Explications de vote écrites - 8ème législature Anders VISTISEN

The DPP-Delegation is supportive of Frontex. In this regard, it welcomes that a standing corps of up to 10 000 operational staff will be set up by 2027. Where Frontex currently relies on Member States’ contributions, the Agency will start to recruit its own staff. This new corps can be deployed in the Member States on their request to assist in border control, returning individuals and fighting cross-border crime. Also, the DPP believes it is positive that Frontex can continue to assist Member States in their return operations when they agree thereto. The DPP however regrets to see that the Agency is not beefed up fully in its competences. Frontex namely did not receive the extra competence on returning individuals from one third country to another third country. The DPP believes this constitutes a missed opportunity. By assisting North African countries in their return operations, the pressure on our external borders would fall sharply. Furthermore, ‘fundamental rights monitors’ are created, which will supervise the Agency’s implementation of fundamental rights in every single operation. The latter, combined with the extra reporting obligations, will put a lot of red tape on the Agency, which will prevent efficient operations. Hence, the DPP voted against.

Fiscalis is an EU programme for national tax administrations to exchange information and expertise. The programme includes a budget to assist Member States’ tax authorities with supporting tax policy and the implementation of EU law on taxation to avoid aggressive tax planning, tax fraud and double non-taxation. Its budget will go towards connecting IT systems and promoting the sharing of good practices and training to boost efficiency and to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens for citizens and businesses in cross-border transactions. It also promotes cooperation between tax authorities, in particular joint actions in risk management and audits. A partial agreement has been reached with the Council covering the Fiscalis Programme for 2021-2027. However, since negotiations have not been finalised, the rapporteur wishes to close Parliament’s first reading (by adopting his report) before re-opening negotiations with the Council in the next mandate. Although the DPP-Delegation is generally satisfied with the text, it decided to abstain as further improvements are expected when negotiations with Council resume in the next mandate. It believes it would from a democratic point of view be more correct if the Members of the 9th parliamentary term to decide on this.

The Proposal for a Regulation establishing the Rights and Values Programme (2021-2027) is one of the proposals related to the MFF part of the Justice, Rights and Values fund. The general objective of the proposed Programme was ‘to protect and promote rights and values as enshrined in the EU Treaties and in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’. The Fund provides financial support for the activities of a number of actors. The report significantly modified the Commission’s proposal. The amendments contained, inter alia, a new strand aimed at ‘promoting and safeguarding democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, in particular by supporting and building the capacity of civil society organisations at local, regional, national and transnational level’ (Union Values Strand). The DPP-Delegation voted against the report because this new part was designed as a financial instrument for a political fight against some Member States (Poland and Hungary) by transferring public money to the leftist NGOs. Despite the provisional agreement (excluding budgetary issue) reached during the interinstitutional negotiations, the DPP rejected the outcome. The DPP is of the opinion that the Programme still contains the controversial Union Values Strand aimed at interfering in the internal situation in some Member States.

Following the recent wave of terrorist attacks in Europe, most of which included some kind of online radicalisation, the European Commission has proposed new legislation which would force internet platforms to cooperate with the removal of terrorist content they host. The DPP-Delegation generally welcomes the EC proposal and can support the series of compromises the EP rapporteur has negotiated for his report, including the plan to force online hosting services to remove terrorist content within one hour of reporting. The DPP considers the one-hour deadline a key part of this important legislation. There is clearly a problem with terrorist material circulating unchecked on the internet for too long. Law enforcement authorities have made clear that terrorist content disseminates most rapidly in the first hour and that the one hour principle is vital.

This is a vote on the outcome of trilogue negotiations. The proposed European Labour Authority (ELA) will be a new EU Authority aiming to ‘contribute to the overall objective of ensuring that EU rules on labour mobility are enforced in a fair, simple and effective way and supporting labour mobility in the single market’. The DPP delegation maintains its concern that the establishment of the European Labour Authority (ELA) is another example of the European Commission seeking to create a structure at Union level that will enable future initiatives such as an EU social security card and an EU—wide unemployment scheme to become a reality. The ELA should never take up the role of national authorities, but should fully respect the subsidiarity principle. Furthermore, the DPP wants to emphasise that there is no legal basis in the Treaty that allows for a European inspection system in the labour domain.

. ‒ The Delegation of the Danish People’s Party (DPP) has opposed the creation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) since the beginning. The EPPO would duplicate powers and bodies already existing within Member States, drawing emphasis away from making each Member State responsible for anti-fraud work at national level, and ultimately moving attention from prevention to reaction after crimes have been committed. Furthermore, the DPP is of the opinion that OLAF is an ineffective and unprofessional investigative body. The special report on ‘Fighting fraud in EU spending’ from the European Court of Auditors shows that OLAF issued a total of 541 judicial recommendations between 2009 and 2016, but 55.5% of the cases have been dismissed by Member State authorities due to a lack of evidence. This means that in every second dismissed case evidence collected by OLAF has not led prosecutors to initiate indictment. Hence, the DPP rejected this proposal.

. ‒ The proposed regulation retains the definition of a ‘restricted explosives precursor’, which is not for public use (subject to some licensing exemptions such as for professional users including farmers), and makes some modifications as to which substances are included in annex. It also introduces a definition of ‘regulated explosives precursors’, requiring the reporting of suspicious transitions of substances included in an additional annex, within 24 hours of determining that such a transition was suspicious.
Online marketplaces are now included in the scope of the regulation, and provisions are included to ensure that all operators in the supply chain are aware that the product they are handling is subject to any restrictions through labelling and reporting obligations. Member States must organise regular exchanges between stakeholders once a year. The Commission will conduct an evaluation within five years of application, which is 18 months after entry into force. The Delegation of the Danish People’s Party believes this is an important piece of legislation in terms of tackling terrorist activity and preventing terrorist attacks, as homemade explosives were used in approximately 40% of terrorist attacks committed in the EU in 2015 and 2016.

. ‒ The DPP-Delegation voted against this report in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) in January, because it was too prescriptive and all about creating safe and legal pathways to the EU. However, the compromise with the Council is fundamentally different. The language on legal pathways is greatly reduced and language assistance for return operations included, a change that is welcomed by the DPP. Nevertheless, following the fact that the DPP is of the opinion that the EU should stay away from migration policy and therefore opposes this draft regulation as a matter of principle, it decided to abstain in the end.

The DPP is generally in favour of the amendments that were adopted (which we also voted in favour of). However, we strongly oppose to the fact that the new cabotage rules ended up with three days. It is incomprehensible why cheap, foreign labour must be allowed carry out cabotage continuously, and thus outperform Danish drivers on unfair competition conditions. DPP cannot support this, and therefore we abstained on the report.

For quite some time, there has been a pressing need to tighten the driving rest rules in Europe. We have seen countless examples of inhuman conditions for the drivers that no one should accept. Therefore, the DPP would also have liked to see the amendment from the EMPL adopted, as it went beyond what was adopted. In that light, DPP voted against block F, which, in our opinion, is not nearly as far as the proposals from EMPL. As such, we could not support the changes or the report as a whole, and therefore we voted against the report.

For most of Western Europe, there have been numerous examples of how transport companies with creative and unsympathetic methods have sought to secure a competitive advantage by utilising EU rules. This report is seeking to change that, which the DPP supports. Among other things, it is positive that the so-called letterbox companies are being stopped, whose purpose has only been to use cheap wages in other EU countries. The DPP also supports that the control requirements become even bigger and more comprehensive. Therefore, the DPP also backs up the amendments that ended up being adopted. However, there are elements in the report, such as the creation of a European Labour Authority and cabotage rules of three days, that we cannot support. Therefore, we chose to abstain on the report.

. ‒ This new regulation intends to improve the security features of EU citizens’ identity cards and residence documents issued to EU citizens. In addition, the proposed legislation intends to harmonise the format and other specifications of residence cards issued to non-EU family members of EU citizens. The purpose is to harmonise the minimum-security features of these documents across the European Union, not to impose an obligation on Member States to start issuing ID cards. The most important element of this Regulation is one which the DPP-Delegation fought for from the beginning: the inclusion of two biometrics instead of one. These biometrics will consist of a facial image and fingerprints. In addition, the DPP managed to include a requirement that fingerprints can be taken from the age of six onwards instead of twelve, the same threshold as already exists in the Visa Information System. Overall, the DPP supports compromise as it contains the most important security-related aspects, which will serve as an important tool for making it harder for terrorists and criminals to commit document fraud or identity theft.

The new Directive will repeal and replace the 2010 Parental Leave Directive by introducing new rights and strengthening existing ones. The Directive should apply to all workers who have employment contracts or other employment relationships. The DPP-Delegation is of the opinion that the new Directive is bad news for Denmark because we already have a well-functioning parental leave. In other words, EU regulation is neither required nor desirable. The Directive goes clearly against the principle of subsidiarity, provisions such as the transferability of leave between the parents should be defined at national level.

The ongoing cross-border security threats from terrorists and secondary movement from irregular migrants have meant that some Member States have been reintroducing internal Schengen borders for temporary periods. The restrictive time limits of a maximum of six months were to be increased to one year under the Commission proposal to allow for ongoing security concerns. The rapporteur wanted shorter time limits (initially 2 months, extendable to maximum one year), greater justification before ongoing closure is approved, and a regular Commission review. This was approved in October 2018 in committee, and the November 29 plenary vote, which narrowly passed, brought it back to committee for trilogues. After two trilogues failed to reach any compromise, this regulation has been brought back for the closure of the first reading. The DPP-Delegation has consistently opposed it on the basis that it restricts Member State sovereign security measures against secondary movement of irregular migrants and terrorists.

This is a non-legislative report which is being put to vote to signal the rapporteur’s views on how Member States should treat the Pan European Pension Product (PEPP) legislation regarding tax when implementing it. The rapporteur underlines that taxation is an exclusive Member State competence and that any decision to grant special tax relief to the PEPP therefore remains with each Member State. Furthermore, the report states that Member States have the opportunity to take part in enhanced cooperation. The DPP-Delegation supports the elements of the report which outline that tax is an exclusive Member State competence. Nevertheless, the DPP is of the opinion that the proposals for the consideration of Member States which have been made by the rapporteur are prescriptive and infringe on the discretion of Member States. As a result, the DPP voted against.

In the summer of 2018, the Commission issued a recommendation that Kosovo would be granted visa liberalisation. Parliament supported the Commission position in a vote in the LIBE Committee in August of 2018. Trilogue negotiations have not advanced, however, as the Council cannot agree on granting visa-free travel to Kosovar citizens. This vote therefore established the EP’s position at first reading. Following concerns about Kosovo’s high levels of organised crime and corruption and the fact that it does not recognise Kosovo, the DPP-Delegation voted against the position of the EP.

2020 will be the last year covered by the current multiannual financial framework (MFF). The increase in the 2020 preliminary draft estimates over the budget adopted in 2019 is EUR 71.6 million (3.58%) and has been set at EUR 2,068,530,000. The DPP-Delegation has voted against the report as it doesn’t support an increase. Among other things, the Rapporteur highlights the Parliament’s role in building European political awareness and promoting Union values. In this regard, he welcomes the inauguration of the Europa Experience centres and the creation of a series of mobile installations, which would tour Member States to bring the Union closer to citizens. The DPP does not believe in the added value of the Europa Experience centres. On the contrary, it considers those kind of initiatives as pure EU propaganda and finds it a shame that taxpayers’ money is devoted to it. In general, the DPP believes that the EP’s budget should be set on a realistic basis and should be in line with the principles of budgetary discipline and sound financial management, and stresses that savings are required and that all efforts to strive for a more efficient and transparent use of public money must be strongly encouraged.

. ‒ As part of a wider effort to make EU Member States’ military operations more cohesive, and create a stronger common security and defence policy (CSDP), the Commission in June 2018 tabled a proposal for a European peace facility (EPF). This would be a EUR 10.5 billion financing mechanism, funding EU operations with military or defence implications – such as Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean, or EU support for the AMISOM mission in Somalia – from 2021 until 2027. The EPF could also be used to provide third countries, including developing states, with military equipment, training and infrastructure. The facility would replace the existing Athena mechanism, as well as the EU’s African Peace Facility, from January 2021. The major decisions on engagement and use of funds would be made by the Council, but it still is not clear whether that would require unanimity or QMV (the latter looking like a more probable option). The day-to-day operations will be overseen by the EEAS, which limits the role of the Member States. As such, the DPP-Delegation voted against the report.

This proposal for a regulation concerns the details of the next generation of external financing instruments (EFIs). The Commission proposes a major overhaul of the current financial architecture, including the creation of a new heading on security and defence and the merger of 12 existing external financing instruments into a single Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) with worldwide coverage. The DPP-Delegation welcomes the simplification as it will contribute to the coherence of the EU’s external action, and so to resource efficiency. However, the DPP has voted against the Report as it does not support the reference to the possibility of an international legal framework for the protection of persons displaced due to climate change. Moreover, it believes that the allocated budget is way too high. The NDICI receives €89.2 billion under the current proposal, which means that the NDICI alone is funded about €20 billion more than the entire Global Europe under the MFF 2014-2020.

Since 2007, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) has been the main financial instrument supporting reforms in the candidate and potential candidate countries, i.e. the six Western Balkan countries and Turkey, aimed at preparing the beneficiaries for the obligations of the EU membership. IPA funding supports the accession process by building up capacities and bringing positive, irreversible, long-term changes in the countries, aiming to become future members of the EU. The DPP-Delegation has voted against this report as it in general does not supports the IPA funding scheme as we are not supporting the EU’s Enlargement policy in the Western Balkans and Turkey.