8:e valperioden Julie GIRLING

The decision to advocate the launch of Article 7(1) proceedings against a Member State is not one we have taken lightly. Our vote today is not an attack on Hungary nor an attack on its people. Nor is our vote necessarily about the content of the report, flawed as it is. Our decision concerns the question of European values, what they are and how we maintain and promote them. Europe, and its neighbourhood, is a family of friendly nations which share the same values, such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Like any family, we have disagreements and differences of opinion, yet these common values continue to bind us together. Regrettably, it is clear that Mr. Orbán and the current Hungarian Government have been distancing themselves from these values. The launch of Article 7(1) proceedings would, in our view, provide an opportunity for a constructive and cooperative dialogue with the Hungarian Government in order to prevent the undermining of the values which we all share.

My vote for the non-binding resolution was an acknowledgement that critical progress in the EU-UK Brexit negotiations has not been made, requires a renewed optimistic vigour, and must work to secure the most equitable terms between the 27 and the constituents of the South West, or the UK more broadly. I specifically called on Mr Barnier, the Commission and the Council to open parallel trade negotiations on the principle that no deal is agreed until everything is agreed, urging more communication in a spirit of goodwill and willingness to go forward together.
The motion before Parliament could not be reduced to a position of ‘digging in heels’, instead requiring a careful consideration of the withdrawal negotiations thus far, the atmosphere of those negotiations and the realistic prospects for a future settlement. It was on this analysis that I supported the motion, and in doing so, hope to cajole the institutions and negotiating parties into a more collaborative approach with a sense of immediacy.

Today, British Conservatives voted to abstain on a report from the Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee intended to look at ways to close the gender pension gap, i.e. the difference between the average pre-tax income received as a pension by women and that received by men.
To be clear, we recognise that a gender pension gap exists and supporting measures at EU level to address this problem can be of value. In fact, there are number of sensible suggestions in this report relating to the pooling of best practice and improved data collection to help to identify policy challenges.
However, we chose to abstain because, despite the best efforts of the Rapporteur, wording was adopted that goes beyond the scope of report by casting judgement on different types of social security and pension systems. As clearly stated elsewhere in the report, these areas are the sole responsibility of Member States.
In a similar vein, whilst the Commission has competence in relation to equality, we cannot support calls for the EU to adopt social protection measures. Moreover, well-intentioned references to unisex life tariffs often lead to unintended consequences for industry and, as a result, increased costs for consumers.