a 8-a legislatură Alfred SANT

It is obvious that the EU should be fully prepared for the different possible scenarios describing future relations between the United Kingdom and the EU. Not least from the budgetary side of things.
The contingency measures contemplated in this document are particularly important to minimise the damage that would ensue if a no deal scenario prevails.
Problems would go beyond those arising from a possible budget shortfall when and if the UK’s payments into the 2019 budget dry up.
Just as importantly, there would be problems for private individuals and corporate entities established in the UK and currently benefiting from EU funding. They need to maintain their eligibility for such funding the case of a no-deal.
The same applies for non-UK based persons who have entered into funding projects involving UK entities.
The text provides ways and means by which deleterious consequences are contained and compensated for.
It sends a strong signal that the EU is prepared to stand four square with commitments it has made to interested parties in terms of the relationship sustained over the years with the UK.
For the above reasons, I voted in favour of giving Parliament’s consent to this Commission proposal.

I have voted in favour of this report, dealing with the dissemination of terrorist content online.
Europe has been facing an evolving terrorist threat over the past years.
According to a report by the High-Level Commission Expert Group on Radicalisation (May 2018), internet featured in almost every 2017 attack. It is being used to disseminate instructions before attacks and to spread propaganda before and after attacks. Terrorist groups recruit many members online.
This text aims at reducing extremist content online by providing for duties of care to be applied by any hosting service providers in the EU while taking action against such content. Member States will need to ensure that competent authorities have sufficient capability and resources to enforce the removal orders. The report endorses cooperation among the national authorities, to avoid duplicating work and interference with ongoing investigations.
I welcome these consultation and cooperation procedures between the competent national authorities that take into account special circumstances for a removal order affecting the fundamental interests of a Member State.
Finally, feasibility of the delay for the removal of objectionable content on small platforms has been questioned. However, at no moment, should any fine tuning of measures being undertaken give the impression that we are being soft on terrorism.

After more than two years of work on the banking reform, we have finally reached the final stage with the EP plenary session’s approval of the compromise agreements reached with the Council and the Commission on the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive.
I voted in favour of the compromise agreements because I believe that the new rules strike the right balance between the enhancing of the prudential requirement framework without adding excessive burden for banks.
In particular, I welcome the inclusion of the Malta Development Bank in the list of banks excluded from the application of these capital requirements.
The Malta Development Bank was created after the adoption of the initial Commission proposal and therefore it was not included in the text.
The application of these capital requirements to the Malta Development Bank would have had a counterproductive effect on its activities, due to unnecessary administrative burden and additional cost.
The compromise text reached by the EU Institutions makes sure that the Malta Development Bank receives the same treatment as the other National Promotional Banks in Europe.
In this way it will be able to fulfil its primary socio-economic objectives of public interest by supporting investments in Malta.