerns of Union citizens lies in addressing the root causes of migration and devoting sufficient financial means to external instruments that aim at tackling issues such as poverty, lack of employment, education and economic opportunities, instability, conflict and climate change; is of the opinion that is of the Uopinion should make optimal use of financial means under Heading 4 wthat Member States should recognize their responsibility for a number ongoing conflicts, and economic exploitation, as well as ending the unethichal proved to be insufficient to equally address all external challengesactice of externalising EU borders to third countries in order to allow for the optimal use of financial means under Heading 4;
Amendment 49 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Recalls to the Council and to the Commission that would be more efficient to apply the austerity criteria, to all those wasteful administrative expenses, the unjustified building policy, or the travel expenses of MEPS, in order to bring the EU institutions practices closer to the citizens living standards; the limiting of higher wage scales is required to avoid cuts to staff numbers, which are needed to carry out the important role of the EU;
Amendment 54 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Highlights yet again the fact that SMEs are an essential part of the Union economy and play a crucial role in job creation throughout the Union; believes that there is a need to create an SME- friendly business environment, as well as to support SME clusters and networks, , especially concerning the economically independent SMEs, at all levels, of the transnational and oligopolistic network, and supporting also cooperative companies which bring social, solidarity and ethic practices; notes, however, with deep concern the Council cuts to the SME instrument, which send a contradictory signal to businesses in the Union; considers that the Union budget can be a key tool in making SMEs more competitive and more innovative and in fostering the spirit of enterprise in the Union; recalls in this regard COSME and Horizon 2020;
Amendment 57 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 61 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Raises the necessity of the implementation of a programme for providing economic and social security by establishing a policy of investment aligned with the needs of the working classes; an employment policy based on economic security and social protection and a more sustainable environment;
Amendment 68 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 74 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Decides, in line with its Europe 2020 targets and with its international commitments to tackle climate change, to propose an increase of EUR 15,620 million above the level of the DB for climate- related actions;
Amendment 77 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Reiterates its long-standing conviction that the Heading 3 ceiling has proven vastly insufficient to adequately fund the internal dimension of essential challenges related on the one hand to internal security, and on the other hand to migrationto migration, a lack of funding has been further compounded by the fundamentally flawed approach to migration at the European level;
Amendment 80 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Expects the pressure on some Member States’ migration and asylum systems, as well as on their borders, to remain high in 2019, and is of the opinion that additional funding is needed in the field of migration, also in view of any future, unpredictable needs in this area; reinforcIs of the opinion that additional funding is needed in the field of migration, in order to address the root causes offorced migration that is the result of poverty, climate change and war; calls for a recognition of the EU’s role in these causes of migration; urges the reinforece of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund as regards supporting legal migration to the Unionmigrant population at risk, safe route and rescue operation policy, and promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals and enhancing fair and effective return strategies, in particular to support Member States in improving integration measures for migrants, especially children and unaccompanied minors;
Amendment 107 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 a (new)
Paragraph 50 a (new)
50 a. Considers that in its resolution of 18 April 2018 on the Integrity Policy of the Commission, Parliament expressed its concerns with the appointment procedures for its senior officials, reiterates its call on the Commission to review before the end of 2018 its administrative procedure for the appointment of senior officials with the objective of fully ensuring that the best candidates are selected within a framework of maximum transparency and equal opportunities; calls on the Commission to also review its recruitment policies for officials more generally with a view to avoid conflicts of interest, such as were noted by NGO’s (https://corporateeurope.org/power- lobbies-revolving- doors/2018/04/financial-regulators-and- private-sector-permanent-revolving);
Amendment 113 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Endorses, as a general rule, the Commission's estimates of the budgetary needs of agencies; considers, therefore, that any further cuts proposed by the Council would endanger the proper functioning of the agencies and would not allow them to fulfil the tasks they have been assigned; is concerned that in general the visibility of agencies for European citizens is still limited, whereas for their accountability and independence a high level of visibility is required;
Amendment 144 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64 a (new)
Paragraph 64 a (new)
64 a. Takes note of the decision of 25 September 2018 of the General Court confirming the Parliament’s refusal to grant access to documents relating to MEPs’ subsistence allowances, travel expenses and parliamentary assistance allowances (Judgment in Cases T-639/15 to T-666/15 Maria Psara and Others vParliament and T-94/16 Gavin Sheridan vParliament); reminds the Bureau that the plenary has appealed for greater transparency and an urgent need to audit the General Expenditure Allowance; welcomed, in this regard, the creation of an ad hoc working group for defining and publishing the rules concerning the use of the general expenditure allowance; regrets, however, that the based on the report of its working group the Bureau could only agree on a non-exhaustive list of eligible expenses, and on the need for each Member of Parliament to have a separate bank account dedicated to funds received as part of the General Expenditure Allowance; reiterates its call on the Bureau to make the following additional changes concerning the General Expenditure Allowance: - all receipts pertaining to the General Expenditure Allowance shall be kept by Members; - the unspent share of the General Expenditure Allowance shall be returned at the end of the mandate;
Amendment 157 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
76. Maintains unchanged the overall level of the Ombudsman’s budget for 2019 as proposed by the Commission in the DB; stresses that the number of cases at the European Ombudsmanhas increased significantly and that the Office of the European Ombudsman risks of becoming quickly understaffed and underfunded; stresses that, moreover, this lack of resources may hinder the Ombudsman taking up new and highly necessary tasks, such as the assistance of whistleblowers inside the EU-institutions, which the Ombudsman expressed her willingness to take upon herself, if Commission and Parliament were to decide that an EU referral body for whistle blowers is required;
Amendment 18 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
– having regard to its resolution of 4 April 2017 on women and their roles in rural areas,
Amendment 20 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)
Citation 6 b (new)
– having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the ‘State of play of farmland concentration in the EU: how to facilitate the access to land for farmers’, adopted on 27 April 2017,
Amendment 77 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas it is vital to halt and reverse the current concentration of power into the hands of the large retail sector and big business;
Amendment 120 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the CAP must play an important role in overcoming stagnation and volatility of prices at source and farm incomes which, despite the concentration and intensification of production and increasing productivity, are still lower than in the rest of the economy;
Amendment 129 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas concentration, intensification and increased productivity have also resulted in negative effects, such as the loss of farmers and the abandonment of villages, as well as affecting the environment and product quality;
Amendment 134 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the volatility of international markets is conditioned by variables – often of a speculative nature – which are incompatible with the production of healthy food and with sustaining small and medium-scale farming and adequate incomes;
Amendment 151 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas the international market, which represents a minimal percentage of European agricultural production, is having a more decisive impact on the future of farmers in Europe than CAP aid;
Amendment 186 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas there is a need for an updated and fairer system of payments, as in many Member States the current system of entitlements is based on historic benchmarks which are now almost 20 years old and which constitute an obstacle to generational renewal and hinder young farmers’ access to farmland, – this being especially the case for young female farmers – as new entrants do not possess entitlements and are thus at a disadvantage;
Amendment 198 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the low level of some pensions further hinders generational renewal;
Amendment 217 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the emergence of new challenges, such as increasing global trade, is necessitating fair and sustainable conditions for the global exchange of goods and services, something which is not possible within the framework of the WTO and in accordance with existing EU social, economic and environmental standards, which should be promoted;
Amendment 221 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas free trade agreements, which have been undermining countries’ sovereignty, and food sovereignty in particular, and shutting local farmers out of their own markets, have added to inequality and poverty;
Amendment 226 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas while the focus on research and development for both product and process innovation is to be welcomed, more must be done to translate the results of research into farming practice, facilitated by EU-wide agricultural extension servicesresearch and innovation are necessary to establish a new European agricultural model based on agroecology;
Amendment 258 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the agriculture and food sector must be incentivised to continue togeared towards a smallholder farming model which contributes to the environmental care and the climate action objectives of the EU set out in international agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the UN SDGs;
Amendment 353 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the intention to simplify and modernise the CAP, but emphasises that the integrity of the singsimplification and modernisation are insufficient to maintain food production in the hands of small/medium-scale mfarket and a truly common policy must be the overriding priorities of reformmers, to ensure measures are taken to combat climate change and to establish a type of farming in which genuine commitments are made concerning the environment;
Amendment 361 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the intention to simplify and modernise the CAP, but emphasises that the integrity of the single market and a truly common policyprotection of domestic production and small-scale farmers must be the overriding priorities of reform;
Amendment 369 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. States that, as an imperative, food chains should be decentralised, local production and consumption supported and promoted, and the shortest possible supply chains and local markets fostered (including using innovative media such as the Internet), thus reducing the energy flows generated by food production and distribution;
Amendment 371 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Urges the Commission and the Council to place at the heart of the Common Agricultural Policy farm gate prices which cover production costs and wages;
Amendment 375 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Draws attention to the very important role played by small and medium-sized farms, a role which must be acknowledged and valued;
Amendment 442 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 480 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to ensure that financial and performance control and audit functions are performed to the same standard and under the same criteria across all Member States, irrespective of enhanced flexibility for Member States in rural development programme design and management, and with a view, in particular, to ensuring a timely disbursement of funds across Member States to all eligible famers;
Amendment 558 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the current CAP architecture can only deliver its objectives if sufficiently funded; calls, therefore, for the CAP budget to be maintainincreased in the next MFF at at least the current level in order to achieve the ambitions of a revised and efficient CAP beyond 2020; rejects, therefore, any attempt to renationalise the costs of the CAP and the attempt to replace investment support with financial instruments;
Amendment 563 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the current CAP architecture can only deliver its objectives if sufficiently funded; calls, therefore, for the CAP budget to be maintained in the next MFF at at least the current level in order to sufficient level to meet the needs that enable achievement of the ambitions of a revised and efficient CAP beyond 2020;
Amendment 608 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that more targeted support for family farms is necessary and can be achieved by introducing a compulsory higher support rate for small farmand medium-scale farms as social, environmental and economically- sustainable models; considers, moreover, that support for larger farms should be digressive, reflecting economies of scale, with the possibility for capping to be decided by the Member States;at EU level.
Amendment 635 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Points out that equality between women and men is a core objective of the EU and its Member States;
Amendment 642 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Believes it necessary to cap farm payments for large farms Europe-wide;
Amendment 644 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Calls on the Commission and Council to ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed into all EU programmes, actions and initiatives, and calls therefore for gender mainstreaming to be applied to the CAP and to rural cohesion policies;
Amendment 696 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls for that new system to take into account persons who are active and the equalisation of average incomes;
Amendment 705 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Advocates convergence of direct support (pillar I);
Amendment 751 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the need for a fair distribution of direct payments between Member Statesfarmers throughout the European Union, which must take into account socio-economic differences, and different production costs and the amounts received by Member States under Pillar II;
Amendment 757 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls, in the redistribution of direct payments to family farms, for payments to be split equally between both members of a couple;
Amendment 818 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that generational renewal is a challenge faced by famers in many Member Statwhich should be tackled through public policies and that each national strategy must therefore address this issue through a comprehensive approach, including top-ups in Pillar I and targeted measures in Pillar II, as well as by means of new financial instruments and national measures, in order to incentivise famers to pass on their farming operations;
Amendment 842 #
2018/2037(INI)
15a. Stresses that it is almost impossible for people from outside the world of farming to enter agriculture; in this context, consideration should be given to ways of supporting small and medium- sized farms and gradual integration in the sector, ensuring that first-pillar aid is provided, given that there are small and medium-sized farms that currently receive no aid;
Amendment 864 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Recalls that mechanisms should be put in place to ensure shared ownership, in order to safeguard the rights of women;
Amendment 872 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15c. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to put measures in place to ensure equitable access to land;
Amendment 899 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Calls on the Commission to urge the Member States to invest in rural areas to provide high-quality public facilities and services to meet people’s everyday needs: health care, education, social services, child care, care of the elderly and other dependent persons, transport services, postal services, internet access and cultural services, among others; believes that the rural development funds will not meet their objectives if the States do not implement decisive policies to ensure that rural areas have an acceptable level of public services;
Amendment 913 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Believes that it has been proven that rural areas need women and men to engage in small and medium-scale farming;
Amendment 999 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Stresses the need for payments under rural development to farmers in areas with natural constraints, difficult climatic conditions, steep slopes or limitations in terms of soil quality; calls for a simplification and improved targeting of the ANC plan after 2020;
Amendment 1004 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Rejects attempts of any kind to patent life, plants and animals, genetic material or essential biological processes, especially where native strains and species are concerned;
Amendment 1066 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Condemns the imposition of agricultural policies biased towards multinational companies, to the detriment of small-scale farmers;
Amendment 1072 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Urges the Commission and the Member States to safeguard and promote access to seeds and agricultural inputs for small-scale farmers and marginalised groups, and to promote and safeguard the exchange of seeds and their public ownership, along with sustainable traditional techniques that guarantee the human right to proper food and nutrition;
Amendment 1142 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Insists on the critical need for the future CAP to support farmers more efficiently in order to cope with price and income volatility due to climate, health and market risks, by creating additional incentives for flexible risk management and stabilisation tools while ensuring broad access and developing measures to discourage output growth above European averages; those growing at a rate exceeding this level must repay sums of money or have their crisis-compensation aid cut; we reject the idea of using insurance to address market volatility;
Amendment 1153 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Is in favour of the creation of public insurance schemes to protect farmers against climate and environmental risks; rejects any form of income insurance, a model used in the US farm bill;
Amendment 1176 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Insists on the necessity of strengthening the position of producers within the food supply chain, in particular byby means of binding legislation guaranteeing them a fair share of the added value, covering production costs and ensuring payment for work, by fostering inter-sectoral cooperation, and strengthening transparency in the markets and crisis prevention;
Amendment 1191 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Is in favour of the introduction of mechanisms which guarantee that added value is divided fairly between production and distribution without penalising consumers;
Amendment 1192 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22b. Stresses the need for public mechanisms which regulate production and markets to be introduced, with the aim of guaranteeing fair prices for production, stabilising prices, ensuring that farmers have a stable and fair income, and guaranteeing the right to produce in each country;
Amendment 1199 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to allow and indeed encourage – particularly in the dairy sector – active crisis management instruments, such as voluntary sector agreements to manage supply in quantitative terms among producers, producers organisathe regulation of productions and processors, and to examine the possibility of extending such instruments to other sectors;
Amendment 1212 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Also calls for public policies to stabilise the market and limit production and growth, for inflows of investment in production and for an assessment of the socio-economic impact of these investments;
Amendment 1228 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Believes that whileConsiders that trade agreements are not beneficial to the EU agricultural sector oversmall and medium-sized farms or small, and necessary for strengthening the EU’s position on the global agricultural market, they also pose a number of challenges that require reinforced safeguard mechanisms to ensure a level playing field between farmers in the EU and in the rest of the worldmedium-sized enterprises. Trade agreements are having extremely harmful socio-economic effects on small and medium-sized agriculture in the EU and other parts of the world, where cheap European exports often destroy the agriculture that Europe supports, at least in principle, in addition to generating greenhouse gases and wasting a great deal of energy; safeguard mechanisms should take into account the costs of engaging in socially, environmentally and economically sustainable agriculture, both in the EU and in the countries to which it exports;
Amendment 1234 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Believes that while trade agreements are beneficial to the EU agricultural sector overall, and necessary for strengthening the EU’s position on the global agricultural market, they also pose a number of challenges thatthe CAP’s current intensive, export-oriented model and free trade agreements drag down social, labour and environmental rights and require reinforced safeguard mechanisms to ensure a level playing field between farmers in the EU and in the rest of the world;
Amendment 1259 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Amendment 1262 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Insists that international trade must not threaten the ability and the right of each country to produce its own food or its right to food sovereignty;
Amendment 1266 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25b. Takes the view that products traded internationally should meet the following criteria: – they must not be produced on the land necessary for producing the country’s food; – they must not be placed on the markets via any form of dumping (whether economic, social or environmental); – they must not ruin farmers from the country of destination or oust them from their markets;
Amendment 1286 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Insists that these standards must encompass: peasant farmers’ rights, labour rights, human rights and the production costs of sustainable agriculture;
Amendment 1291 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26b. Stresses the importance of short local and regional supply chains, which are more environmentally sustainable – since they cause less pollution because they require less transport – and mean products are more easily traceable and fresher;
Amendment 1300 #
2018/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 c (new)
Paragraph 26 c (new)
26c. Points out that producing locally supports the local food culture and local economies;
Amendment 1 #
2018/2025(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E (new)
Recital E (new)
E. whereas the undertaking concerned, Goodyear, and its subsidiary, Dunlop Tyres, are responsible for thousands of redundancies in Europe, including in France at the Amiens site and at Castle Bromwich and Wolverhampton in the UK; whereas Goodyear-Dunlop has just announced the axing of 90 jobs at its site in Montluçon, France;
Amendment 4 #
2018/2025(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that Germany argues that the redundancies are linked to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and its negative impact on B- segment car tyre production in the Unfrom 2015 to 2016, car imports into the EU increased by 22%, and that for 2016 Goodyear’s dividend payout to shareholders, which has increased steadily since 2013, was 86 million;
Amendment 6 #
2018/2025(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the redundancies that occurred in one enterprise are expected to have a significant adverse effect on the local economy, and that the impact of the layoffs is linked to the difficulties of redeployment due to the scarcity of jobs, to the low educational background of the dismissed workers, to their specific vocational skills developed in a sector now in decline,decisions of this nature on restructuring, transfer and company closures not only reduce employment but very often undermine economic and social cohesion in the areas concerned and increase unease among workers and to the high number of job seekersgeneral public;
Amendment 9 #
2018/2025(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes strongly that a coherent strategy of inclusive protectionism would reduce the risk of relocation and facilitate the conditions for a return of industrial production to the EU; stresses that a serious policy of preventing and pre- empting restructurings should be given priority over any use of the EGF; stresses also the importance of a genuine industrial policy at Union level to bring about sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 16 #
2018/2025(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Points out that strong social dialogue based on mutual trust and shared responsibility is the best tool with which to seek consensual solutions and common outlooks when predicting, preventing and managing restructuring processes; stresses that this could help prevent job losses and, therefore, new EGF cases;
Amendment 17 #
2018/0299(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to avoid the North Sea – Mediterranean Core Network Corridor being separated into two distinct and unconnected parts and to ensure connectivity of Ireland with mainland Europe, particularly with the closest ports, the North Sea – Mediterranean Core Network Corridor should include maritime links between the Irish core ports and core ports of France, Belgium and the Netherlands. A link between the North Sea – Mediterranean Corridor and the Atlantic Corridor via Le Havre should be established to ensure better connectivity and integration of the internal market.
Amendment 22 #
2018/0299(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) In a Europe in which, due to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, France is geographically the closest EU country to Ireland, the Atlantic Corridor should be realigned and substantially developed to connect Ireland to it and take into account existing and future traffic between Ireland and France. Northern ports such as Le Havre, Calais, Dunkirk or Boulogne sur Mer are essential elements of this current and future connection.
Amendment 32 #
2018/0299(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) In order to ensure optimum control of imports and exports of fishery products, an office of the European Fisheries Control Agency should be located in Boulogne sur Mer to perform customs and veterinary checks.
Amendment 34 #
2018/0299(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) Investment should include the funds necessary for the adaptation of transport infrastructure, in particular interconnectivity and multi-modality of ports with rail transport.
Amendment 46 #
2018/0299(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1
Annex I – paragraph 1
Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013
Annex I – point 2 – section 'North Sea – Mediterranean' – line 1a (new)
Annex I – point 2 – section 'North Sea – Mediterranean' – line 1a (new)
«Baile Átha Cliath/Dublin/Corcaigh/Cork – Zeebrugge/Antwerpen/Rotterdam. Le Havre/Calais/Dunkerque/ Boulogne sur Mer -
Amendment 20 #
2018/0258(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Amendment 21 #
2018/0258(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(ga) costs relating to checks on persons.
Amendment 14 #
2018/0250(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 22 #
2018/0250(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Measures in and in relation to third countries supported through the Fund should be implemented in full synergy and coherence with and should complement other actions outside the Union supported through the Union's external financing instruments. In particular, in implementing such actions, full coherence should be sought with the principles and general objectives of the Union’s external action and foreign policy related to the country or region in question, with due respect for fundamental rights. In relation to the external dimension, the Fund should enhance cooperation with third countries which respect human rights in areas of interest to the Union’s internal security, such as countering terrorism and radicalisation, cooperation with third country law enforcement authorities in the fight against terrorism (including detachments and joint investigation teams), serious and organised crime and corruption, trafficking in human beings and migrant smuggling.
Amendment 27 #
2018/0250(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 34 #
2018/0250(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The financial envelope for the implementation of the Fund for the period 2021-2027 shall be EUR 2 5001 179 000 000 in current prices.
Amendment 36 #
2018/0250(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) EUR 1 5000 000 000 shall be allocated to the programmes implemented under shared management;
Amendment 37 #
2018/0250(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) EUR 1 00079 000 000 shall be allocated to the thematic facility.
Amendment 19 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 20 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 21 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) To acknowledge the important role of the Member States’ customs authorities at the external borders and to ensure that they have at their disposal sufficient means to implement their broad scope of tasks at these borders, the instrument for financial support for customs control equipment established by Regulation (EU) No …/… [new Customs Control Equipment Fund] of the European Parliament and of the Council should provide these national authorities with the necessary funding to invest in equipment to carry out customs control as well as equipment that can in addition to customs control serve other purposes such as border control.
Amendment 22 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Most customs control equipment may be equally or incidentally fit for controls of compliance with other legislation, such as provisions on border management, visa or police cooperation. The Integrated Border Management Fund has therefore been conceived as two complementary instruments with distinct but coherent scopes for the purchase of equipment. On the one hand, the instrument for border management and visa established by this Regulation will exclude equipment that can be used for both border management and customs control. On the other hand, the instrument for customs control equipment will not only support financially equipment with customs controls as the main purpose but will also allow its use as well for additional purposes such as border controls and securityfor the purpose of customs controls. This distribution of roles will foster inter-agency cooperation as a component of the European integrated border management approach, as referred to in Article 4(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624, thereby enabling customs and border authorities to work together and maximising the impact of the Union budget through co-sharing and inter-operability of control equipment.
Amendment 23 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) To strengthen the complementarity and to reinforce the consistency of maritime activities as well as to avoid duplication of efforts and to alleviate budgetary constraints in an area of costly activities such as the maritime domain, the instrument should support maritime operations of multipurpose character where the main objective is border surveillance but other objectives could additionally be pursued simultaneouslysea rescue.
Amendment 27 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
Amendment 33 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a – point ii
Amendment 34 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Amendment 35 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Legal entities participating in consortia of at least two independent entities, established in different Member States or overseas countries or territories linked to those states or in third countries, are eligible.
Amendment 36 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The financial envelope for the implementation of the instrument for the period 2021-2027 shall be EUR 8 0182 734 000 000 in current prices.
Amendment 37 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) EUR 4 8111 640 000 000 shall be allocated to the programmes implemented under shared management, of which EUR 157 2053 590 000 for the Special Transit Scheme referred to in Article 16, implemented under shared management;
Amendment 38 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) EUR 3 2071 094 000 000 shall be allocated to the thematic facility.
Amendment 52 #
2018/0249(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – point 1 – point d
Annex III – point 1 – point d
(d) secondment of joint liaison officers to those third countries that respect human rights, as defined in Regulation (EU) No …/ … [new ILO Regulation]69 and secondment of border guards and other relevant experts to Member States or from a Member State to a third country, reinforcement of cooperation and operational capacity of networks of experts or liaison officers, as well as exchange of best practices and boosting the capacity of European networks to assess, promote, support and develop Union policies; _________________ 69 OJ L […], […]. p.
Amendment 16 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) At Union level, the European Semester of economic policy coordination is the framework to identify national reform priorities and monitor their implementation. Member States develop their own national multiannual investment strategies in support of those reform priorities. Those strategies should be presented alongside the yearly National Reform Programmes as a way to outline and coordinate priority investment projects to be supported by national and/or Union funding. TheyArticle 151 TFEU and the rights provided for in the European Social Charter establish the framework for the priorities of the Union's and Member States' strategies for implementing the ESF+. These strategies should also serve to use Union funding in a coherent manner and to maximise the added value of the financial support to be received notably from the programmes supported by the Union under the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Investment Stabilisation Function and InvestEU, where relevant.
Amendment 18 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The Union is confronted with structural challenges arising from economic globalisation, the management of migration flows and the increased security threat, clean energy transiimpact of austerity policies, the management of migration, technological change and an increasingly ageing workforce and growing skills and labour shortages in some sectors and regions, experienced especially by SMEs. Taking into account the changing realities of the world of work, the Union should be prepared for the current and future challenges by investing in relevant skills, making growth more inclusive and by improving employment and social policies, including in view of labour mobility.
Amendment 20 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) Member States should commit to gender budgeting, with fixed target values (share of programme funds allocated to women) in the context of budget management and the evaluation of their operational programmes. Gender budgeting is an important instrument in equal opportunities policy for making gender gaps in ESF+ participation transparent.
Amendment 24 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The ESF+ should contribute to the reduction of poverty by supporting national schemes aiming to alleviate food and material deprivation and promote social integration of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion and the most deprived. With a view that at Union level at least 4% of the resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management supports the most deprived, Member States should allocate at least 24% of their national resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management to address the forms of extreme poverty with the greatest social exclusion impact, such as homelessness, child poverty and food deprivation. Due to the nature of the operations and the type of end recipients, it is necessary that simpler rules apply to support which addresses material deprivation of the most deprived.
Amendment 26 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 28 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) To ensure that the social dimension of Europe as set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights is duly put forward and that a minimum amount of resources is targeting those most in need Member States should allocate at least 2530% of their national ESF+ resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management to fostering social inclusion.
Amendment 50 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Member States and, where appropriate the Commission, shall foster synergies and ensure coordination, complementarity and coherence between the ESF+ and other Union funds, programmes and instruments such as Erasmus, and the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Reform Support Programme, including the Reform Delivery Tool and the Technical Support Instrument, both in the planning phase and during implementation. Member States and, where appropriate the Commission, shall optimise mechanisms for coordination to avoid duplication of effort and ensure close cooperation between those responsible for implementation to deliver coherent and streamlined support actions.
Amendment 51 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 54 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
In addition to the minimum allocation of 30% of ESF+ resources under shared management to objectives (vii) to (x) of Article 4(1), Member States shall allocate at least 24% of their ESF+ resources under shared management to the specific objective of social inclusion of the most disadvantaged and/or addressing material deprivation as set out in points (x) and (xi) of Article 4(1).
Amendment 56 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 61 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall allocate an appropriate amountt least 2% of ESF+ resources under shared management in each programme for the capacity building of local and regional authorities, social partners and civil society organisations at national and European levels.
Amendment 62 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
The resources referred to in Article 7(4) shall be programmed under a dedicated priority or programme. The co-financing rate for this priority or programme is set at 85%.
Amendment 67 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. At least 5% of ESF+ resources at national level, with the exception of technical assistance, shall be allocated to the priorities established in this article.
Amendment 68 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the costs of accompanying measures undertaken by or on behalf of beneficiaries and declared by the beneficiaries delivering the food and/or basic material assistance to the most deprived persons at a flat-minimum rate of 5% of the costs referred to in point (a).
Amendment 70 #
2018/0206(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) 2a. Eligible actions by cross- border partnerships or the stakeholders referred to in paragraph 2 shall be co- financed by the Union at 95% of the total eligible expenditure. Additional financial support will only be granted in the case of exceptional and sufficiently reasoned circumstances.
Amendment 34 #
2018/0139(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) The aim of this harmonisation is to defuse situations in which ports in different Member States compete on administration. The race to cut administration costs to the bone leads to competition between ports which is both unfair and dangerous for the workers who are in contact with the goods and the ships (seafarers, dockers etc).
Amendment 44 #
2018/0139(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) The Commission shall take all necessary precautions during development of the interface to ensure it is completely compatible with all existing systems. Interoperability of systems is vital to ensuring that no port will see its business suffer as a result of setting up the system.
Amendment 61 #
2018/0139(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The Commission shall consider whether to include provisions concerning the reporting of information on fumigation gases used to protect goods transported either in bulk or in containers. This information will enable workers who are in contact with the goods to work safely in the proper conditions.
Amendment 62 #
2018/0139(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. The Commission shall consider whether to include development of 'ship safety data sheets' like those currently being drawn up by the Social Dialogue Committee in the Ports Sector, to give dock workers working on these ships information on their condition and what equipment is needed to work on them in safety.
Amendment 63 #
2018/0139(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 c (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. The Commission shall consider whether to include in the information requested, documents relating to the working conditions of persons on board ships (employment contract, type of contract, length, etc.), in order to ensure compliance with said documents.
Amendment 64 #
2018/0139(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 d (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. The Commission shall consider whether to include in the information requested, documents relating to dangerous, polluting and toxic substances, in order to reduce all environmental hazards to a minimum and ensure safe working conditions for dock workers.
Amendment 132 #
2018/0139(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) the procedure for reporting information shall not under any circumstances compromise the reliability and exhaustiveness of the information. The creation of flaws in the system for verifying information is to be avoided at all costs. Information likely to have changed as the ship calls at different European ports is to be systematically requested once again and verified by the competent authorities if necessary.
Amendment 9 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The European Union’s common short-stay visa policy has been an integral part to the establishment of an area without internal borders. VA visa policy should rewhich respects humain an essrights and fundamential tool for facilitating tourism and business, while helping counter security risks and the risk of irregular migration to the Unionfreedoms should facilitate travel by third- country nationals to the EU while guaranteeing free movement of persons and maintaining the security of people within the territory of the Union. The common visa policy should be consistent with other Union policies, including those on freedom of movement, residence and mobility in the Member State of a person’s choice.
Amendment 11 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The Union should use its visa policy in its cooperation with third countries, and to ensure a better balance between migration and security concerns, economic considerations and general external relationwill take particular care to respect the obligations incumbent upon each of them under international law, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 1951 Geneva Convention, as well as the 1967 New York Protocol, the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant international instruments.
Amendment 14 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The visa application procedure should be as easy as possible for applicants, so as to guarantee freedom of movement and the right to leave the State from which they originally come or in which they reside, without causing discrimination. It should be clear which Member State is competent for examining an application for a visa in particular where the intended visit covers several Member States. Where possible, Member States should allow for application forms to be completed and submitted electronically. Deadlines should be established for the various steps of the procedure in particular to allow travellers to plan ahead and avoid peak seasons in consulates.
Amendment 21 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 23 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 29 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The issuing of visas at the external border should remain exceptional. Howeverenable Member States, inter alia, to promote short -term tourism, and Member States should be authorised to issue visas at the external border on the basis of temporary schemes, for which the organisational arrangements should be notified and published. Such schemes should be limited in scope and comply with the general rules for processing visa applications. The validity of the visa issued should be limited to the territory of the issuing Member State.
Amendment 30 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the rights and principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, it seeks to ensure full respect for the right to the protection of personal data as set out in Article 16 TFEU, the right to private and family life as set out in Article 7, the right to asylum as set out in Article 18 and the rights of the child as set out in Article 24 of that Charter.
Amendment 44 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 14 – paragraph 4 c
Article 14 – paragraph 4 c
Amendment 45 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 14 – paragraph 4 d
Article 14 – paragraph 4 d
Amendment 47 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 14 – paragraph 4 g
Article 14 – paragraph 4 g
Amendment 48 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – point g a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – point g a (new)
Consulates may waive the above requirements where the applicant is known to their visa services.
Amendment 50 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point a Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Amendment 51 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point b
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point b
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Amendment 52 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. Applicants shall pay a visa fee of EUR 860.
Amendment 53 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. Children from the age of six years and below the age of 12 years shall pay a visa fee of EUR 4035.;
Amendment 54 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point b
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point b
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 55 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point f
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 12 – point f
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 16 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Amendment 56 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Amendment 57 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 21 – paragraph 3 e
Article 21 – paragraph 3 e
Amendment 67 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point c Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point c Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Amendment 68 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 18
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 18
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 25 a (new)
Article 25 a (new)
Amendment 80 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) information with regard to the assessment of migratory and/or security risks, in particular on:
Amendment 81 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 82 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 83 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point c
Amendment 84 #
2018/0061(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 33 – point d
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 48 – paragraph 3 – point d
Amendment 101 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the electronic identification system for sheep and goats is an efficient way of ensuring the traceability of animals, but it is technically unsuitable for many herds, particularly for small producers with more limited technical capacities and losing eartags or inadvertently failing to scan them can gives rise to penalties that are sometimes disproportionate;
Amendment 115 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas there is a growing market in many EU countries for local agricultural products, in response to the demand for transparency and quality voiced by consumers;
Amendment 119 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O b (new)
Recital O b (new)
Amendment 199 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Warns about the problem of the concentration of aid on larger herds, in cases where there is no limit to the receipt of aid or where these limits are very flexible;
Amendment 244 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission and Member States to consider measures to improve transparency in the market, as well as the possibility of harmonising arrangements on carcassethe channels, without prejudice to the biodiversity brought by local breeds, and the establishment of a European observatory monitoring the prices and production costs of sheep- and goatmeat;
Amendment 317 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Commission and the Member States to consider establishing a simplified identification system for small and medium-sized herds in extensive farming and harmonising tolerance levels when punishing livestock farmers for inadvertent errors in the application of the electronic identification system;
Amendment 335 #
2017/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Invites the Commission and Member States to consider rural development measures to protect herds from attack from predators and look into reviewing the Habitats Directive, with the aim of controlling the spread of predators in certain grazing arealivestock and compensate for losses caused by predator attacks;
Amendment 15 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas climate change compounds the already existing (through numerous socioeconomic, institutional, cultural and political structural determinants) gender disparities influential in the gender-based division of social roles, in the numerous constraints, risks and workload that make up a woman's everyday lot, in young girls dropping out of school and in access to healthcare;
Amendment 18 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the effects of climate change are felt first by the poorest and most at risk populations, and whereas with women accounting for 70 % of the 1.2 billion people earning less than one dollar a day, it is women who are affected the most by the consequences of climate change;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas climate action is a major priority and cannot afford the luxury of disregarding the intellectual and active contribution of one half of humanity;
Amendment 34 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that the right to dispose of their own natural resources is an inalienable right of nations and that respect for this right by the European Union and its Member States shall be a condition for all cooperation with third countries;
Amendment 38 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Believes that food sovereignty in third countries is essential for their development and a key factor in their stability in addressing the consequences of climate change;
Amendment 53 #
2017/2086(INI)
3a. Believes that big companies have a major responsibility in climate action; calls, therefore, on Member States to ensure that companies which come under their national law do not disregard human rights or the social, health and environmental standards to which they are subject when moving to, or doing business in, a third country; calls for sanctions to be imposed on EU companies which do not abide by these standards or do not offer victims of human rights violations for which they are directly or indirectly responsible satisfactory compensation; calls too on the EU and its Member States to become fully involved in the UN’s work on implementing a binding instrument against multinationals that do not adhere to these standards;
Amendment 55 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Condemns again the economic, social and political interference in the affairs of third countries resulting from World Bank and IMF structural adjustment plans and the free-trade agreements – known officially as ‘economic partnership agreements’ – concluded by the EU; stresses that these policies have led to seizure of land and resources and to economic, social, political and humanitarian crises that drive people into exile and have a major impact on climate change and on the poorest populations, particularly women;
Amendment 56 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Stresses the importance to states of their recovering their sovereignty over their natural wealth by introducing democratic oversight of the activities of foreign transnational companies and developing their own national infrastructure to exploit, process and market their own raw materials; supports the principle by which ‘any agreement, convention, arrangement or other act which has the consequence of depriving the nation, natural persons or legal persons of all or part of their means of subsistence drawn from their natural resources or wealth shall, without prejudice to international provisions on economic crimes, be considered looting and be punishable by law’; believes that an audit of the natural resources exploited and the consequences thereof for the people could be a suitable tool with which to begin this natural resources recovery process;
Amendment 57 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Believes that climate migration exposes women to many different forms of violence during their journey; calls for this to be taken seriously into account such that effective solutions result;
Amendment 62 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses the necessity of taking gender into account in managing the consequences of climate change, notably through policies on water, transport, health and energy, as this will increase the real impact of these policies and their social effectiveness for the whole of society;
Amendment 67 #
2017/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls for gender to be included as a general and cross-cutting objective in all climate warming policies and means for adaptation and aid addressing its consequences, rather than restricting it to a specific sector;
Amendment 29 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points out that tax avoidance in all its forms results in losses to the EU to the tune of EUR 1000 billion per year, according to Commission estimates; takes the view that it is therefore necessary to adopt an effective strategy to combat corruption and tax avoidance, and to bring in upward harmonisation of tax legislation in Europe;
Amendment 68 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls for the suppression of all rebates and corrections, while ensuring fair treatment between Member States; underlines in this context that Brexit will mean that the UK rebate and the related ‘rebates on the rebate’ will become obsolete and cease to exist, while reform of the statistical VAT-based own resource will become inevitable, both in terms of its full harmonisation and because, given its regressive nature, it will account for a smaller proportion of the EU’s revenues;
Amendment 74 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that the traditional own resources, namely customs duties, agricultural duties and the sugar and isoglucose levies, constitute a reliable and genuine source of EU revenue, as they arise directly from the EU being a customs union and from the legal competences and common commercial policy linked to that; takes the view, therefore, that the traditional own resources should be retained as a source of revenue for the EU budget; considerspoints out that the EU itself is putting that revenue at risk by signing new free trade agreements that do away with customs duties; takes the view, therefore, that if the proportion of collection costs retained by Member States is reduced, a bigger share of this revenue can be securedtraditional own resources should be retained as a source of revenue for the EU budget;
Amendment 77 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges that, in the past, the GNI-based contribution providewas a reliable and stable source of revenue for the EU budget, and benefits from very strong support from a large majority of Member States; believes, thereforehowever, that it should be preserved as a balancing and residual resource for the EU budget, which would put an end to the budgetary logic of ‘fair return’; stresses the need, in this context, to ensure that the GNI contribution is classified in the same manner in all national budgets, namely as revenue attributed to the EU and not as expenditure of national governmentduced and replaced by a system of own resources based on the taxation of financial transactions, the profits of major multinationals, and the most prolific polluters;
Amendment 88 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Recalls that, since its inception almost 50 years ago, VAT has been used as a base for calculating one of the own resources of the EU budget, and that this resource currently represents around 12 % of EU revenue; emphasises, once again, the regressive and unfair nature of VAT and the need to reduce or even eventually abolish it;
Amendment 91 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Supports an in-depth reform of the VAT system in the EU, which should aim at broadening the tax base, reducing the scope for fraud and compliance costs, and generating new revenuecutting rates for essential goods and raising them for goods whose manufacture is harmful to the environment; considers that a fraction of such new revenue should be allocated to the EU budget;
Amendment 108 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Calls for the development of a European tax on corporate tax that harmonises both the tax base at European level, such as the establishment of an effective minimum rate at European level, and tax declarations based on country-by- country reporting, meaning that tax is paid in the place where companies actually conduct their business;
Amendment 117 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Maintains that the only effective way of achieving equity and tax justice in the EU is by implementing a genuine policy to combat tax avoidance, and taking action to that end;
Amendment 135 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Calls, in principle, for the creation of a new own resource for the Union budget to be levied on transache profits made in each country by multinationals in the digital seconomytor; considers, however, that in view of the important ongoing negotiations at both EU and OECD level, it is too early to decide on the exact arrangements for the establishment of such a resource;
Amendment 143 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Reiterates its conviction that only common energy or environmental taxes at EU level can ensure fair competition among businesses and the proper functioning of the single market; calls on the Commission to establish a tax aimed at the most polluting industries and sectors of the economy;
Amendment 150 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Underlines that a carbon border adjustment tax, as a new own resource for the EU budget, should also have the effect of ensuring a level playing field in international trade and reducing the offshoring of production, while internalising the costs of climate change into the prices of imported goods; emphasises, however, that such a tax must not penalise ordinary consumers;
Amendment 165 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 17 a (new)
Subheading 17 a (new)
Takes the view that an additional source of revenue should be based on the establishment of a European tax on assets and wealth, the primary aim of which would be to have a register of actual owners, along the lines of a property register at European level; points out that such a tax could initially be levied at a minimum rate in order to achieve this first objective;
Amendment 6 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
– having regard to the communication of 17 October 2017 from the Commission on ‘A stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions’ (COM(2017)0623),
Amendment 23 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the configuration of the MFF 2014-2020 has de facto created a situation contrary to the Treaties, which include the provision in Article 311 TFEU that ‘The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies’, and whereas the inadequate mid-term review of the current MFF did not rectify this fundamental contradiction with the Treaties;
Amendment 39 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the discussion about the next MFF as an opportunity to prepare the ground for a stronger Europe through one of its most tangible instruments, the Union budget; believes that the next MFF should be embedded in a broader strategy and narrative for the future of EurRecalls that, in its current form, the EU was built without the peoples of Europe and that the next MFF should seek to transform it into an environmentally sound and socially fairer Europe; believes that the next MFF should be embedded in a strategy of reaffirmation of the central objective of the EU, which is economic, social and territorial cohesion, and a broader narrative concerning the remaking of the organisation so as to benefit all its people;
Amendment 64 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is convinced that the next MFF shoulThe next MFF should enhance, improve and build upon the Union’s well- established social oriented convergence policies and priorities, which aim atreinforcing the promotingon of peace, democracy and human rights, at boosting welfare, long- term and sustainable economic growth, high-quality jobs, sustainable development and innovation, and at fostering economic, social and territorial cohesion as well as enhancing solidarity between Member States and citizens; considers that these pillars are prerequisites for a properly functioning single market and Economic and Monetary Union as well as for reinforcing Europe’s positionthe Union as well as for the role of Europe as a Global Partner in the world; trusts that they are more relevant than ever for Europe’s future endeavours;
Amendment 66 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the EU not to sacrifice the Community policies that have been entrusted to it and are at the heart of its responsibilities towards European citizens, such as cohesion policy or the common agricultural policy, in order to substitute priorities which do not correspond to any of the responsibilities defined by the Treaties;
Amendment 96 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls, therefore, for continuous and increased support for existing policies, in particular the long-standing EU policies enshrined in the Treaties, namely the common agricultural and fisheries policies, and the cohesion policy; rejects any attempt to renationalise these policies, as this would neither reduce the financial burden on taxpayers and consumers, nor achieve better results, but would instead hamper growth and the functioning of the single market while widening the disparities between territories and economic sectors; intends to secure the same level of funding for the EU-27 for these policies inwhich are primarily cohesion policy – which remains the only policy expressing European solidarity on a large scale – and the common agricultural and fisheries policies; considers that the EU must also pursue the objective of redressing the gaps in wealth between the poorer and richer regions, as well as income disparities between various social groups in the context of the next programming period, while further improvincreasing their added value of these policies and simplifying the procedures associated with them;
Amendment 106 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that Europe should offer prospectshas a responsibility to offer prospects for a better future to the younger generation as, who weill as to the future-oriented undertakings that make the EU more successful in the global arenasuffer from the disastrous impact of the economic policies adopted in the Union in recent decades; is determined to substantially scale up two of its flagship programmes, namely the Research Framework Programme and Erasmus+, which Erasmus+, which should benefit all young Europeans and not only a limited number of students who can afford to spend time abroad, this being a programme which at present cannot satisfy the very high demand involving top quality applications with, because of the very low level of funding of this policy under their current means; calls also forbudget; proposes that the budget for Erasmus+ should at the minimum be doubled in the next MFF and that at least half of it should be earmarked for young people from the poorest social classes; calls also for a considerable expansion of the Framework Programme for Research; calls for genuine progress to be made in the fight against youth unemployment and in support for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, by equipping the successor programmes of the Youth Employment Initiative and the programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) with greater financial means;
Amendment 112 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that Europe should offer prospects to the younger generation as well as to the future-oriented undertakings that make the EU more successful in the global arena; is determined to substantially scale up, among others, two of its flagship programmes, namely the Research Framework Programme and Erasmus+, which cannot satisfy the very high demand involving top quality applications with their current means; calls also for progress to be made in thestands firm in its support to substantially increase the resources to fight against youth unemployment and in support for micro, small and medium-sized, as well as, social enterprises by equipping the successor programmes of the Youth Employment Initiative and the programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) with greater financial means;
Amendment 114 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the EU to increase its efforts to revitalise social convergence and cohesion in Europe, believes that substantial additional resources should be assigned to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, and proposes that the budget of the European Social Fund should be doubled in order to tackle unemployment and alleviate the persistent social divides in Europe;
Amendment 116 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 130 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 132 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that the future framework is expected to integrate two new types of financial support featuring prominently on the Union’s economic agenda, namely the continuation of the investment support schemes, such as the European Fund for Strategic Investment, and the development of a fiscal capacity for the euro area and of financial stabilisation functions, possibly through the proposed European Monetary Fundinvestment support schemes, such as the European Fund for Strategic Investment, provided that these programmes accord with the objective of social, economic and territorial cohesion to which the EU has committed itself; considers that the proposal for a European Monetary Fund could have the objective of increasing European cohesion provided that its action is not limited solely to the euro area, that priority is given to the less advantaged regions and areas in terms of development and access to capital and that it does not impose counter-productive austerity measures on regions and Member States;
Amendment 144 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that a stronger and a more ambitious Europe can only be achieved if it is provided with reinforced financial means; calls, in the light of the above- mentioned challenges and priorities, and taking into account the UK’s withdrawal from the Union, for a significant increase of the Union’s budget; estimates the required MFF expenditure ceilings at 1.3 % of the GNI of the EU-27, notwithstanding the range of instruments to be counted over and above the ceilingoverhauls itself so as to respond more fully to citizens’ expectations with regard to solidarity, cohesion, asylum, environmental protection and biodiversity, greening of the economy and energy, support for research and education, and education and social progress; considers that the required MFF expenditure ceilings should be set at the maximum proportion of the GNI of the EU-27 permitted by the Treaties;
Amendment 146 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that a stronger and a more ambitious Europe can only be achieved if it is provided with reinforced financial means; calls, in the light of the above- mentioned challenges and priorities, and taking into account the UK’s withdrawal from the Union, for a significant increase of the Union’s budget; estimates the requiredconsiders that the MFF expenditure ceilings at 1.3 % of the GNI of the EU-27, notwithstanding the range of instruments to be counted over and above the ceilingshould be several times higher than the percentage of the GNI of the EU-27 set as a ceiling so far, in order to be able to compensate for the external imbalances between the centre and the periphery resulting from the Union’s economic architecture and to be able to cope with the risks of future economic, humanitarian and environmental crises;
Amendment 160 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recalls the budgetary principles of unity, budgetary accuracy, annuality, equilibrium, universality, specification, sound financial management and transparency, which need to be respected when establishing and implementing the Union budget; considers that the EU budget should not fund programmes, nor should the EU sign free trade agreements, which are contrary to the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 192 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Underlines that, during the current MFF, the budgetary authority approved a substantial mobilisation of the flexibility mechanisms and special instruments included in the MFF Regulation, in order to secure the additional appropriations needed to respond to serious crises or finance new political priorities; deplores the fact that a number of redeployments were effected by siphoning off funds from budget lines for other programmes, mainly cohesion policy;
Amendment 194 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Considers, therefore, that the flexibility provisions under the current MFF have worked well and havefailed to provided solutions in relation to the significant financing needed in particular to confront the challenges of migration and refugees and to address the investment gap; recalls that Parliament was the originator of several of these provisions, which it has strongly defended during past MFF negotiationsfor the common good on a European scale;
Amendment 204 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Approves the overall architecture of the MFF special instruments, notably the Flexibility Instrument, the Emergency Aid Reserve, the EU Solidarity Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), and points to their extensive mobilisation under the current MFF; calls for improvementsa substantial increase to be made to their financial envelopes and operating provisions;
Amendment 238 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)
Paragraph 43 a (new)
43a. Is of the opinion that effective measures against corruption and tax evasion by multinationals and the wealthiest individuals would make it possible to return to the Member States’ budgets an amount estimated by the Commission at one trillion euros per year, and that in this field there is a serious lack of action by the European Union;
Amendment 329 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 16
Subheading 16
A stronger, more equitable1a and sustainable economy __________________ 1a In spite of the joint declaration attached to the 2014-2020 MFF on gender mainstreaming, there has been little progress in this field and no clear gender equality strategy with specific objectives, concrete targets and allocations, has emerged from the MFF 2014-2020. An iconic reference underlining the potential in which the overall financial framework of the Union may contribute to increase gender equality and ensure gender mainstreaming is of the utmost importance, in the context of this report.
Amendment 343 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Believes that the next MFF should see a greater concentration of budgetary resources in areas that demonstrate a clear European added value and stimulate economic growth, competitiveness and employmentin order to make the European economy more virtuous by promoting solidarity and sustainability; stresses, in this context, the importance of research and innovation in creating a sustainable, world-leading, knowledge- based economy, and regrets that, due to the lack of adequate financing, only a small proportion of high-quality projects in this field has received EU funding under the current MFF;
Amendment 344 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Believes that tThe next MFF should see a greater concentration of budgetary resources in areas that demonstrate a clear European added value and stimulate economic growth, competitiveness andconvergent economic and sustainable green growth, quality and long-term employment; stresses, in this context, the importance of research and innovation in creating a sustainable, world-leading, knowledge- based economy, and regrets that, due to the lack of adequate financing, only a small proportion of high-quality projects in this field has received EU funding under the current MFF;
Amendment 351 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69 a (new)
Paragraph 69 a (new)
69a. Notes that the next MFF must support the EU and its member states in reaching their climate goals as laid out in the Paris Agreement; stresses that EU funds should support the renewable energy transition to lower emissions source; stresses the importance of guaranteeing biodiversity funding, through programmes such as the LIFE Programme and ensuring its continuation in the next MFF;
Amendment 362 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70 a (new)
Paragraph 70 a (new)
70a. Insists on the Union’s commitment to peace and calls upon the Member States to agree upon a ban on the use of the EU budget to finance or guarantee any dual technological development projects with military applicability;
Amendment 408 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75 a (new)
Paragraph 75 a (new)
75a. Takes the view that European islands, Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) share the same climate change challenges as some of the least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS), which benefit from the mechanism for financing adaptation to climate change through the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA+); considers it necessary, therefore, to create a European Fund for the adaptation of European islands, ORs and OCTs to the challenges of climate change, which would make it possible to mitigate the impact of climate change on them;
Amendment 457 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78 a (new)
Paragraph 78 a (new)
78a. Takes the view that the next MFF should include sufficient funding to prevent loss of biodiversity, by strengthening the LIFE programme and creating a line for green infrastructure and a biodiversity financing instrument to manage Natura 2000, among others;
Amendment 460 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79
Paragraph 79
79. Stresses the socioeconomic and ecological importance of the fisheries sectormarine environment, the ‘blue economy’ and their contribution to the food autonomy of the EU; points out that the common fisheries policy is an exclusive EU competenceEU must achieve good environmental status for its seas as set out in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, including through the common fisheries policy and the integrated maritime policy; emphasises, in this respect, the need to keep a specific, substantial, independent and accessible fisheriesustainable oceans fund to implement this policy; calls, at least,e objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; calls for the level of financial appropriations dedicated to the fEuropean Maritime and Fisheries sectorFund under the current MFF to be maintained and, if new needs arise, to increase the financial appropriations for maritime affairs; warns about the possible negative impacts of a hard Brexit on this sectorwith the aim of achieving sustainable and exemplary fisheries in the EU; notes that other financial instruments, in addition to non-repayable aid, could provide complementary financing possibilities;
Amendment 503 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
82. Considers maintaining the financing of cohesion policy post-2020 for the EU-27 at least at the level of the 2014- 2020 budget to be of the utmost importance; stresses that GDP should remain one of the parameters for the allocation of cohesion policy funds, but believes that it should be complemented by an additional set of social, environmental and demographic indicators to better take into account new types of inequalities between EU regions in order to enable every country to benefit from this policy and ensure that the poorest parts, both urban and rural, of rich regions are likewise made priority investment areas for cohesion policy; supports, in addition, the continuation under the new programming period of the elements that rendered cohesion policy more modern and performance-oriented under the current MFF;
Amendment 508 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
82. Considers maintaining the financing of cohesion policy post-2020 for the EU-27 at least at the level of the 2014- 2020 budget to be of the utmost importance; stresses that GDP should remain one of the parameters for the allocation of cohesion policy funds, but believes that it should be complemented by an additional set of social, environmental and demographic indicators to better take into account new types of inequalities between EU regions and enable every country to benefit from this policy; supports, in addition, the continuation under the new programming period of the elements that rendered cohesion policy more modern and performance-oriented under the current MFF;
Amendment 517 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82 a (new)
Paragraph 82 a (new)
82a. Considers that the necessary resources must be earmarked in the next MFF in order to bring about economic, social, and territorial cohesion in the EU’s outermost regions (ORs), as well as to implement the specific measures for those regions provided for in Article 349 TFEU, in keeping with the aims and principles set out in the Commission communication on ‘a stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU’s outermost regions’;
Amendment 526 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83
Paragraph 83
83. Is strongly committed to the delivery of Social Europe and the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, andreorienting the European integration process so as to make Social Europe its highest priority; calls for the European Pillar of Social Rights to be implemented through legislative convergence on a most favoured nation basis; points to the existing instruments contributing to these goals, notably the ESF, the Youth Employment Initiative, the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, the EGF and EaSI; believes not only that they should be safeguarded in the next MFF, but that their funding should be increased to match their aims;
Amendment 533 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83 a (new)
Paragraph 83 a (new)
83a. Considers that the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) requires that social policies be properly financed; calls, therefore, for the budget of the European Social Fund (ESF) to be increased substantially with a view to expanding its role in attaining the goals of the EPSR;
Amendment 554 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 a (new)
Paragraph 84 a (new)
84a. Underlines the need to step up with support measures to address the demographic challenges, in particular, the significant increase on an ageing population in need of special and dedicated care, in particular the elderly; reiterates its support to initiatives such as "villages for person’s with dementia" where due care is provided for since early stage.
Amendment 573 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85 a (new)
Paragraph 85 a (new)
85a. Recognises the importance of addressing public health threats at a global as well as EU level, notes the importance of robust health programmes to tackle transnational public health issues; calls for a safeguarding of funding for research and development for rare diseases; calls for increased funding for tackling anti-microbial resistance across the EU.
Amendment 593 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87 a (new)
Paragraph 87 a (new)
87a. Points to the urgent need to set up a European authority to combat tax evasion and tax fraud;
Amendment 605 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88
Paragraph 88
88. Stresses that the world is confronted with multiple challenges including conflicts, cyber-attacks, terrorism, disinformation, natural disasters, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, climate change, human rights violations and protracted crises; believes that the Union has a particular political and financial responsibility which is founded on rules-based foreign policy, cooperation with partner countries, poverty eradication and crisis response;
Amendment 610 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88 a (new)
Paragraph 88 a (new)
88a. Notes that the outermost regions (ORs) and the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) are geographically a special case in that they are isolated from the mainland European regions and thus have to contend with specific natural, economic, or social challenges; considers their particular nature to be such that the EU should set up a research fund intended specifically for the ORs and OCTs in order to promote research in fields of vital importance to them, including the blue economy, environmental protection, vulcanology, astronomy, renewable energy sources, and biodiversity; considers, given the difficulties facing ORs and OCTs in accessing cross-cutting Union programmes, such as Horizon 2020, that access paths should be provided for research programmes specifically tailored to their needs;
Amendment 646 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92 a (new)
Paragraph 92 a (new)
92a. Considers, in the light of the humanitarian emergency related to the crisis situation regarding the reception of migrants, that alongside the EU law enforcement agencies there should be a European agency with tasks centring on the protection of persons, humanitarian support, and rescue operations, guaranteeing basic rights for all, EU citizens and non-citizens alike;
Amendment 648 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
Amendment 649 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
Amendment 659 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. In the context of the increased attention given to security and defence in the Union, requests a reassessment of all external security expenditure; looks forward in particular to a reform ofDeplores the fact that security and defence instruments in the Union, such as the Athena mechanism and of the African Peace Facility, after the budgetisation ofre linked to development policy or the EDF; welcomnotes the recent commitments by Member States under permanent structured cooperation and asks the High Representative and the Commission to provide clarification as regards its future financing; calls for a successor programme for the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace focusing on crisis response and capacity building for security and development, while finding a legally sound solution for military capacity buildinghumanitarian action and development;
Amendment 4 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that Parliament's reading of the 2018 Budget fully reflects the political priorities adopted by an overwhelming majority in its abovementioned resolutions of 15 March 2017 on general guidelines and of 5 July 2017 on a mandate for the trilogue; recallinsists that long-term jobs, growth and security ar, sustainability and solidarity should be at the core of thosee Union priorities;
Amendment 6 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that the Union budget should give priority to policies of real convergence, integration and cohesion, based on social progress and solidarity, safeguarding and promoting the creation of decent, quality and stable jobs, prioritising the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment; insists that the Union budget has proven to be scarce despite its potential to become a key resource in tackling crises and responding to measures which were not anticipated during the negotiation of the MFF 2014- 2020, such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the migration and refugee humanitarian challenges or geopolitical tensions in Europe's neighbourhood causing a number of serious challenges and emergencies, while within the Union the pace of economic recovery and the continuous sluggishness of both public and private investment levels led to an investment gap and the aggravation of inequalities between the Member States, its regions and its citizens;
Amendment 16 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Stresses the need to immediately put an end to the austeritarian policies trend, both at national and Union level; insists on a new strategy for the Union, to enable a social Europe, a path for decent, quality, long-term employment, to enlarge social protection and ensure health and education coverage to all, based upon social cohesion, integrative communities and robust public sectors, guaranteeing the highest levels of living one path that pays heed to the development needs of each region, each Member State, in particular the least developed ones, favouring real convergence between regions, Member States and enhancing all efforts to efficiently reduce the current economic and social gaps;
Amendment 38 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Rejects any use of the Union budget to finance a militarist EU program; recalls that EU funds, including research grants from the Commission, cannot fund military projects; stresses that the concept of dual-use technology shall not be used as a loop-hole to fund projects with a de facto military aim such as drones for high-tech warfare and security surveillance; insists in an alternative set of programmes that support a more social Europe reinforcing sustainable development, strengthened, environment-friendly internal demand based on progressive wages, full employment with rights, social welfare, eradicating poverty and social exclusion and improved social and economic cohesion;
Amendment 41 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that Heading 3 has been largely mobilised in recent years to address challenges arising from the migratory and refugee crisis and that such actions should continue for as long as needed; insists however that in the light of recent security concerns across the Union, funding under that heading should also pay particular attention to measures which will lead to enhancing security of Union citizens; decides for this reason to reinforce agencies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs which due to increased workload and additional tasks, have been facing shortage of staff and funding in the past years;
Amendment 58 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Concludes that, for the purpose of adequately financing all pressing needs, and considering the very tight MFF margins in 2018, all means available in the MFF Regulation in terms of flexibility and in terms of substantial raising of the ceilings will need to be deployapplied; expects that the Council will share this approach and that an agreement will easily be reached in conciliation, allowing the Union to rise to the occasion and effectively respond to the challenges ahead;
Amendment 69 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Insists that in order to achieve sustainable growth, decent, quality and long-term job creation in the Union, boosting investments in research, innovation, education, infrastructure and MSMEs are key; insists in this respect in the need to further reinforce to Horizon 2020, Erasmus+ and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) as these programmes contribute directly to reaching these goals; reiterates the need to increase the appropriations to COSME, but also to workers organisations; points in particular to the need to further reinforce MSMEs in the fields of green research and applied technologies, which can become an important source of job creation in the Union; highlights that such measures if accompanied with a set of robust policies and investments to reinforce the public sector in health, education and transport sectors could be the trigger to finally reduce the investment gap, decrease disparities among regions and Member States and thus contributing to the prosperity of the Union;
Amendment 71 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 82 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Stresses the need to strengthen the European Cohesion policy in times of deepening regional, economic and social disparities, and proposes therefore to reverse all the cuts proposed by the Council on the lines related to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF);
Amendment 83 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Insists on criticizing and denouncing the EFSI as it failed in bridging the investment gap across the Union; insists that instead a major and more ambitious public investment plan should have been implemented across the territories of the Union to help implement strategic, structural investments which would provide a high level of added value to the economy, the public sector, the environment and society;
Amendment 85 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Underlines that part of the solution to address youth unemployment lies in adequately supporting young people in rural areas and insists on enhancing the "greening" of CAP as it has the potential to foster growth and jobs in particular through supporting innovative sustainable projects while safeguarding biodiversity; proposes therefore an increase of EUR 50 million above the level of the DB for payments for young farmers;
Amendment 87 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Decides, in line with its Europe 2020 targets and with its international commitments to tackle climate change, to propose an increase of EUR 21,2 million above the level of the DB for climate- related actions; raises that the new expenditure devoted to address climate change has to be implemented exclusively in renewable resources under a democratic economic model, prioritizing the development of social, decentralised and cooperative economy;
Amendment 89 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27 a. Stresses that the Union climate policy is failing as the recorded decrease in CO2 emissions is resulting from a decrease in economic activity rather than Union policy; notes that the ETS cannot bring reductions in CO2 emission as one Member State's reduction in emission quota is off-set by another Member State's increase in quota; believes that the Union budget must prioritise initiatives that will facilitate a real greening of the economy;
Amendment 98 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 164 #
2017/2044(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Notes that the level of estimates for 2018 corresponds to 18,88 %, which is lower than that achieved in 2017 (19,25 %) and the lowest part of Heading 5 in the past fifteen years; insists nevertheless that the drive for the lowest expenditure possible for the Parliament shouldn't come at the cost of a reduced Parliament's capacity for its ordinary legislative work;
Amendment 7 #
2017/0326(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) The transfer of the European Banking Authority seat in no way calls into question the establishment plan as adopted by the budgetary authority or the application of the Staff Regulations of officials or other servants who work there.
Amendment 125 #
2017/0290(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
a) 1500 km in distance as the crow flies;.
Amendment 131 #
2017/0290(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 92/106/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
aa) or to reach the closest suitable rail terminal.
Amendment 134 #
2017/0290(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 92/106/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 155 #
2017/0290(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 92/106/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Each non-road leg referred to in paragraph 2 must exceed the minimum threshold of 100 km in order to be considered relevant to combined transport.
Amendment 156 #
2017/0290(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 92/106/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 4
Article 1 – paragraph 4
4. A combined transport oOperations shall be deemed to take place in the Union where thenot be regarded as part of a combined transport operation orif the part thereof taking place in the Union fulfils the requirements laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3road/non-road legs thereof or part of those legs are performed outside the territory of the Union.
Amendment 217 #
2017/0290(COD)
(3a) The following article is inserted: ‘Article 4a In order to ensure social protection for drivers and road transport workers operating in another Member State, the provisions on the posting of road transport workers must apply to workers on road legs of national and international combined transport operations without exception.’
Amendment 220 #
2017/0290(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
Article premier – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
(3b) The following article is inserted: ‘Article 4b Combined transport operations must scrupulously comply with the current legislation on cabotage on its road legs in order to avoid harmful competition with traditional cross-border road transport.’
Amendment 255 #
2017/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. It is vital to ensure that domestic and posted workers are afforded equal treatment as regards pay, social protection and the payment of social security contributions in the host country.
Amendment 572 #
2017/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2 a (new)
Article 2a This balance and the conditions governing fair competition shall take on even greater importance once European employment rules have been harmonised upwards at European level, in particular as regards working time, minimum wages, paid holidays, safety and health at work and social security.
Amendment 23 #
2017/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Given that this directive seriously risks weakening the regulatory framework and could be used by companies as a way of getting round common rules, it must establish clear and specific safeguards to prevent abuses of this kind. It must establish guarantees to guard against tax-related abuses, including the use of ‘letterbox’ companies and the abusive practice of switching between various countries, which leads to revenue losses for Member States. Similarly, it must establish guarantees to guard against abuses in the social domain, including illegal cabotage and the exploitation of road workers by abusive employers. These guarantees should involve limiting the maximum rental period and the proportion of rented vehicles in each fleet, and making it possible to carry out effective checks using uniform and verifiable vehicle declaration and registration systems. They should also involve ensuring, in particular, the traceability of worker/vehicle/company connections.
Amendment 24 #
2017/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The level of road transport taxation still differs considerably within the Union. Therefore, certain restrictions, which also indirectly affect the freedom to provide vehicle hiring services, remain justified in order to avoid fiscal distortions. Consequently, Member States should have the option to limit the length of time a vehicle hired in a Member State otherregistered or put into circulation in another Member State can be used within their territories (maximum 1 month at a time, and no more than 2 monthes one ofverall per calendar year) and the number of vehicles a company establishmented ofn the undertaking hiring it can be used within their respective territoriesir territory is authorised to hire from another Member State, having regard to the total number of vehicles in that company’s fleet (maximum 25% of that fleet).
Amendment 29 #
2017/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) In order to enforce these measures, the Member States shall be authorised to require the registration of rented vehicles in their national electronic register and the mandatory presentation of the rental contract, the work contract and any other contract they consider necessary for properly monitoring the practice. Member States shall be free to impose penalties on vehicles which exceed the maximum thresholds or are not properly registered.
Amendment 35 #
2017/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The implementation and effects of this Directive should be monitored by the Commission and be documented by it in a report no later than three years after the deadline for the transposition has passed. It shall evaluate, with precise figures, the consequences the directive has had on the environment, on road safety and on Member States’ tax revenues, and its social impact. Particular importance should be given to assessing the social impact of the directive, in particular as regards employment, working conditions and factors such as the administrative burden, social rights, the rate of infringements and irregularities and the impact on posted road workers. Any future action in this area should be considered in light of that report.
Amendment 42 #
2017/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
First Article – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a – point ii
First Article – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a – point ii
Directive 2006/1/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the vehicle is registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of a Member State;", that it is duly registered in the national electronic register and that it does not violate the Member State’s restrictions on time and percentage of the fleet;
Amendment 52 #
2017/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
First Article – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
First Article – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 2006/1/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a
1a. Where the vehicle is not registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of the Member State where the undertaking hiring the vehicle is established, Member States may limit the time of use of the hired vehicle within their respective territories. However, Member States shall in such a case allow its use for at least and apply the penalties or regulatory measures they consider necessary four months in any given calendar yearthe practice to be properly regulated in their territory.
Amendment 54 #
2017/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
First Article – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b (new)
First Article – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b (new)
Directive 2006/1/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a a (new)
1aa. Member States shall authorise the leasing of driverless vehicles with the following restrictions: the rental period may not exceed the maximum of one month at a time and two months per calendar year, and the total number of rented vehicles may not exceed 25% of the total fleet of the company which is party to the rental contract.
Amendment 76 #
2017/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
First Article – paragraph 1 – point 3
First Article – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2006/1/EC
Article 5 a
Article 5 a
By [OP: please insert the date calculated 52 years after the deadline for transposition of the Directive], the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive. The report shall include information on the use of vehicles hired in a Member State other than the Member State of establishment of the undertaking hiring the vehicle. It shall evaluate, with precise figures, the consequences the directive has had on the environment, on road safety and on Member States’ tax revenues, and its social impact. Particular importance should be given to assessing the social impact of the directive, in particular as regards employment, working conditions, the rate of infringements and irregularities and the impact on posted road workers. On the basis of this report, the Commission shall assess whether it is necessary to propose additional measures or modify the directive.