8ème législature Beatrix von STORCH

I abstained on this EU-Parliament draft legislative resolution on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacrylamide (acryloylfentanyl) to control measures.
Given the impact of this drug on health there is an interest in seeing control measures implemented. However, this should be left to the Member States, not the EU.

I abstained on the European Parliament resolution on EU political relations with India.
Member States, not the EU, should be conducting foreign policy. The EU should get back to basics and focus on facilitating economic exchange between the Member States.

I voted for the European Parliament resolution on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Italy.
Given that this funding had been budgeted and the legitimate humanitarian need by a Member State, I voted to provide Italy with financial support.

I voted for motion for a European Parliament resolution on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2017 of the European Union for the financial year 2017 accompanying the proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Italy
Given that this was a budget-neutral transfer and the legitimate humanitarian need by a Member State, I voted to provide Italy with financial support.

I voted against the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (application from Finland – EGF/2017/002 FI Microsoft 2).
Member States should be responsible for handling the extent to which they would like to interfere with labour markets and training. The EU should not be involved in this issue.

I voted against the European Parliament draft legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC to continue current limitations of scope for aviation activities and to prepare to implement a global market-based measure from 2021.
This is just another example of the EU’s regulatory interference that slows economic growth. Member States should be left free to implement such schemes if they wish to do so.

I voted against European Parliament draft legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework and amending Regulation No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and other information relevant to climate change.
The current approach to limit CO2 output in Europe is wasteful, distorts energy markets and harms consumers. The degree to which humans are having an impact on changes in global climate is fraught with uncertainty. Even if we were absolutely 100% certain that humanity is the main driver behind climate change this does not validate the current approach. Further minor reductions in CO2 emissions born by Europe will not matter given the vast output from the United States and China and future contributions from India and the developing word.
Furthermore, if the current models regarding climate change are accurate then global warming is unavoidable and public investments by Member States would be better spent preparing for the consequences of rises in temperature.

I abstained on the European Parliament resolution on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed.
Regulations should be implemented to address consumer concerns regarding GMO. However, this issue should be handled by individual Member States, not the EU.

I abstained on the European Parliament resolution on the draft Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6 as regards feed and food subjected to special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station.
Governments provide a certain minimum level of regulation to protect consumers. However, such measures should be devised and implemented by the Member States, not the EU.

I voted against the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 3/2017 to the European Union for the financial year 2017 increasing the budgetary resources of the Youth Employment Initiative to pursue the reduction of youth unemployment across the European Union and updating the staff establishment plans of the decentralised agency ACER and the joint undertaking SESAR2.
The proposal calls for an increase to the budget ceiling for the EU ‘Youth Employment Initiative’ by an extra EUR 500 million. The EU should be cutting back on wasteful initiatives. Regulatory competition among the Member States will help develop best practices on how best to raise youth employment.

I voted against the motion for an EU-Parliament resolution on arms export: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP.
Arms exports are closely linked to both the economic, foreign and security interests of individual Member States. The EU should respect their sovereignty by refraining from interfering in this area.

I voted against the motion for an EU-Parliament resolution on EU political relations with Latin America. Member States, not the EU, should be conducting foreign policy. The EU should get back to basics and focus on facilitating economic exchange between the Member States.

I voted against the motion for an EU-Parliament resolution on corruption and human rights in third countries.
The EU is not the right vehicle to tackle corruption and human rights abuses. The Member States themselves as well as business and NGOs would be more appropriate mediums of advocacy in addition to international bodies.

I abstained on the motion for an EU-Parliament draft legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
Iceland, as a sovereign nation, has agreed to accept that EU products with geographical indications (GIs) receive the same protection in Iceland as in the rest of the EU. However sensible GIs as a regulation may be, their creation and implementation should be left to each individual Member State. Therefore, I chose to abstain.

I abstained on the motion for an EU-Parliament draft legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and Iceland concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products.
Iceland, as a sovereign nation, has agreed to lower tariffs and increased quotas for agricultural products made in the EU. While the benefits of trade liberalisation are well known, Member States are more than capable of negotiating their own trade deals. Therefore, I chose to abstain.

I voted against the motion for an EU-Parliament legislative resolution on the functioning of franchising in the retail sector.
It is the Member States who should be the ones deciding whether or not and how to legislate on franchising in the retail sector. The European Commission should not expand its regulatory scope and level of interference. Nor should statistical monitoring by the Commission be conducted as such measures are the first steps down the path of regulatory harmonisation, overreach and centralisation at the EU level.

I voted against the motion for an EU-Parliament resolution on a Space Strategy for Europe.
A Space Strategy would only serve to increase current levels of waste, expand the EU’s budget and further encroach upon the sovereignty of the Member States. However, of greatest concern is that this would serve a function towards the creation of an EU army. Given current tensions between the EU and Russia, the expansion of EU action in space risks escalating the current conflict.

I voted against the motion for a Parliament resolution on academic further and distance education as part of the European lifelong learning strategy.
Education should be left to the Member States. Furthermore, the costs of access to information continue to fall while the size of information expands ever more. Individuals, families, NGOs and businesses are more than capable of voluntarily pursuing, supporting and engaging in further and distance education to obtain its benefits.

I voted for a Parliament draft legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89, Regulations (EC) No 2888/2000 and (EC) No 685/2001.
The benefits of repealing obsolete regulations are obvious. The EU would do better to shift its focus from legislative expansion and overreach to repealing burdensome regulations that have stymied growth.

I voted against the motion for a Parliament draft legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014 as regards the promotion of internet connectivity in local communities.
This draft legislative resolution violates the principle of subsidiarity. This is simply a thinly veiled attempt by the EU to prevent its falling popularity by offering Member States’ citizens freebies. Both Parliament and the Commission would do well to remember that, ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch’.