• Lynn   BOYLAN  

Lynn BOYLAN : Kirjalliset äänestysselitykset - Kahdeksas vaalikausi 

Jäsenet voivat antaa täysistuntoäänestyksestä kirjallisen selityksen. Työjärjestyksen 194 artikla

Eurojustin ja Tanskan välinen rikosoikeudellista yhteistyötä koskeva sopimus (A8-0192/2019 - Claude Moraes) EN  
 

. – Denmark is a member of Eurojust but enjoys an opt-out from the Justice and Home Affairs pillar under Protocol 22 to the Treaties. Because of this, when the new Eurojust Regulation 2018/1727 enters into force on 12 December 2019, the country will be considered as a third country with respect to Eurojust.
The Danish authorities have expressed the wish to continue to take part in Eurojust, but waiting for the new Regulation to come into force before making a new agreement could risk an ‘operational gap’. This report endorses an agreement made under the current legal framework that will avoid this. I therefore voted in favour.

Sosiaaliturvajärjestelmien yhteensovittaminen (A8-0386/2018 - Guillaume Balas) EN  
 

. – This file is an update on the existing regulation 883/2004, which deals with the coordination of social security systems across the EU. However, when workers or individuals move between Member States there are a complicated series of effects on social security systems which this regulation tries to deal with. For example, when someone is injured on holiday and gets medical treatment in another Member State, or when they move between Member States for work, paying insurance in several countries, and then become unemployed.
The outcome at Committee level was quite progressive, including better rules to protect workers at all levels. In general, respect has been maintained for the subsidiarity principle and the establishment of, and rules around, individual social security systems remain the competence of individual Member States, and some loopholes around social fraud have been closed.
Unfortunately negotiations with the Council and Commission reached an impasse. Rather than leaving things dangling, with this vote the Parliament reconfirmed its support for the text adopted in Plenary last November. I voted in favour.

Hiilidioksidipäästönormit uusille raskaille hyötyajoneuvoille (A8-0354/2018 - Bas Eickhout) EN  
 

. – I voted in favour of this report. Sinn Féin supported the Parliament’s position in the November 2018 vote and welcomes the agreed position between Parliament and Council after negotiations. Ambitious CO2 emissions reduction targets of new heavy-duty vehicles will be set for 2025 and for 2030, and a just transition towards zero-emission mobility is to be ensured, taking into account the social effects of the transition throughout the whole automotive value chain.

Puhtaiden ja energiatehokkaiden tieliikenteen moottoriajoneuvojen edistäminen (A8-0321/2018 - Andrzej Grzyb) EN  
 

. – I voted in favour of this report. Our political group supported the Parliament’s position on this file when it voted in October 2018. The file presented a balanced report with ambitious yet much needed targets. Despite the fact that the final agreement between the Council and Parliament lost several of the Parliament’s ambitious commitments, we have been requesting public procurement to contribute to GHG emission reduction for a long time, and now we have binding procurement targets per Member State with sub targets for zero-emission vehicles. For these reasons I supported the final text.

Digitaalisten välineiden ja prosessien käyttö yhtiöoikeuden alalla (A8-0422/2018 - Tadeusz Zwiefka) EN  
 

. – I voted against this provisional agreement. The proposal is part of a new company law package which aims to promote company mobility within the EU. In attempting to reduce bureaucratic red tape and harmonise e-government services, this proposal just gives additional freedoms to companies to relocate as they please, without any safeguards on fraud or tax evasion. For instance, the physical presence of a company legal representative for the establishment of a company/branch before the relevant authority in the destination Member State is only optional and on a case-by-case basis when there are reasons to suspect identity falsification. There are clearly inadequate safeguards in place, and the effect could be the facilitation of fraud rather than the prevention of it.

Rajatylittävät yhtiömuodon muutokset, sulautumiset ja jakautumiset (A8-0002/2019 - Evelyn Regner) EN  
 

. – This report is part of the new ‘company law package’, which promotes company mobility by making it easier for companies to move their seat from one Member State to another. EU law currently only covers cross-border mergers, but this package introduces harmonised rules for conversions and divisions (another way of moving a company’s seat, which is handy for tax purposes).
While the Commission proposal had a one-dimensional focus on delivering company mobility, Parliament’s report included strong provisions on workers’ involvement, information and consultation rights in order to ensure that workers are heard and their interests are safeguarded in the event of a cross-border operation. The report also contained a ‘real seat principle’ requiring genuine economic activity in the Member State where the company moves to in order to prevent the creation of letterbox companies. In trilogue negotiations, however, these provisions were watered down again. Overall, the final report now grants companies greater freedoms to move, without really helping workers. I therefore voted against.

Euroopan puolustusrahasto (A8-0412/2018 - Zdzisław Krasnodębski) EN  
 

. – This file is the European Union’s proposal to create a EUR 13 billion slush fund for the European arms industry. This massive fund will be used to boost the profits of French and German arms companies and will increase the amount of weapons exported from Europe every year. This will fuel conflicts around the world as billions worth of European weapons are used in warzones every year.
At a time of increased global insecurity as a result of political instability, climate change and poverty, European States should prioritise funds which address these challenges, not fuel the proliferation of arms by giving billions of euro of public money to the arms industry. I voted against.

Katetut joukkolainat (A8-0384/2018 - Bernd Lucke) EN  
 

. – I voted against this provisional agreement. The package of a Directive and Regulation will lessen the safety level of one of the few instruments that is actually relatively stable and has remained so even during the crisis by making it more complex and open to cross-border speculation.
In the context of the deepening Capital Markets Union, the Commission has presented a proposal for enabling an EU framework on covered bonds facilitating the cross-border distribution of investments funds. This framework will aim to expand the capacity of credit institutions to provide financing to the real economy and contribute to the development of covered bonds across the EU, particularly in Member States where no market for them currently exists.
Covered bonds are an asset class that has remained stable even during the financial crisis. Domestic and cross-border investments in covered bonds have worked well under the current legislative framework. The mandatory harmonisation of national models and their replacement by a European one that will allow the inclusion of derivative contracts and assets coming from third countries could endanger the risk level evaluation of the covered bonds. As a result I voted against.

Katetut joukkolainat ja katettujen joukkolainojen julkinen valvonta (A8-0390/2018 - Bernd Lucke) EN  
 

. – I voted against this provisional agreement. The package of a Directive and Regulation will lessen the safety level of one of the few instruments that is actually relatively stable, and remained so even during the crisis, by making it more complex and open to cross-border speculation.
In the context of the deepening Capital Markets Union, the Commission has presented a proposal for enabling an EU framework on covered bonds facilitating the cross-border distribution of investments funds. This framework will aim to expand the capacity of credit institutions to provide financing to the real economy and contribute to the development of covered bonds across the EU, particularly in Member States where no market for them currently exists.
Covered bonds are an asset class that has remained stable, even during the financial crisis. Domestic and cross-border investments in covered bonds have worked well under the current legislative framework. The mandatory harmonisation of national models and their replacement by a European model that will allow the inclusion of derivative contracts and assets coming from third countries could endanger the risk level evaluation of the covered bonds. As a result I voted against.

InvestEU (A8-0482/2018 - José Manuel Fernandes, Roberto Gualtieri) EN  
 

. – We voted against the InvestEU programme because it is far from the ambitious investment programme the Commission claims. The 40.8 billion euro (from 38 million euro) is expected to be able to leverage 650 billion additional capital to cover investment gaps across Europe. However, as with the previous Juncker Plan, high levels of leverage are only achieved by offering these financial incentive to projects which are already commercially viable. When this is the case these investment funds simply function as subsidies to the private sector and ultimately socialise loses and privatise profits.
The claim is that the additionality principle will be more stringently adhered than under EFSI. This is based on the introduction of more sophisticated scorecards; however, these remain ill-defined and unlikely to address the issue. There exists a geographical bias towards favouring wealthier countries and more developed regions. The fund also continues to support fossil-fuel projects.
Furthermore, when it comes to funding SMEs, InvestEU uses financial intermediaries (i.e. banks, finance institutions, private equity and venture capital funds) and there has been a worrying lack of transparency and therefore oversight of how effective this have been in supporting SMEs. For these reasons, we voted against.

Eurooppalaisen merenkulkualan yhdennetty palveluympäristö (A8-0006/2019 - Deirdre Clune) EN  
 

. – We voted against this report. The Single Maritime Window aims to harmonise procedures in maritime transport by introducing a single window for reporting formalities for ships. The European Commission argues that there is difficulty due to different ways in reporting data between ports and national authorities. The European Commission will therefore create harmonised EU data formats and standards, and will set up a helpdesk on how to format this data.
Although it is a technical file, initiatives like this are yet another example of the European Commission’s desire to be a body of oversight in every single sector. It merely furthers the EU’s wider harmonisation agenda, and sets a precedent of further erosion of Member States’ powers.

Kestäviin sijoituksiin ja kestävyysriskeihin liittyvien tietojen antaminen (A8-0363/2018 - Paul Tang) EN  
 

. – We strongly wanted to vote in favour of this proposal, but despite the best efforts of the rapporteur and the left groups in the Parliament, the report was significantly watered down in both committee and trilogue level. We abstained. This report relates to disclosure requirements as part of the sustainable finance package. It aims to introduce consistency and clarity on how institutional investors should integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in their investment decision-making process. These asset managers and institutional investors would have to demonstrate how their investments are aligned with ESG objectives and disclose to their customers how they comply with these duties.
However, right wing groups succeeded in making the disclosures on sustainability requirement, which we had wanted to see apply to all financial products and financial advisors, applicable only to the tiny section of the industry that has clearly committed to ESG objectives (around one per cent of the financial sector). Additionally the Council has successfully removed the Parliament’s position that banks must also be covered by the regulation.

Pysyvät orgaaniset yhdisteet (A8-0336/2018 - Julie Girling) EN  
 

. – We voted against the text resulting from negotiations between the Council and Parliament. Last November, we supported Parliament’s position on the recast of the 2004 Regulation on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP). The new modifications introduced were aimed at assessing the danger to human health of substances already identified within the POPs list, and at updating the concerned concentration threshold of such substances.
However, the agreed position with the Council on the introduction of these new substances and thresholds established that this will be done via delegated/implementing acts in the near future instead of including it in the current report under the Annexes, as initially agreed. This lack of commitment is unacceptable from a health and environmental perspective, and for this reason we voted against.

Määritysvelvollisuus, raportointivaatimukset ja OTC-johdannaissopimusten riskienpienentämistekniikat sekä kauppatietorekisterit (A8-0181/2018 - Werner Langen) EN  
 

. – We voted against this report. At the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in 2009, a number of significant proposals were agreed aimed at improving financial security in the wake of the global financial crisis. One of these was the promotion of central clearing counterparties (CCPs), which carry out ‘clearing’ between trading parties, especially in the derivatives market. They act as the intermediary between two traders and act as a form of insurance so that in case one party defaults, the other party will receive their money.
CCPs are regulated by EMIR (the European Market Infrastructure Regulation). Although they were promoted after the financial crisis as a means to improve financial stability, they have concentrated huge amounts of money and complex financial instruments in the clearing houses.
This proposal is part of the EMIR REFIT programme and it essentially aims to wind back some of the post-crisis legislation for CCPs that has been enacted in order to remove ‘burdens’ and ‘red tape’ for the industry. This is an attempt to deregulate the already limited regulatory requirements on highly complex and dangerous financial instruments, so we voted against.

Keskusvastapuolten toimiluvat sekä kolmansien maiden keskusvastapuolten tunnustaminen (A8-0190/2018 - Danuta Maria Hübner) EN  
 

. – We abstained on this proposal, which relates to the treatment of non-EU CCPs that clear in euro-dominations. There are 16 CCPs established and authorised in the EU (including three in the City of London). Thirty—two third country CCPs have been recognised under EMIR’s equivalence provisions, allowing them to offer their services in the EU. Following Brexit, the three CCPs based in Britain will de facto become third country CCPs.
The provisional agreement has allowed the ESMA to announce that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, three central CCPs established in Britain will be recognised by the EU. ESMA has adopted these recognition decisions in order to limit disruption in central clearing and to avoid risks to financial stability.
We are generally supportive of the proposal to improve the powers of ESMA to supervise the activities of CCPs, including up to the point where the Commission can request the relocation of CCPs trading in euros to be located in the EU. However, there are many areas where supervisory powers are not strong enough, and there is no incentive whatsoever to reduce the extreme high trade in complex financial instruments including derivatives under this proposal, so as a result we abstained.

Pk-yritysten kasvumarkkinoiden käytön edistäminen (A8-0437/2018 - Anne Sander) EN  
 

. – We abstained on this proposal, which is part of the Capital Markets Union programme. Obviously we are not opposed to the activity and growth of SMEs, but this proposal is part of the Commission’s drive to shift from bank financing of all business, big and small, to non-bank financing. This underpins the CMU, the rise of shadow banking, etc. This proposal is largely redundant; it is the lack of demand by indebted businesses that is causing a lack of traditional bank lending.
The proposal presented by the Commission aims to simplify the existing procedures to favour the financing of SMEs in the so-called ‘growth markets’ (through non—bank financing). It is a model similar to that of the stock markets, but designed specifically for SMEs. The truth is that the result of this initiative has been very poor. Only 3 000 companies have accessed this funding facility.
We did not vote against as we don’t want to undermine the potential for growth among SMEs, but in reality this is a very poor and ideologically misguided proposal, not backed up by any empirical evidence, so we did not vote in favour either.

Neuvoston ja komission neuvottelut Euroopan parlamentin tutkintaoikeudesta: lainsäädäntöehdotus (B8-0238/2019) EN  
 

. – We voted in favour of this motion for resolution. Throughout this legislature, Sinn Féin has been calling for a strengthening of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. We support the aims of this resolution to give a mandate to the Legal Affairs Committee to prepare an action before the European Court of Justice on the basis that the Council has breached the principle of sincere cooperation, as well as to investigate violations by the European Council in the legal framework of committees of inquiry like PANA and EMIS. We therefore voted in favour.

Hormonitoimintaa häiritseviä aineita koskeva Euroopan unionin kattava toimintakehys (B8-0241/2019) EN  
 

. – We voted in favour of this resolution. Exposure to endocrine disruptors (EDs) has been clearly linked to many chronic health disorders, including obesity and metabolic disorders, male and female reproductive disorders, reproductive cancers, etc. The motion for resolution, supported by a large majority, follows closely the recommendations of a study commissioned by the PETI Committee published earlier this year, which presents the scientific knowledge regarding the health effects of endocrine disruptors. The JMR calls on the Commission to swiftly take all necessary action to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment against EDs by effectively minimising overall exposure of humans and the environment to EDs.

Työjärjestyksen 32 artiklan 5 kohdan ensimmäisen alakohdan toisen luetelmakohdan tulkinta EN  
 

. – I voted against these changes. The proposed changes are an attempt to make it more difficult to establish political groups by requiring every European parliamentary group to submit a declaration of ‘political affinity’ between national delegations in the group, which will set out the political orientation of a group ‘in a substantial and distinctive way’. This declaration can then be scrutinised by the Conference of Presidents, which will have the power to decide if a group is ‘real’ or ‘not real’ if this so called affinity is questionable. This proposal threatens the integrity of GUE/NGL, as well as any confederal political group. Sinn Féin’s political orientation is formed by our party membership at an Ard Fheis and cannot be influenced by a European political grouping. Therefore I voted against this regressive proposal.

EU:n ja Tanskan välisen sopimuksen pöytäkirja niistä perusteista ja menettelyistä, joilla ratkaistaan turvapaikkahakemuksen käsittelystä vastuussa oleva valtio, sekä Eurodac-järjestelmästä (A8-0196/2019 - Ignazio Corrao) EN  
 

. – Since the 2013 update to the Eurodac Regulation, law enforcement authorities can consult the Eurodac biometric database (which was created originally to apply the Dublin Regulation, i.e. solely for asylum policies) for the purpose of ‘prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences’.
Denmark does not fully take part in the Eurodac Regulation. Since 2006, Denmark has had limited access, applying only the asylum elements, but not the law enforcement elements.
Denmark has now requested extending this access to include law enforcement authorities, which this protocol would allow. All participating States, whether other EU Member States, Associated Countries or Denmark, with this access to Eurodac, may also access each other’s data for law enforcement purposes.
This extension of the scope of the database has not undergone any assessment on its necessity or implementation, and there are serious privacy, proportionality and overreach concerns with how Eurodac is used. I therefore voted against.