Schriftelijke stemverklaringen - 8e zittingsperiode Tunne KELAM

I voted in favour of this report.
I have been advocating an end to the practice of changing the clock twice a year for a long time. This practice was established in the US 101 years ago to maximise the light period of the day. 21st century workers no longer follow natural light cycles of the day, making this old habit redundant.
For many people changing the clocks brings severe psychological suffering, causing sleeping troubles, constant tiredness and distress for several days, or even weeks. Not to mention the practical nuisance of changing the clocks: even if most of our devices are digital and change the time automatically, we still need to check whether we are in the real time and not the old time.
Therefore, I very much welcome the adoption of this report and an early end to changing the clocks, namely on 1 April 2021, when the directive will enter into force. A coordination mechanism will be established with the aim of ensuring a harmonised and coordinated approach to time arrangements throughout the Union

I voted in favour of this report.
This report not only serves to significantly step up the EU’s fight against financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance, but it looks self-critically at how the EU Member States could improve their efforts.
Bringing corruption under control should be one of our main concerns. Corruption, money laundering and tax evasion do not only hamper European economic coherence, they also pose a threat to our societies, our security. The bloody Russian money being white-washed through European banks, or oligarchs purchasing EU passports, and insufficient exchange between national tax authorities is paralysing thorough investigations.
I am glad that the report calls to phase out all ‘Golden Visa/Passport’ schemes. For a European financial police within the framework of Europol with own investigatory capacities, this clearly presumes extended and deepened cooperation and exchange between national tax authorities and respective law authorities.
I do also think we should name and shame the Member States. Their practices harm us all, and this has to stop.
I am also in favour of creating a concrete ECON subcommittee to continue this very important work of the current TAXE, TAX2, PANA and TAX3 committees. This is also showing European citizens that we take corruption seriously and we do aim to fight it to the bone.

. ‒ I voted in favour of the CEF regulation. I am especially pleased that Parliament approved the funding for the defence purposes, namely military mobility. Providing funds that would enable upgrading existing and constructing new transport links to ensure that they meet military requirements is crucial for the EU’s credibility in defending its citizens and territory.
Another crucial aspect that the vote changed concerns transferring from the Cohesion Fund to the CEF which will help to realise EU added-value major infrastructure projects that Member States alone would not undertake from their normal Structural Funds. Using the Cohesion Fund transfer through the CEF by means of direct management by the Commission will guarantee the better use of EU funds, making sure that the funds are given to the best and most mature projects.
To further guarantee the realisation of the TEN-T network by 2030 and finalise the major EU added-value cross-border projects and missing links, the Cohesion Fund transfer should be distributed based on the certain degree of competitiveness as proposed by the Commission and reintroduced by Amendment 2. This competitive approach is further helping with good management of EU funds.

. ‒ Parliament has with a great majority approved my report on military mobility. Military mobility is key to achieving European level of ambition in defence. Everything in defence comes down to practical execution of the tasks and the ability to react in crises, be they of a military or civilian nature.
The EU and NATO should act in complementary manner, not duplicate each other’s efforts and fully ensure that all allied military contingents are able to move in and around EU territory without any political, administrative and physical obstacles.
I call on Member States to act quickly and efficiently. Achieving an adequate level of military mobility is in the hands of Member States, in their willingness to cooperate and coordinate among themselves. It is crucial that they come forward with their national military mobility plans by latest the end of 2019.
And I also call on the Member States and the Commission to strictly stick to the timeline in the Action Plan. If the EU cannot deliver in time, in a coordinated and efficient manner, this will send a very wrong message to our citizens, but even more it will very much please our adversaries.

. ‒ I voted in favour of this report. Wildlife in the world’s oceans and seas, both in the water and above, is suffocating under the plastic burden. Europe can and should act now. According to estimates up to 70% of marine litter is plastic. Aiming to replace all single-use plastics with reusable and sustainable alternatives is the big goal.
The directive will regulate the 10 most used single-use plastic items. The Commission predicts that by 2030 this will reduce marine litter on EU beaches by a quarter, and avoid the emission of 3.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and EUR 22 billion in environmental damage, saving consumers a projected EUR 6.5 billion.
Plastic pollution is also a lifestyle problem. If consumers collectively do not change their behaviour of fast consumption packaged in plastic, the measures taken will only do so much. Conscious consumption needs to be relearned. Hard measures in the directive will go hand in hand with soft, educational measures, targeting young people especially as future consumer generations.
I hope in the future not to read news about plastic islands bigger than some countries, or see pictures of animals, fish, birds strangled in plastic.

I voted in favour of the EP call on the Council to start the Article 7 procedure on Hungary. The lack of readiness of the Hungarian PM to show some flexibility and to take EU’s joint positions into account, left me with no alternatives. At the same time I did not support the general approach taken by the rapporteur that I find unbalanced and that presents several questionable arguments both in political and ideological sense.

I abstained in the final vote of this report. It is unacceptable for me to support a wording that so intrusively meddles with internal matters of our partner, such as the paragraphs 11 and 39 do. This is not an appropriate way to react. Also, the parts on Iran and Syria remain declarative and empty. Suggesting a more critical approach to Iran’s meddling in Middle-East, is close to anecdotal.

. ‒ I voted in favour of this report, the most important element in which is the request to modernise the calculation of the direct payments in Pillar I. The current calculation should be replaced by an EU payment calculation method. I support a uniform method based on support paid per hectare. This would ensure a level playing field in all Member States and end the discrepancy between the Member States which joined before and after 2004.
Given the budget proposals from the Commission, Parliament and the Council need to take a strong stand on ensuring that citizens, including farmers, in all Member States can enjoy fair treatment in the distribution of financial resources. I also support the report’s call for fair pricing of European agricultural products. EU farmers are also business people and should be paid fair prices for their products that will enable them to earn a decent living. Farmers deserve a fair place in the food supply chain and should not be living off subsidises only.

I voted in favour of this report.
Europe can only fully guarantee its food security if we can ensure that our farmers keep farming and producing food products. Young and potential farmers often face bureaucratic and financial obstacles when seeking to take over the farms of their families or starting out with new ones. This report offers some recommendations on how these problems could be overcome.
Access to financial means and land are the biggest obstacles when going into farming. Incentives to get loans more easily and greater flexibility in business plans are a good way forward. Farming depends not only on people, but also on economic, societal, environmental and meteorological circumstances, among others, and thus needs to be tackled in a flexible way, including by the authorities providing subsidies. Innovation, new approaches and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances should be rewarded and accepted. Business plans in farming cannot be seen as rigid plans that cannot be changed when, for example, the weather would dictate a change.
I also support the proposals to provide young farmers with training so that they can acquire business skills, including on how to come up with business plans, on financial management and on how to market their products.

I voted in favour of this report.
The adopted revised posting of workers directive, is an appreciated step towards further integration of the single market and ensuring that social dumping is been reduced across the EU.
Posted workers (posting up to 12 months, extendable with another 6 months) will need to be paid according to the standards of the host country, under provision that it would not be less than what they would earn at home. This means end to the practice of cheap labour where often next to the poorer remuneration to locals also healthcare and social rights were not taken care of. And this will also benefit the businesses, as local businesses in the host country can be reassured that social standards are the same for all workers regardless of their country of hiring for that period and would thus not create unfair market advantages due to dumping salaries compared to local businesses employing under local employment laws.
I welcome also the practical provisions asking to set up a national homepage with all the information that applies to posted workers under the concrete national laws. This will increase transparency and enable businesses and workers to easily follow the rules.

I voted in favour of the report, which sets the rules for future composition of Parliament. I welcome the reduction in the total numbers and the reallocation of certain seats between the Member States.
Nevertheless, I rejected all provisions that proposed to establish transnational lists for a joint constituency. Even if noble in its aspirations, the transnational list would not fulfil its promise of pan-European feeling and belonging. Quite the contrary, it would detach MEPs from real citizens on the ground. Transnational lists would create, de facto , a two—level election system that in reality would give those elected to transnational lists a so-called European mandate. Citizens of smaller Member States would face a situation where their voice would count less.
In addition, the question arises: to whom would these transnationally elected MEPs be accountable? Who would they actually represent? Where would they connect with concrete people, their worries and wishes? In my view, this means no responsibility; no accountability at all. And in practical terms, would Guy Verhofstadt really be able to come to Estonia, to communicate in Estonian about the wishes and worries – large or small – of the Estonian people, and combine these with all the worries and wishes of citizens in the remaining 26 Member States?

I voted in favour of this report.
This report takes another step towards ending the discriminatory geo-blocking practices across the EU.
This report represents the important agreement on how online purchasing of goods and electronically supplied services not protected by copyright can be pursued. It will open new possibilities for all EU citizens to purchase across Europe, it is especially important for citizens from countries who joined 2004 onwards who often have faced discriminatory treatment based on nationality or residence.
I regret to see that the scope of the agreement between the institutions has been narrowed down and does not include any more digitally copyrighted content such as e-books, games, software, e-music, nevertheless I hope that the review 2 years after the entry into force will include the full scope of digitally copyrighted content. The copyright package, audio-visual services directive should be bold and enable Europe-wide access to content. Citizens are not asking for free access, but they are asking for access!
I call on the Member States and on the EC to ensure that these rules, together with other recent agreements, such as prohibition of charging card payments and online payments, are known and applied by the commerce. Awareness, visibility, implementation!

I voted in favour of this resolution. The idea of macro—regional strategies comes from the European Parliament and was based on the idea of creating a strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. The Baltic Sea Strategy became a pilot of the macro—regional strategies and has inspired the ones that followed.
The current discussions of the post-2020 cohesion policy also need to focus, among other things, on the meaningful future of the MRS. The current situation means that projects and cooperation that would happen anyway are labelled as part of the MRS, without creating much added value nor giving visibility to the MRS.
Parliament’s report rightly states that future of MRS needs to be anchored in a long-term vision, political commitment and needs to be backed by efficient cooperation and coordination mechanisms. It needs a commitment to adequate funding with fewer bureaucratic procedures, based on synergies and complementarity between regional, national and European funding. I echo the call to the Member States to pledge more funding for the MRS.
Lastly, we can expect real added value only when all actors – from states, regions and local authorities to businesses, NGOs and citizens – claim strong ownership over the MRS and start to implement them accordingly.

I voted in favour of AMs 304, 305, 306 which delete electric pulse trawl use from innovating fishing methods.
I am fully against indiscriminatory ways of fishing that do not only aim at catching a particular stock of fish, but in its course cause significant damage to the entire ecosystem around.
There are reports of desertification of oceans, in some areas traditional fishermen speak of cemeteries in the sea.
Also, fish are living beings, electric pulse trawl causes significant physical damage to the fish, leaving injured fish, crabs, shell-fish and other elements of marine ecosystem lingering between life and death.
I have voted in favour of banning electric pulse trawl as I do not see this being neither ecological, nor ethical. Marine ecosystems are extremely fragile and facing enormous challenges and we should not add one more.

I voted for the report. We can really be satisfied and feel much more secure as a result of successful cooperation between the three EU institutions. Congratulations to the Estonian presidency who managed to bring to satisfactory conclusion long and complex trilogue.
The 2018 budget will enable the EU to meet the most important challenges. The overall budget growth is 2.3%, focusing on stimulating economic growth potential, jobs creation and security. Increasing investments in research, infrastructures, education and SMEs is vital. 11.2 billion for Horizon 2020 and 2.3 billion for Erasmus will provide positive boost to these important programs. I am especially satisfied that for the first time the efforts of strategic communication unit will be financed from the EU budget. The only problem is that although the budget was adopted by 2:1 votes, almost 200 MEPs, mostly socialists and Greens, decided to distance themselves from the common achievement by remaining neutral. This means in fact distancing yourself from strengthening measures to support employment, jobs for young people, innovation and security. All in all, the Estonian negotiators justified themselves as honest and successful brokers.

I voted in favour of this report.
95% of accidents occur due human action, 45% fatalities are accounted to car occupants, and 25% of annual fatalities in traffic are caused by consuming alcohol.
In the very near future, in fact already next year for instance in Tallinn, we will observe also self-driving vehicles on European streets.
We have to be prepared that in the future next to the human factor; vehicles themselves will play a much role in traffic.
The report makes a timely call for safety-related driver assistance systems, with passive and active measures.
I also support the call of the report to the EC to come up with no further delay with the review of the General Safety Regulation and the pedestrian protection regulation.
The report also urges the MS to significantly improve their road network, by regular maintenance, uplifting where needed, providing efficient and safe signalisation.
Considering the high number of accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, especially urban mobility plans should make this a priority. Separated lanes, modernisation, expanding cycling paths and pedestrian paths. This will not only serve safety, but would encourage citizens to use less cars and would by that also contribute to cleaner air and higher living standard in the urban areas.

I voted in favour of this report, it is very timely and most needed.
Last year 80% of European companies were faced with at least one cybercrime incident. In some Member States 50% of all crimes committed were cybercrimes. 69% of companies have no or no basic understanding of their cyber vulnerabilities, 51% of citizens do not feel well informed about cyber threats.
The report rightly puts that the lines between cybercrime, cyber espionage, cyber warfare, cyber sabotage and cyber terrorism are becoming increasingly blurred targeting individuals, public or private entities and covering a wide range of offences.
The most important thing is to maximise resilience as a joint effort. Member States need to adopt proactive policies and measures, educate companies and individuals on their behaviour. New technologies are an asset, not a threat, but we need to strive towards maximum cyber security to protect firstly our critical infrastructures, but more and more also our everyday life.
I agree also that EU needs to streamline common definitions of cybercrime, cyber warfare, cybersecurity, cyber harassment and cyber-attacks to ensure that the EU institutions and EU Member States share a common legal definition and therefore could jointly pursue higher cyber security and take joint and appropriate measures against perpetrators.

I voted in favour of giving this mandate to negotiate the 2018 budget. The crucial point here is to underline the financing of defence research and more specifically the EUR 40 million for the preparatory action for 2018. This needs to be agreed on and I very much hope that the counterparts from the Council and Commission will agree without hesitation to that. Europe needs more security and defence and one of the first steps is to guarantee funds to support European defence research.

I voted in favour of this report. Atrocities and war crimes by state and non-state actors in Syria, but also in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, need to be brought to the ICC. I condemn in the strongest terms the veto exercised by Russia and China as Permanent Members of the UN Security Council against referral of the situation in Syria to the ICC Prosecutor under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and against adoption of a measure to punish Syria for using chemical weapons. I call on the EU to do its utmost to achieve a reform of the UN Security Council at least regarding the veto right, especially when evidence on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are at everyone’s disposal.
I call also on Member States to fully support by providing documentation, but even more to provide financial support to the established Commission of Inquiry on Syria set up by the Human Rights Council and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) set up by the UN General Assembly to assist in the investigation of serious crimes committed in Syria. Lastly, I call on the EU to blacklist those Russians who have contributed to crimes against humanity in Syria.

I voted in favour of this report. Online platforms are part of our everyday life: we search information online, we read news, we interact through social media, and we buy goods. Digital cannot be erased from our lives.
The report sets a good basis for further discussion regarding online platforms and the digital single market. It is important that the EU tries to define at least the rules of the game that are adaptable to the concrete nature of different platforms.
The European digital single market should mean unhindered access to digital offers, content and business-making regardless of geographic location or residency. It means also minimising local and also national rules to the advantage of common European rules for all counterparts starting from the consumer/end-user.
I am confident that despite the natural lack of clarity of digital space, the EU is willing and able to ensure that online platforms are best integrated into the European digital single market. Perhaps a future European e-residency to overcome fragmentation and geographical positioning could be among the possible solutions.