[ParlTrack]

. ‒ I am glad to have voted in favour of the draft amending budget reinforcing the commitment appropriations of two key EU programmes – Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ – by EUR 100 million. In this perspective, I would like to remark the significance of the EU’s support for education and research innovation. A high level of financing in these two areas is an essential precondition for economic growth and citizens’ wellbeing in Europe.One should never underestimate the importance of research innovation as an essential driver of economic progress and the creation of good quality jobs. Undeniably, if we want the European economy to prosper, there is no other option but to keep on investing in top-notch innovation. By taking the lead, Europe can keep on growing and selling its products without devaluing its labour costs. Finally, one cannot ignore the return on investment in research on health issues. Finding new ways to prevent diseases and therapies that are more effective is one of the most important signs of European and human progress.

2019/09/18

I abstained on this resolution as I disagree that it can serve a useful purpose at the present stage of the stand—off between the EU and the UK.The position of the European Parliament has been clearly asserted a number of times and is therefore well—known. Nothing has happened to change it.The real problem at the moment is that the UK is in the middle of a huge institutional crisis that could push the country into major economic and social discontinuity.Hopefully some last—gasp compromise can be offered by the British Government for a Brexit deal that would satisfy the EU side. In that case, this Parliament would be briefed about the development and would assume its responsibilities. Either way, today’s resolution will have no effect on the ongoing situation, except by creating further political noise, of which there is already too much.Keeping silent on the issue now would not amount to disinterest. To the contrary. We must and will keep our eyes open, our understanding at the ready.As the song goes: ‘Silence is golden, golden, But our eyes still see’.

2019/09/18

The abolition of capital controls opened the doors for money laundering. Globalisation multiplied the opportunities for it. AML legislation – more complex than capital controls – is intended to extinguish money laundering but still seems to be two steps behind it, conceptually and in the implementation of measures. In financial services, this holds for the largest jurisdictions and even more for the small ones. When the financial services sector undergoes a significant expansion, the difficulties are compounded, especially if a substantial part of the industry is intermediated by small operators.This is the case of Malta: a recent MONEYVAL report, while identifying weaknesses, highlighted that Malta has a sound legal framework to address money-laundering issues. The government has committed to implementing all MONEYVAL recommendations. A national AML strategy is in place and is being strengthened, not least by allocating significant new resources to it. There can be no ifs or buts: AML measures have to be implemented in full by all across the board, and those who have difficulties in catching up with the ongoing reforms should be helped to do so.I have thus voted in favour of this resolution.

2019/09/19

I have abstained on this resolution. I agree that foreign interference in the electoral affairs of a country is a very serious issue and has to be monitored and controlled.It has long been practiced under different forms, from the setting up of policy institutes in the smaller countries by the parties of large European states to campaigns waged in foreign media against individual countries, and to the escalation that has happened in recent years towards the fraudulent manipulation of soft media on a global scale.So, this Parliament’s resolutions over the years on the internal affairs of outside countries could be considered an intervention in their electoral politics. Likewise, arguably, the creation of transnational lists for elections to this Parliament.What makes foreign interventions of any kind acceptable, legitimate or legal? I come from a country which has long been subject to such interventions, from both the right and the left. And I know that we would be indulging in another fruitless exercise where we proclaim how pure we are, and how defiled others can be – unless we have clear replies to questions of the acceptable-legitimate-legal sort. Even if well-intentioned, the resolution makes no attempt to identify such replies.Therefore, I cannot support it.

2019/10/10

I voted in favour of the Resolution on the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework and own resources because it is essential that an agreement on the matter is reached as swiftly as possible.EU citizens need a robust and well-crafted budget to benefit from policies based on long-established priorities such as cohesion, agriculture, fisheries, and research funding.However, the following reservations apply:One can agree that a reform on the own resources system is needed.A tax in line with the EU’s environmental goals would be tolerable.Still clauses that refer to the implementation of a common consolidated corporate tax base or the setting up of a financial transaction tax impact on the sovereignty of Member States and are objectionable. .Further, current stated goals, such as those related to EU cohesion, have remained beyond reach.Yet new grand programmes such as the Defence Union and the Just Transition Fund are being proposed.The EU cannot afford to put aside its long-standing priorities.While one understands that new situations require new funding programmes, these cannot come at the expense of the fundamental priorities of the Union.

2019/10/10

. – I voted in favour of the Recommendation on the Council draft Regulation dealing with the short-term budgetary questions of the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union because financial obligations already agreed upon under this financial framework should be maintained.A UK withdrawal (Brexit) without an agreement could, dangerously, leave no legal arrangements for the UK’s immediate budgetary relations with the EU. EU funding beneficiaries involved in ongoing projects should have a guarantee of the money their work depends on. And uncertainty about what the EU had committed to finance would also be damaging to the Union’s image as a stable and secure source of funding.The proposal to maintain eligibility for EU funding for UK entities and UK-related projects until this financial programme ends in 2020, conditioned by the UK’s commitment to contribute its share for the same period, is a fair proposal.Finally, it is imperative that the European Parliament should fully support the preparation of programmes to cushion against instabilities that could arise as a result of the various possible scenarios under which the UK withdrawal from the EU could occur.

2019/10/22

I voted in favour of the EP Report on the Council Position for the draft general budget of the EU for the financial year 2020 because I believe that the EP proposals are putting forward a strong budget in areas that urgently need it.Especially, I fully support the EP’s proposal to increase the money committed for the Connecting Europe Facility in the background of interoperability of electricity and gas networks across borders as well as to end energy isolation.This goes in line with the amendments that I have tabled in the Budget Committee.Further, on the need to securing affordable clean energy for all Europeans, my proposal for a Pilot Project dedicated to teaching island authorities on how to tender for renewable energy projects goes in line with the above. It is good that this proposal is also being included in the EP’s report.More EU resources need to pour towards ending the isolation of islands when it comes to their energy needs.I am satisfied to have positively contributed to this process and look forward to the results of the negotiations with the Commission and the Council in order to have delivered an appropriate budget for next year.

2019/10/23

I have voted in favour of this resolution to trigger negotiations between the Council and the Parliament on the proposal relating to the disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches (so-called public country-by-country reporting) – a proposal with which I disagree.After a great number of technical meetings have been held on the issue, a compromise text has been elaborated. The resolution calls for the Council to unblock its procedures for negotiations to commence.The European Parliament voted in favour of entering into negotiations in March this year, while its Economic and Legal Committees submitted their reports more than two years ago.My doubts concerning the substantive proposals being made arise because of the disadvantages they could burden European firms with, compared to their non-EU competitors.Requiring EU big companies to declare and to have publicly available sensitive information on their taxes and assets without reciprocity from outside the EU could be risky in this respect.Tax transparency needs to be boosted, but in ways by which EU champions are not put at a competitive disadvantage.This being said, one might disagree with the proposal at stake but blatantly blocking any further negotiations on a quite mature file is certainly not a constructive approach.

2019/10/24

I have voted in favour of this report, which pursues the objective of ensuring that VAT is paid when goods are sold through online marketplaces by independent sellers.The legislation covering this policy forms part of a broader reform of VAT systems meant to make them more resistant to fraud while ensuring the safe exchange of information on payments and the collection of VAT from Internet sales.VAT fraud in EU e-commerce (which is growing by 14% annually) represents a tax loss of some EUR 5 billion every year.Currently, if a company sells goods online to consumers in other Member States and the threshold of the distance sales is exceeded, the supplier is obliged to charge local VAT in the Member State of the customer.An independent online seller is obliged to have a local VAT identification number in that other country. It’s complicated.Through the new single counter (‘One-Stop Shop’), independent online sellers going cross-border with their business need one single EU VAT identification number.Ultimately, this should give encouragement to small businesses in e-commerce activities across the EU, while limiting VAT fraud.The measure is of special relevance to Malta, where buyers are increasingly going online.

2019/11/14

I voted in favour of the Resolution contesting the draft bill from the Polish parliament that could result in criminalising the provision of sexual education. Essentially, the measure, billed as a ‘Stop Paedophilia’ legislative initiative criminalises the most important branch of education. This is regressive and damaging to the younger generations of Poland and Europe. It is clear that the establishment of study curricula is a matter of national competence. And should rightly remain so. Nevertheless, here we have an EU member state which adopts a law that is so out-of-date in concept and so wrong headed on so many fundamental aspects of different aspects of the educational experience. Even for one like me who abhors EU interventions in the internal affairs of Member States, it is difficult not to express strong dissent. For here, educators are risking jail time if they teach minors safe sex practices. When so much effort is being expended to combat sexually transmitted diseases, undesired pregnancies and domestic abuse, the measures deployed in Poland jar.Indeed, support for this resolution is crucial in safeguarding the rights to healthcare and education, the rights of women, children, and the LGBT community. The message is clear: providing comprehensive sexuality education to young people is not a crime, but an essential part of education!

2019/11/14

. – I voted in favour of the new Commission. The agenda and the team were shaped by political negotiations and it is to be hoped that this will not just satisfy strategic goals but will make for a strong and dynamic team. Great importance was given in the proposed action programme to the environment. During the mandate ahead, it is hoped that the so-called Green New Deal will not be just a slogan but will, for example, translate into proper cooperation among all Commission directorates in the effort to reverse climate change. Similarly, a gender-balanced Commission like this one should lead to bold policies promoting gender equality across Europe.Many promises were made around an economy that works for people. The Commissioner for jobs will be in charge of ‘Employment and Social Rights’. In practice this should allow for the injection of a social dimension in a wide range of directives and regulations in the next five years. Another area where leadership from the Commission is expected relates to progress along the road of eurozone reform. Credibility and coherence should be the hallmarks of the President and ‘her’ College to ensure concrete implementation of the ambitious programme they have laid out.

2019/11/27

. – I voted in favour of this report allowing the EU, through the European Union Solidarity Fund, to mobilise over EUR 4 million to Greece in both commitment and payment appropriations. Support through such mobilisation is a practical demonstration of EU solidarity through real and tangible assistance when needed. It is reasonable that Greece gets this assistance in order to deal with damages produced by heavy rains and storms that resulted in flooding and a landslide disaster on the island of Crete earlier this year in February.Following the disaster, the country applied for a contribution from the Solidarity Fund on 15 May 2019. Such assistance could come at a swifter pace as for those who suffered this damage, every extra day of waiting could be detrimental. Lastly, the mechanism leading to the launching of such assistance might be revisited when directed towards small Member States, and especially those EU countries considered a one-region country under the Solidarity Fund. On both these last two counts, I am thinking specifically of the huge damages suffered by Maltese farmers from a huge storm that hit the island earlier this year, and for which some kind of financial relief arrived very late.

2019/11/27

. – The aim of the Flexibility Instrument is to allow the financing of clearly identified expenditures that cannot be covered without exceeding the maximum annual amount of funding allocated under the multiannual financial framework. In this setting, I voted in favour of the use of this special instrument in the EU’s budget heading 3, to address the ongoing and urgent challenges of migration, refugee inflows and security threats since all other financing possibilities under the same heading have been exhausted.This commitment demonstrates that the pre-established 2020 ceilings for this area do not allow for adequate financing of established priorities. The added amount of EUR 778 million still does not fill the funding gap for these important sectors. Yet, it will definitely be of an added drive towards achieving EU objectives. This money now has to be spent appropriately, and where it is most urgently needed. Finally, this decision further confirms the need for the EU to be more flexible in its budgetary plans, whereby budgetary authorities can have the possibility to put the money where it is most needed at an appropriate time.

2019/11/27

I voted in favour of the conciliation for the EU budget 2020 because the result is a good compromise between major interests of the EU.Specifically, the compromise sees the approval of more funding towards climate actions and support for young Europeans in the line of more funding towards the Erasmus Programme as well as to fight youth unemployment.Especially welcome is the extra funding dedicated to the Connecting European Facility. This increase follows the amendments by a number of MEPs, including myself. Such funding is essential in the EU vision towards a Europe-wide energy connection, and in this setting to cushion some of the isolation difficulties faced by insular regions in Europe.I also look forward to see the first Commission plans for our Preparatory Action proposal dedicated to teaching island authorities on how to tender for renewable energy projects, which has now passed the final budgetary hurdle towards obtaining funding for 2020.As the EU cycle keeps moving, the view now is to maintain such priorities, and where possible further strengthen for the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework.

2019/11/27

. ‒ I voted in favour of giving consent to the third macro-financial allocation to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. The assistance will take place in the form of EUR 500 million of EU aid aimed at the recovery of Jordan’s economy.Jordan is an important actor in the Middle East, and has been for the last years a strategic ally for the European Union. The committed macrofinancial assistance offers a sign of hope in the struggle to overcome the country’s economic problems. Further, it provides support and assistance to a country that hosts the second highest share of refugees per capita in the world, while maintaining a commitment to the fight against Islamic terrorism. Such assistance contributes significantly to Jordan’s efforts to preserve internal stability and enhance growth prospects.At this point, it is essential that the Memorandum of Understanding for this aid is negotiated in a manner that effectively promotes the development of the Jordanian economy, thereby strengthening the role the country can play to stabilise the region and hopefully create the conditions for a lasting peace.

2019/12/17

I have voted against this resolution.The text does not adequately take into account the conditions of smaller Member States with an open economy. Moreover, this resolution considers that tax competition should be eliminated or significantly curbed, a stance that I do not share. Practical solutions that provide full transparency at national and EU levels can be found to counter tax evasion and avoidance, without impinging on the competitiveness of certain countries.This text supports the establishment of a minimum effective rate of taxation and movement towards an EU system harmonising rules for corporate income tax rates (the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, CCCTB). It does not leave room for any different approach to taxation than the one favouring big countries. In addition, the solutions proposed are built around the idea that large digital firms should be taxed in market jurisdictions where sales and users are located, which would also be favouring larger markets.Finally, it should be stressed that full and effective tax transparency remains the most workable tool for all Member States to stop companies from avoiding paying their taxes while still allowing for healthy, open competition in the EU.

2019/12/18

I voted against this resolution with the utmost conviction. The debate has confirmed my worst suspicions about how this Parliament considers rule of law issues. They are being turned, as has this one, into a partisan tug of war, in which the side wins which is most successful in creating political momentum around significant facts, real or fake.There is no care about how such facts are assessed and put into perspective. True: Malta faces great problems of governance that need urgent solution. It also needs to be made urgently clear in full all criminal and other responsibilities regarding the hideous assassination of Mrs Caruana Galizia. Malta is passing through a time of political transition, which should have been taken into account here. It was not.In its ‘contribution’ to the Malta situation, this Parliament has relied on a report by a committee, one of whose main members is a leading opponent of the Maltese Government. In debate, it concentrated on calling for the immediate resignation of the Maltese Prime Minister, which stamps its resolution with a month-long expiry date. It swamped its resolution with a host of irrelevant, contentious, subjective conjectures that should have no place in a political resolution. I need say no more.

2019/12/18

I have voted in favour of this report in the framework of a re-consultation procedure to ensure that these rules will be rapidly transposed into national laws. Such tangible facilitators for our growing SMEs should not wait to be implemented.Looking at this proposal again, one is reminded of the different burdens faced by small and medium companies. One is as well reminded of the need to unblock some of the inflexibilities of VAT when such companies are willing to engage more in EU cross-border trade. The extension of the VAT exemption scheme should concretely help them to do so.In its September 2018 report, this House had considerably improved the text. It proposed that small enterprises should be allowed to continue to benefit from a VAT exemption for two more years, instead of one year, when their annual turnover exceeds the SME threshold. Moreover, it proposed that the Commission set up an online portal to help entitled companies to benefit from the VAT exemption in another Member State.

2020/01/15

I voted in favour of this Resolution because it is imperative that the way of life of millions of European citizens who are directly impacted by the UK withdrawal from the EU is protected. Action has been taken by all national authorities aimed at protecting the interests of citizens living in their territories. Yet a very high degree of uncertainty remains. It is clear that the rights of EU citizens who chose to move to or outside the United Kingdom will weaken. Most probably such rights will gradually be further reduced and become equivalent to those of other third country nationals. Given the frame that has been set for Brexit, it is highly unlikely that any fully-fledged agreement on the lines of that established with EFTA countries could be reached any time shortly. Based on the above, one cannot but share the concerns of many in the European Parliament over the future of those millions of EU citizens who live in the United Kingdom. Stronger and more long-term assurances are needed. It is important that EU countries remain united in their understanding of the underlying problem and in their stand to arrive at an equitable solution.

2020/01/15

I have abstained on this report, for the following reasons. In the context of the deterioration of the EU’s strategic environment, this report rightfully stresses the need for a unified action concerning terrorism, cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, foreign interference in European electoral processes and climate change. Nevertheless, I cannot support the regulation on a European Defence Fund, which is contributing to common foreign and security policy objectives. The reason being that it takes for granted the support of the EU as a whole to the diversion of investment funds from civilian to defence objectives and military programmes. Its budgetary implications are not just an issue for neutral EU members and greater clarity is needed on the legal and financial implications of this initiative. Finally, the report does not refer to national specificities in terms of security and defence. Decisions on common foreign and security policy should remain decisions taken by unanimity. It is the only way forward to safeguard the principle of neutrality upheld by certain Member States, including Malta.

2020/01/15

I have abstained on this report for the following reasons. The present text, reporting on the operations ensuring security at our borders and in its immediate neighbourhood, fails in capturing the complexity of migration, which is not just an issue for Southern Member States. Illegal immigration, piracy and illegal fishing constitute major security risks and are an integral part of our common European challenges. It cannot be stressed enough how maritime security should be at the core of the EU’s security strategy. A proper maritime strategy is the only way forward to ensure the protection of our economic activities, such as fisheries, but also shipping, tourism and all types of maritime operations. Although the reports addresses a number of other challenges to national security across the EU, it does not refer to national specificities in terms of security and defence. Member States all have their different standards in the area of defence and this report does not consider Member States who follow a policy of neutrality. It becomes thus difficult to understand how they could fit into a common security and defence structure.

2020/01/15

I voted for the motion regarding the Future of Europe Conference but I will not conceal my doubts as to whether the Conference will be really worthwhile, and this independently of the structures adopted to run it.Having been a member of the Convention on a European Constitution of the early 1990s, I have seen at close range how this kind of gathering can excel debating worthy ideas and proposals but lose contact with the concrete realities of getting nation-states to cooperate with each other on a give-and-take basis. Theoretical ideas about federalism or its contrary, both enthusiastically proclaimed, take front row. Documents are adopted that are far reaching but also far from the day-to-day aspirations of people.The danger remains that discussion of the tasks that could realistically be achieved by tomorrow is obfuscated by what basically amount to verbiage describing visions about what should be done by next month. Tomorrow’s tasks are then delayed while next month’s vision never becomes reality.Among the areas which could fall victim to this problem are immigration, the banking union, progress to combat climate change and the promotion of real equality.I hope this will not be the fate of the Future of Europe Conference.

2020/01/15

I have voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement of the UK from the European Union. The hope is that while losing a strategic member, the EU will not be losing an ally. A political framework for a close partnership is being elaborated and negotiated to achieve a close partnership between the two sides. May it be concluded as soon as possible. For peripheral countries, regions and islands, the presence of the UK within the EU served as a counterbalance to centrifugal forces that reinforce one-size-fits-all solutions within an overriding continental purpose. The UK contribution in this sense will be missed. From the Maltese perspective too, the absence of the UK as a major economy that is hugely reliant on financial services can create complications, since the voice of financial service providers will become weaker in EU councils. Another impact will be to increase the relative weight of the eurozone within an EU having twenty seven members. Pressure within the eurozone for more stringent regulations on a one-size-fits-all basis could increase. Finally, the British withdrawal should not mean the creation of new barriers between young people. Erasmus should continue to allow British and European youths to benefit mutually from learning across borders.

2020/01/29

. ‒ I have voted in favour of this resolution.The principle of equal pay for work of equal value was reiterated in the European Pillar of Social Rights. Closing the gender pay gap shall be at the forefront of the fight for social justice.Illegal pay discrimination among men and women is still practiced in the EU. Companies participating in its persistence are preventing women from being autonomous and independent, denying their empowerment.The causes are numerous. Women being the main caregivers of families can explain it, with career breaks and lower hours. Discontinuous careers should be better valued by our societies as this is later reflected in the pension gap and retirement ages. Nevertheless, other causes remain unexplained, linked to gender stereotypes and undervaluation of female-dominated work. This is unacceptable.I would for instance support assessing whether companies to which EU funds are addressed have high working standards and whether they ban all forms of discriminatory practices towards women.Finally, pay transparency is still rare in the private sector. Lack of pay transparency opens opportunity to perpetuate inequality. The EU is currently working on a European-wide answer, with the aim of helping the victims to be better informed on wage structures and in order for them to contest unequal treatments.

2020/01/30

I have voted in favour of the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement as it is of strategic importance to both parties. I took note of the arguments that the implementation of the agreement should be made conditional on human rights reforms in Vietnam. I acknowledge that there are grounds for genuine concern about the respect of human rights in that country. However, I doubt that trade and investment agreements between developed and developing countries (or unions of countries) provide the right context or tools for the promotion of human rights in developing territories. The exception to this would be labour rights, since trade and investment exchanges cannot be established around production processes that rely on exploitation of workers to achieve economic gain. But it is not clear that extending this condition to the full range of human rights does achieve the aims set for it. Indeed, it is more likely in my view to affect negatively the living standards of low-income families in developing countries, with marginal impact on the ruling elites. Even so, the EU should make a discussion of human rights part of the joint conversation when the implementation of the agreement is being scrutinised.

2020/02/12

I voted in favour of the objection raised in this European Parliament resolution and therefore against the Commission proposal on the recovery of waste PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) that would lead to the carry-over of lead compounds into a new generation of products.European policy should favour all possible ways of recycling. Yet, such recycling must not put the health of citizens at risk. No economic reasoning can justify such threats. Products containing hazardous waste should simply be phased out rather than be recycled into products to be sold on the market.That lead is a highly toxic substance is well known. For this reason, lead is on a phase down in the EU due to its serious health impacts. In this background, the proposal to reintroduce this element into consumer products such as pipes, packaging and windows is bizarre to say the least.For the sake of the circular economy that Europe is trying to embrace, recycled goods need to be of good quality, with high health and environmental standards. Otherwise, consumers would sideline these products, and all efforts in the sector would be totally wasted.

2020/02/12

. ‒ I voted in favour of this resolution that describes the EU’s position in negotiations on a comprehensive partnership between the UK and the EU following Brexit. It covers provisions that go well beyond free trade and investment cooperation. It acknowledges that the EU and the UK will continue to have many interests in common. The Commission is rightly urged to conduct negotiations transparently, through public consultation and dialogue with social partners. Inclusion of national parliaments will too be a key factor.The proposed mandate contains some very tough positions. At the opening of any negotiation, this is how a mandate should be formulated. However it also confirms and updates the concept of a European state having relations with the EU in the form of a partnership. Some years ago, the concept of a partnership used to be derided in my country, Malta, as meaningless. Not only has this point of view been debunked, but it has become increasingly evident that the EU will continue to develop the partnership framework as the best method by which to maintain deep and close relations with European states that do not aspire to become members of the Union. I welcome this development.

2020/02/12

I have voted in favour of this urgent proposal aimed at dropping the ‘use it or lose it’ rule for airlines’ landing slots in congested airports for a given period this year.The amendment by which this period, as proposed by the European Commission, was extended in line with the Council’s decision was timely.Airlines are facing the unprecedented challenges brought by the spread of the corona virus.The current grounding of most aircraft implies huge losses.Flying empty in order to respect European rules and not lose slots makes no sense.Among the worst hit airlines are those that service periphery countries, some of them legacy airlines, whose operations are also aimed at improving the connectivity options for businesses, investors and ordinary citizens.Such airlines have already been under stress in the past decade, in part because of legacy issues, in part because they suffer from diseconomies of scale.Their clout in negotiating good slots in major European airports has always been weak.Yet they still fulfil an important role in supporting the economies (based on tourism and other services) of small and peripheral countries.The decisions approved in this waiver will protect their position in connecting with European airports.

2020/03/26

I voted in favour of the Corona Response Investment Initiative because I believe that it is imperative to deploy meaningfully all available cash reserves held by the Union in this very delicate moment.The proposal must be implemented with total urgency. With Europe in quasi-lockdown, economic activity is grinding to a halt. Many people are making huge sacrifices to keep going. Therefore, measures must be supported that aim to increase flexibility when EU funds are disbursed to assist economic sectors directly hit by the pandemic we are experiencing.Further, it is also important to boost investment in health care and in other sectors that are relevant to the containment of the corona virus pandemic. On another tack, I am very satisfied that this Commission proposal also takes into account the damage that fishermen might suffer in the context of a public health crisis.Clearly, much more needs to be done at an EU level. We are all waiting for encouraging signs from the Union and its Member States that they really are putting all available resources together to sustain the continent’s economy and the health of its people.

2020/03/26

I voted in favour of this draft amending budget because funding to counter both the increased migration pressure in Greece, as well as to support post-earthquake reconstruction in Albania, is needed.On the same basis, the EU should funnel funding to counter the migration crisis that is escalating in the Central Mediterranean region. The emergency has become more acute because of the escalation in fighting around Tripoli in Libya.Already hard hit by the global pandemic, the EU’s border regions must also deal with a worsening migration crisis..Islands in the Mediterranean are having to cope with a growing influx of irregular migration, putting further huge pressures on their sanitary and economic systems.In Malta, the country’s capacities are already overstretched as health services endeavour to contain the spread of COVID—19 while coping with one of the highest per capita rates of irregular immigration to Europe. Other islands are, or could soon be, in a similar position.The European Commission should urgently consider concrete proposals made recently in this sense by the Maltese Government.

2020/04/17

I have voted in favour of the proposed Regulation aiming at introducing specific measures in favour of the poorest to handle the coronavirus pandemic. The main objective is to address the functioning of the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD), as public authorities and social organisations are facing different challenges.The current crisis is increasing the risks for vulnerable populations. Confinement and social distancing prevent the distribution of basic materials and social support. It becomes more difficult for volunteers to be mobilised.Thus, protective equipment will be provided for organisations outside of the technical assistance budget. It will be possible for Member States to apply to a co-financing rate of 100 % for the accounting year 2020-2021, and more flexibility will be granted with, for example, alternative schemes of delivery through electronic vouchers to avoid contamination.It is crucial in this pandemic to be attentive to vulnerable populations, which are not only the elderly or homeless people, but also those who deeply struggle financially and mentally. A person can become vulnerable if the policy response is inadequate. It is thus key that all vulnerable groups are properly identified. Each Member State has to assess this and fairly support those at the highest risk.

2020/04/17

I voted in favour of the European Parliament Report asking for a safety net for the beneficiaries of EU programmes through an MFF contingency plan because I believe that more than ever, in this moment, we cannot afford any added degree of financial uncertainty.Further, it is natural that such a contingency plan should be including a tangible answer to the socioeconomic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic with targeted reinforcements and revisions of budgetary rules.Yet, my vote in favour is conditioned by the following reservation:The contingency plan should act solely as a fallback position in case that an MFF agreement cannot not be reached on time. In no way should this Contingency Plan be considered as a proper alternative solution.As indicated in my Committee amendment for the same file, the overarching priority must remain a swift and timely agreement for a new Multiannual Financial Framework. It should remain in a position to support both the already established long-term priorities, as well as the newly expected challenges arising from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.All negotiators, including those from this House, should strive to achieve that end.

2020/05/13

I have voted in favour of this discharge for the budget of the EBA, assessing its performances and activities, for the following reasons.I welcome the idea of a single banking rulebook to which the EBA is contributing - while expressing a reservation.The EBA has intensified its contacts with Member States and should continue doing so with national and commercial banks. Such communication is key for collaboration with the perspective of creating a single banking rulebook. It would allow for closing regulatory loopholes and for smoother operations across the EU. This being said, national flexibility should simultaneously be safeguarded as economic cycles are not uniform across the EU.The EBA has been promoting a common supervisory regime across the EU financial system. Supervising the financial sector is not only key for financial stability but also has been shown as an effective tool for combating tax fraud and money laundering. Pushing banks to be more transparent about their situation will benefit everyone, from supervisors to deposit-holders and investors. Finally, I welcome the EBA’s stance regarding its support to local economies. In the current crisis, the EBA pushed for capital reliefs to serve businesses and households, reminding banks that measures should not serve to provide leeway for increases in the distribution of dividends.

2020/05/14

. – I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) could provide the platform needed for the EU to face up to the coronavirus pandemic while launching a recovery programme. The MFF is already ‘mutualised’ under agreed norms. Using it as an instrument for the recovery guarantees that national budgets do not get caught in the obligations of others.That spending targets must be increased over the levels about which squabbling prevailed in the last years should be common sense. How much that raise should be must be settled. Simply, it has to be robust enough to protect the most vulnerable sectors of the European economy and serve as the launch pad for recovery. It must cover all the vital interests that define the single market, while maintaining the longstanding priorities of the Union, like EU-wide socioeconomic convergence and environmental reform. In this context, having the Commission to steer and manage the recovery programme would also ensure that no new supranational mechanisms are set up.I have one disagreement with the resolution: I do not support most of the new own resources for the Union which it identifies.

2020/05/15

Though I voted for this resolution, I have to register my reservations regarding how negotiations are proceeding. It seems to me that both sides have spent too much negotiating time digging into their initial positions and maintaining them. In any negotiations, if agreement is to be reached, the lookout should be for acceptable compromises reached on a mutually satisfactory give and take basis. It does not look as if we are close to reaching this approach in the current negotiations. There is no point in blaming just one side for this; both are responsible. Yet meanwhile a huge economic recession is creeping in. Pessimism about the outcome of the Brexit negotiations or indeed their breakdown, will only serve to fuel further negative trends right across the board. This should be considered as unacceptable by all concerned. Both sides at the negotiating table need to drop their rigid and dogmatic approaches. They should stop considering the talks as also serving to give messages and signals to third parties about the implications of the Brexit development, which is now a fait accompli. The priority should be that of arriving at a reasonable deal as quickly as possible.

2020/06/18

I voted in favour of the Resolution on the Conference on the Future of Europe because I believe that a debate on where Europe is heading could be useful.Nevertheless, I have serious doubts on the approach adopted by some Brussels based entities.Rather than listening to what European citizens from the different parts of the continent would wish for their future, some political actors seem to wish to impose their agendas on this conference.Yet, if Europe wants to succeed, it is essential that a bottom-up approach for this debate is adopted.The actual needs of citizens need to be at the forefront of this conference. The debate should focus on realistic and doable achievements rather than on endless discussions that lead to no conclusion.Finally, many should come to a realisation that despite the increasing power of the Union, citizens continue to feel closer to their national governments and parliaments. It is therefore essential that national representatives are given a leading role in this debate for the rest of us to listen and understand what is needed for a better future.

2020/06/18

I voted in favour of the annual competition report because it is an overall good document with a strong social component.In particular, I am very glad to see the S&D amendment calling on the Commission to make it compulsory for banks receiving state aid to retain their full retail banking services has made it through the final text of the Report. The amendment further requests the Commission to ensure that banks are not allowed to use the COVID-19 crisis as a pretext for permanently reducing such services.This comes in the setting of diminishing retail banking services all over Europe, also with the excuse of the COVID-19 crisis.State aid to banks must be accompanied with an obligation towards providing retail services to their small clients.Let us not forget that the shrinking of such services usually comes at the detriment of low-income workers and pensioners in particular. But, not only they.Following such a strong call, I urge the European Commission to urgently act on the matter.Many citizens who are among the more vulnerable have already been waiting for too long for some attention.

2020/06/18

. – I have voted in favour of setting up a subcommittee on tax matters, as I agree that the fight against tax fraud and for financial transparency matters. Taxation has occupied a growing space in the EU political agenda in the last five years. Its role is crucial in our budgets and in the distribution of resources. Various financial scandals have revealed how transparency essential is for social justice.A strong tax transparency framework has been put in place, helping to curb tax fraud and increasing the cooperation among our tax authorities. Moreover, the EU is currently modernising its VAT system to help Member States collect around 50 billion euros more per year. It makes sense in this context that the European Parliament has its own permanent working structure. I will continue to support a necessary and healthy tax competition in the EU.This needs to be framed in a fair and transparent way, also adapted to the very dynamic platform economy. The tax subcommittee should represent diversified perspectives. The interests of small peripheral countries are crucial in this respect and their role in shaping the future of tax policies in Europe is just as valid as that of bigger players and markets.

2020/06/18

I have voted in favour of this report.As is frequently acknowledged, an increasingly convergent and stable Economic and Monetary Union requires a solid Banking Union. Despite progress towards a single banking policy in the euro area, the Banking Union project has stagnated for years. It is still early to say, but the current pandemic crisis might highlight the risks posed by its incompletion. The differences in regimes across the EU could create significant vulnerabilities.The report also addresses issues deep running consumer issues. EU citizens are confronted by obscure and unfair commercial practices. The interests of vulnerable groups are frequently ignored. The pandemic could exacerbate such aspects with the reduction of banking services to small clients.Finally, the report tackles the issue of the fight against money laundering. Giving powers for anti-money laundering supervision to an independent Union agency with a single rule book, could be a truly effective way to tackle cross-border illegal activities. However, its prerogatives would need to be implemented in the same way everywhere, with equivalent approaches for all credit institutions across Member States.Only a truly impartial EU body could preserve the integrity of the EU financial system.

2020/06/19

I voted in favour of this resolution, which tackles the issue of tourism after the COVID-19 crisis.Tourism cross cuts across various economic sectors, and has a wide-ranging impact on economic growth, employment, and social and sustainable development.Although it is one of the economic activities worst affected by the pandemic, it is not yet being given its true importance in proposals for the upcoming recovery phase.Moreover, special care should be given when/if support programmes for the sector are going to be subject to conditionality by way of implementing structural reforms and respecting ecological standards. This could be a problem for vulnerable stakeholders.In a survival scenario, swift access to funding should be secured, without prematurely burdening small tourism companies with reforms. Similarly, one should strive to limit administrative burdens when accessing funding programmes.As stressed in the report, I would welcome additional support to the sector based on the share that tourism contributes to a Member State’s economy.Finally, it should be recognised that reliance on national tourism is feasible as a stop-gap measure for large countries with a sizeable population. The option is not available to small countries and recovery programmes should take good note of this.

2020/06/19

I voted in favour of this measure, which, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, would defer certain time limits for the filing and exchange of information in the field of taxation.In 2018, the EU introduced a new reporting regime to increase the level of transparency surrounding harmful tax practices. With more stringent disclosure, this new filing and exchange of information system represented a major change for tax advisors and taxpayers.The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted operating conditions across a wide range of reporting and administrative activities.It became reasonable to defer the introduction of the new system to allow stakeholders to adapt to it smoothly and effectively.This in no way means that the EU is less committed to the fight against tax evasion and avoidance. Indeed, tax transparency will be more essential than ever in the upcoming recovery period. Tax abuses cannot be allowed to siphon off public revenues needed for investment in citizens’ welfare and economic renewal.The new administrative requirements for Member States and stakeholders are to be deferred for three months. Once that period is over, all the reportable tax arrangements made during the postponement period will still have to be reported.

2020/06/19

I have abstained on this resolution, but not because I support the erosion of civil and political liberties in Hong Kong or wherever it may happen.I did so because it seems to me that when deciding on this and similar issues, this Parliament takes decisions according to criteria that, while being politically loaded, are if not warped, then certainly non-transparent.From a legal and diplomatic point of view, I do not see much difference in the way in which the central Chinese Government considers its relationship with Hong Kong and that, for instance, of the central Spanish Government in dealing with Catalonia. Yet, the considerations brought forward in the two cases by this Parliament are totally different.Nor in my view, does it hold water to make for Spain the claim that it is democratic while China, by European standards, is not. Certainly if that argument is legitimate, then the whole historic background relating to the actions of European powers in China must also be brought into the picture.The euro-centrism that guides the versions we approve of diplomatic realities makes me fear that we do not take the full panoply of facts into account; therefore, I abstained.

2020/06/19

. – I voted against the Mobility Package and in favour of some amendments that could at least have improved the package.The Mobility Package has been divisive for the past years. Its biggest problem is the obligation for a truck to return to base every 8 weeks, even if empty. This blatantly discriminates against Europe’s periphery. Countries at the core of Europe have smaller distances and obstacles to face to return home for the same period. Also, the likely increase in the number of empty runs contradicts the purposes of the Green Deal.Malta supported the main objectives of the proposal: better social conditions for drivers, sustainability of road transport and proper functioning of the EU single market. However, one cannot support a package that restricts the mobility of drivers. Such inflexibility will be administratively and financially burdensome for trucking companies that are mainly SMEs especially, again, if working from the periphery.Indeed, the European Commission launched a detailed impact assessment to be concluded in autumn 2020, which demonstrates how there are still doubts about the whole process.In such conditions, adoption of the package sends an extremely negative signal and unnecessarily divides Member States in a crucial sector for the European economy.

2020/07/08

. – I voted against the mobility package and in favour of some amendments that could at least have improved the package.The mobility package has been divisive for the past years. Its biggest problem is the obligation for a truck to return to base every eight weeks, even if empty. This blatantly discriminates against Europe’s periphery. Countries at the core of Europe have smaller distances and obstacles to face to return home for the same period. Also, the likely increase in the number of empty runs contradicts the purposes of the Green Deal.Malta supported the main objectives of the proposal: better social conditions for drivers, sustainability of road transport and proper functioning of the EU single market. However, one cannot support a package that restricts the mobility of drivers. Such inflexibility will be administratively and financially burdensome for trucking companies, that are mainly SMEs, especially again, if working from the periphery.Indeed, the Commission launched a detailed impact assessment to be concluded in autumn 2020, which demonstrates how there are still doubts about the whole process.In such conditions, adoption of the package sends an extremely negative signal and unnecessarily divides Member States in a crucial sector for the European economy.

2020/07/08

. – I voted against the mobility package and in favour of some amendments that could at least have improved the package.The mobility package has been divisive for the past years. Its biggest problem is the obligation for a truck to return to base every eight weeks, even if empty. This blatantly discriminates against Europe’s periphery. Countries at the core of Europe have smaller distances and obstacles to face to return home for the same period. Also, the likely increase in the number of empty runs contradicts the purposes of the Green Deal.Malta supported the main objectives of the proposal: better social conditions for drivers, sustainability of road transport and proper functioning of the EU single market. However, one cannot support a package that restricts the mobility of drivers. Such inflexibility will be administratively and financially burdensome for trucking companies, that are mainly SMEs, especially again, if working from the periphery.Indeed, the Commission launched a detailed impact assessment to be concluded in autumn 2020, which demonstrates how there still are doubts about the whole process.In such conditions, adoption of the package sends an extremely negative signal and unnecessarily divides Member States in a crucial sector for the European economy.

2020/07/08

. – I fully support many of the measures proposed in this resolution and believe they would serve to give renewed impetus to ongoing efforts to eliminate money laundering and terrorism financing, much of which happens across borders.At a time when governments are struggling to mount full-scale recovery programmes in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the war against criminals who siphon off funds that rightly belong to the community as a whole must be intensified.However, I have had to abstain on this resolution on two counts.First, it contains proposals that directly, or by implication, fail to fully satisfy the balance that should be maintained between what devolves on central EU institutional and on national – in part sovereign – competences. When such a balance is not maintained, EU programmes are likely to fail.Second, it seems to endorse a perspective on my country Malta that, to a large extent, reflects a one-sided partisan and distorted assessment of the political, economic and professional situation there. The time has come to ensure that our resolutions in this House are no longer guided by not-so-hidden agendas that end up obscuring the aims which we seek to achieve.

2020/07/10

Clearly, the European Union, in the current economic situation and as it expands its policy horizons, needs lots more money to spend.A revision of the EU’s current system of own resources is therefore inevitable.Proposals reflecting EU objectives acknowledged by all, such as the plastic levy agreed upon at Council level, are extremely fit for purpose.Nevertheless, other proposals in the text on which we voted have been advanced with a regrettable disregard for the damage they would inflict on the economy of individual Member States.A case in point: the proposals calling for the Union-wide introduction of tax measures that target very specific sectors of the economy, such as a financial transaction tax or the common consolidated corporate tax base.The problem is that mostly the smaller to smallest Member States are affected. Were it otherwise, and the interests of the larger states were involved, the approach would be much more cautious.The questions as to whether own resources are the best response to the EU’s crying need for more funds to carry out its mission, and how new own resources should be identified, merit an urgent revisit.For this reason, I voted against the resolution.

2020/09/16

I abstained on the final vote and on all the main separate votes on this resolution regarding the situation in Poland.This in no way means that I approve or condone any measures in any state, including Poland, that prove to be breaches of the rule or law and of fundamental rights, by way of hostility to gay rights, withdrawal from the European treaty aimed at preventing violence towards women and the undermining of judicial independence. Far from it.I voted in this manner to remain consistent with my position regarding reports on the rule of law and similar issues prepared by this House.In my view, the European Parliament lacks the ‘objective’ tools by which to assess breaches of the rule of law and related issues.Its preliminary positions, assessments and final resolutions are conditioned right through by the pressures of political bargaining and manoeuvring between governments, political groups and assorted factions.If this House considers it has the right to report and judge on critical situations in Member States and elsewhere, then it must do so through an objective quasi-judicial process, that will not depend on political calculation.Otherwise the judgement of this Parliament can only become devalued and in the end, discredited.

2020/09/17

Events following the Belarusian presidential elections of the 9th August have left the country destabilised. Though I am personally averse to this Parliament pronouncing itself on the affairs of outside countries, there come moments when solidarity with the struggle for democracy and against dictatorship overrides all other considerations.Belarus’s political system has now reached an unacceptable level of state repression aimed to reinforce a totalitarian government. I must vote for a resolution that condemns this state of affairs. Nevertheless, doubts remain on major elements of the text as presented.Requests for direct intervention by the EU can easily boomerang. Similarly, statements indicating the recognition of a Belarusian political leader as president-elect seem premature and politically motivated. A process of national reconciliation and democratisation has to come first. The EP cannot condemn Russian interference in Belarusian affairs while inviting Union actors to do the same.A real risk is that Belarus becomes yet another theatre for confrontation between the EU’s soft power and Russia’s realpolitik. So, while not taking part in the main separate votes on this report, I voted in favour of the final text, as a gesture of solidarity with the Belarusian people in their fight for liberty.

2020/09/17

In past resolutions on Russia before this House, I always sought to take a prudent abstentionist stance. I believed that they were based on premises that were too rigidly euro-centric and not sufficiently mindful of Russia’s legitimate geopolitical interests and aspirations.This did not mean that I endorsed the increasingly authoritarian approach of the Putin administration.Though the Skripal case and the spying and interference in the political processes of Western countries raised serious concerns, I remained cautious when this House denounced them, because similar transgressions have been committed by our friends and allies. However the Navalny poisoning has been a step way too far.It negates the essence of democratic politics, which allows full space and protection to political critics and opponents. It takes us back to the days of the Borgias. Clearly, only a state agency could have organised the poisoning on territory that is under the full control of the Russian state.To show full solidarity with Mr Navalny, I voted in favour of this resolution. However, as I am still unconvinced by this House’s overall approach towards Russia, I did not participate on all the other ancillary votes that led to the final text.

2020/09/17

I welcome the resolution on cultural recovery and have voted for it. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has blighted the prospects of the European cultural sector. Art forms that rely on the presence of an audience, such as theatre but not only, are suffering greatly. Promoters, agents, creators and schools of the performing arts are going through a very tough time. Shows have been cancelled, audience sales have dwindled, and funding, public as well as private, has in many cases vanished. Probably this situation will last for a good while.Policy-makers at both national and European levels, must support the industry by all possible means: financial and regulatory. It is an essential part of the social, cultural and economic fabric that binds together the national European spaces.The EP call to have at least 2% of the Recovery and Resilience Fund attached to the recovery of cultural and creative sectors is spot on. Only in this way can arts performers, creators, educators, publishers, authors, promoters and agents survive the storm, and once the conditions are right, again provide arts and cultural events that entertain while giving meaning to the life we live.

2020/09/17

. ‒ I abstained on the vote on the establishment of an EU mechanism on the rule of law.I will repeat my usual statement: such abstention does not mean that I do not uphold highly the values of Article 2 of the EU Treaties. Those values serve as the common base for all Member States and they underpin the entire functioning of the Union. I doubt however whether this mechanism, as currently designed to monitor all Member States annually with respect to their adherence to Union values, has the capacity to assess such adherence in a transparent and objective way. Who would be in charge of processing the facts? Impartial legal experts?I have witnessed too many prejudiced and politically partisan approaches to situations that should be screened in a neutral and factual manner. How can a cooperation between highly politicised institutions like this Parliament and the Council lead to a fair mechanism? So long as this question is not clearly answered, I will be maintaining my reservation.

2020/10/07

I voted in favour of the Annual Report on the implementation of the EU’s common commercial policy because of its objective and progressive approach to trade, conditioned by human rights and climate protection considerations.It is also very positive that a new partnership with Africa is on the agenda. The concept of aid for trade as part of a package of commercial relations with Africa needs to be kept under scrutiny. Trade cannot be defined by a reciprocity-based free market approach. Europe must allow a wide leeway for protectionist practices in African countries that will enable them to nurture new industries for their local markets, thereby providing jobs, not least in the food industries.Finally, the attention given to the situation faced in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial. The pandemic, especially in its initial period, has shown the limitations of EU trade policy when it comes to securing the supply of basic protective gear and medical equipment. Moreover, the limitations of the European medical industry have been very evident. While trade is and will remain beneficial, the EU must assure its autonomy in strategic economic sectors or otherwise face the prospect of instability at the least sign of crisis.

2020/10/07

. ‒ For the last six years I have been questioning the legitimacy of this kind of resolution, when applied to Malta’s government for sure, but equally when applied to other governments. If a judgement is going to be applied to any government system, it has to be based on a dispassionate, objective examination. That process does not exist. What happens is, in my view, a polarised, politically skewed method, both at Parliament and at Commission level. I cannot but denounce the political hypocrisy which accompanies the process.During this debate, we saw an esteemed member of the PPE, who has been at the forefront in blindly fomenting and promoting before this Chamber allegations, strictures and sanctions against the government of Malta, the country which she represents here, light a candle for the Bulgarian Government and present now amendments in defence or mitigation of its position. This is indefensible.In the circumstances, in full coherence with my stance about a process which I consider to still be a political charade, I had no hesitation to vote against the PPE amendments and to abstain on the final resolution. In no way should this be taken as an explicit or implicit endorsement of what is happening in Bulgaria. To the contrary.

2020/10/08

I voted in favour of the EP Resolution on the youth guarantee because it is an essential element in the programme needed to provide protection for the future generations of Europe.Youth unemployment has long been a grave problem in Europe.It has been an issue in Southern Europe especially, but not only.The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the problem and is creating huge obstacles for young people when looking for meaningful employment.The EU’s Youth Guarantee has in the past helped millions of young citizens to make it into the job market.Given the track record of the Guarantee, the Council should revise its current inexplicable plans to dilute the strength of the guarantee.Rather, the Guarantee should be reinforced by providing it with the necessary funds from the EU budget while ensuring they are properly spent.Moreover, in the interest of maintaining the right social conditions around labour markets and while taking into account the current market dynamics, European decision makers should seek to eliminate all forms of social dumping.The application of stricter rules in this area would serve to enhance job opportunities for European youths.

2020/10/08

My vote has been conditioned by the following:The pandemic has caused disruptions in education systems, exposing an entire generation of young people to huge discontinuities in their learning experience.The ongoing digital transition in education was accelerated more than existing infrastructures were ready for.Online classes have confirmed a digital divide among students, related to differences in access to digital devices, the quality of online teaching, unequal personal capacities to learn alone on a computer, and the class divide.Reports stress that the too rapid switch to digital educational processes occurred in a context where 43 percent of Europeans still lacked basic digital skills. The digital education gap has exacerbated existing inequalities.There is an opportunity to rethink the future of education but it has to be coupled to the priority of addressing the digital education gap. The European Council’s decision to slash flagship education programmes in the next long-term EU budget undercuts both opportunity and priority.Moreover, the educational needs of remote and rural areas need to be given greater attention.Finally, efforts should concentrate on ensuring that in-person learning can resume in a COVID-19-secure environment, in balance with ongoing online instruction, according to the latest best practice guidelines.

2020/10/21

I voted in favour of this year’s EP Report on the economic policies of the Euro area 2020 because, despite the compromises it contains, the right focus has been retained on a strong social and environmental commitment.This must guide all our approaches to the major economic issues that the EU is currently facing.Furthermore, the report covers more than adequately the ongoing pandemic and the impact it is having on the Union’s fiscal and economic governance.The pandemic arrived at what was already a delicate situation where many were openly doubting whether the ‘old’ fiscal rules, as enshrined in the SGP, still made sense.COVID-19 exacerbated this dilemma, not least by ensuring that there was quick consensus that at least for a while, SGP guidelines were to be thrown out of the window.The EU is now at a critical juncture: can it afford to retain and implement existing European fiscal rules on the same basis as pre-COVID?No. The time has come for a root and branch review, no holds barred, regarding how a new set of simplified, sustainable and more relevant rules can devised by which to promote optimal economic and financial governance within the EU as a whole.

2020/10/21

The EU’s common agricultural policy remains today a very relevant and much needed tool for European farmers.Since 2003, a third of EU farms have closed down. It is therefore essential that the CAP is adapted to the current socio—economic conditions of all Member States.Such adaptation has to include the needs of the different landscapes within the EU.Unfortunately, both the original Commission proposal on the CAP Strategic Plans, as well as the EP text amending it, fail to do so.Specific to my constituency, Malta, the derogation allowing the allocation of up to EUR 3 million per year of voluntary coupled support remains missing.Without this derogation, Maltese farmers would face massive drops of essential support that could mean the definite collapse of the sector.It can no longer be denied that over the long term, EU membership has resulted in a steady erosion of the Maltese agricultural sector.CAP interventions in Malta should be designed in such a way as to rectify the damage. There is no other way by which they would make sense.On the basis of these concerns, I voted vote against both the Commission Proposal, as well as the final EP plenary report on the CAP Strategic Plans.

2020/10/23

I voted in favour of the EP Report on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2021 because it contains some very important elements. Some reflect my own amendments, such as the long-term focus on socioeconomic convergence in the EU budget, and the special consideration towards islands within the Connect Europe Facility. Also essential is the focus on the ongoing situation faced by Europeans due to COVID. Here I totally approve the special attention given to the hard-hit cultural and tourism sectors.Likewise, I totally support the Resolution’s call for the creation of a dedicated budget line to support the political process in Libya, as well as the multilateral approach adopted in this Resolution towards resolving the Belarus problem.Yet, I still must regret the emphasis given to the defence and military areas which ignores the position of neutral Member States like Malta. Colleagues here must not take for granted the support of the EU as a whole to the diversion of investment funds to which we all contribute, away from civilian purposes, and towards defence and military objectives.

2020/11/12

I have voted in favour of this report despite some reservations.Putting sustainability at the heart of investment decisions is essential. In the recent plan for a Capital Markets Union, it was key to ensure that investors would be putting into practice the set of criteria for investments with environmental objectives.On the public side, governments are expected to build resilient and green infrastructures. Currently, the socio—economic impact of the pandemic has raised concerns that decarbonisation strategies could be jeopardised.The fact is that, independently from the current circumstances, not all countries are aligned or start from the same point. This is why providing support to public administrations is essential. Reaffirming a strong commitment to the Green Deal is not enough to deal with the reality of the implementation on the ground.The Just Transition Fund should continue being available to all regions, irrespective of their dependence on fossil fuels. No region should be punished because it could not afford to follow ambitious targets earlier on. One has to be realistic and accompany regions in the green transition, not penalise them.Similarly, the targets for climate spending should be ambitious, feasible. Better to move forward incrementally than setting target spending that risks being impractical and deepening the existing divergences.

2020/11/13

One can only agree to the main argument behind the scope of the Commission proposal to replace lead in ammunition. This will bring a wide range of environmental benefits, not only for our countryside, but also to human health, food safety and food markets.However, the proposal in its current format is fundamentally flawed.To start with, the proposal removes the presumption of innocence and reverses the burden of proof. A person found in possession of lead gunshot within a 100 metre buffer zone to ‘wetland’ must prove that the ammunition is intended to be used elsewhere than in a wetland or buffer zone. This goes too far and should be revised.Furthermore, there is clearly a problem of one-size-fits-all approach with the drafting of the definition of wetlands. Malta’s geodemographic structure would mean that these restrictions would go over the scope and original intent of the proposal.Indeed, such an approach fails to apply the principle of proportionality: the content and form of the action proposed in the Regulation must be in keeping with the aim pursued.For these reasons, I voted in favour of the Resolution calling for the withdrawal and eventual modification of the draft regulation in its current format.

2020/11/25

I voted against the Report on Stocktaking of European Elections because it deviates towards an imposition of a Euro-centralist agenda for future elections.In doing this, it is ignoring the democratic political traditions and demographic structures of the different Member States forming the European Union.True, the plenary vote removed some very contestable proposals by the EP’s Committee for Constitutional Affairs, such as calls for transnational lists and a change to the one Commissioner per Member State rule.Still, the resolution retained proposals with which I cannot agree.In particular, it aims at imposing uniform rules on the establishment of political parties, admission rules for candidates and voting rights.Any attempt to ride roughshod over constitutional traditions developed in the course of decades and centuries could be dangerous as it opens up a whole range of manoeuvre for the extreme right to attack and undermine national democratic freedoms.The Resolution also requests a transformation of the Council into a second legislative chamber of the Union.This half-baked proposal neither fits into the requirements of a federal union nor into those of a European Union which claims to promote unity through diversity.

2020/11/25

I have voted in favour of this report.The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted supply chains and exposed the EU’s dependency on non-EU sources. The EU trading bloc has been more than put to the test. Tensions with China and the US could be eased given the change of administration but are not likely to go away overnight.In the middle of this uncertainty, the EU cannot only be doing damage control.Greater resilience can merely be built through stronger cooperation with our partners, promoting the euro as the main trading currency. Providing for a full and transparent inclusion of civil society and trade unions, a functioning multilateral trading system, paired with trade agreements, still has proved up to this date to be an effective way not only to ensure multiple sources of manufacturing but also to promote the international role of the euro.On another note, global markets are a source of business for SMEs too. Yet their interest in international trade is not taken sufficiently into account when trade agreements are drawn up. An interesting concrete proposal is to suggest that the European Commission should address the issue of the cost for SMEs to comply with increasingly complex trade legislation.I believe these are essential ways forward.

2020/11/26

I have voted in favour of this initiative report for an updated analysis of the Dublin III Regulation.The Commission has acknowledged that this a system that places a disproportionate responsibility on certain Member States while encouraging uncontrolled migratory flows.So have other member states.Yet, shortcomings and inefficient procedures still rule.Although Member States have been encouraged to show solidarity towards frontline States, the burden is still disproportionate on the countries concerned.In this, support by Frontex is not enough.Citizens living at the periphery of the European Union have been affected more than others by the inefficiencies of the regulation.Their authorities have had to manage practically alone the financial and administrative consequences of being a Member State of first arrival.Such difficulties have been worsened by COVID-19.Illegal migration and the growing influx of irregular migration are an integral part of our common European issues.Unless a proper solidarity mechanism, which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States, including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria, is put in place, we will continue facing a political roadblock.This creates popular resentment and backlashes that can become dangerous.The challenge is not just political.It is also a moral one.

2020/12/16

I have voted in favour of this report, as society should be put before shareholders. Nevertheless, I have some doubts concerning the outline of an EU corporate sustainability strategy. A company is defined not only in relation to short-term profit maximisation, but also in relation to environmental and social challenges. Long-term benefits and sustainability risks, as well as opportunities, are entirely part of a company’s strategy. I believe many entrepreneurs out there are already on the go in this respect.The rapporteur has put forward the need for an EU framework ensuring that the members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies of undertakings have the collective responsibility to define a corporate sustainability strategy. I agree that there should be in this regard a clear definition of a fair salary policy.However, care should be given with respect to the establishment of advisory and monitoring committees that might end up asphyxiating European companies, already busy with heavy schedules of obligations. For them, additional rules and administrative burdens would be detrimental to innovation and organic growth. So, SMEs might be exempted from establishing such a committee.Furthermore, I agree that any EU sustainability strategy should be based on facts, including measurable and scientifically based targets.

2020/12/17

. – I voted in favour of the report on the new general EU budget for the financial year 2021 because it represents a good and balanced compromise that allocates much needed money in the context of agreed EU policies. In particular, it is very positive that the European Parliament secured an additional EUR 183 million for areas related to transport policy, digital policy, environmental action, jobs, fundamental rights, gender equality, infrastructure and humanitarian aid. Also very positive is the addition of EUR 10.2 million for the neighbourhood and development policy.However, considering the unstable situation on both the eastern and the southern neighbourhoods of the EU, especially Libya, this addition remains relatively small. More is needed in this area in order to both assist our neighbours, as well as to prevent bigger and wider problems related to security and irregular activity directed towards the EU. Finally, it should be noted that this is the first, and hopefully the last, EU annual budget drafted within the context of tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. We all hope for quick results, especially when it comes to funding dedicated to those sectors most affected, such as tourism and SMEs.

2020/12/18

. ‒ I voted in favour of this report identifying a wide range of key issues for the application of EU law.I especially welcome the focus on the respect for the principle of subsidiarity in this text and the recognition of the crucial role of national parliaments. It is true that current forms of cooperation could be improved, while regional and local authorities, in subsidiarity control, could be better involved.The report also touches upon important sensitive issues such as solidarity for the relocation of asylum seekers.What I cannot support in this resolution is the clause asking the European Commission to come up with a legislation banning citizenship by investment schemes. My position remains the same: while citizenship/visa programmes can be screened and criticised through appropriate EU anti-money laundering legislation, these programmes form part of the sovereign rights of member-states. They are by no means attached to Union policies.

2021/01/20

I have abstained on this report which from a certain perspective, could be seen as calling for further militarisation of Europe.I did so out of prudence.The text ignores the neutrality principle that is a constitutional core of EU Member States like Malta. Moreover, I am critical of the Defence Fund and the so-called ‘strategic autonomy’ focusing on the military that are being advocated in it. About a half of the grants allocated under the fund happen to go to the biggest EU arms producers and exporters, which leaves arms suppliers from other EU Member States with limited funding on which to draw.Moreover, the whole process by which the fund has been set up seems flawed. Companies whose leaders were part of the 2016 Group of Personalities advising the European Commission to create a military research programme are largely benefiting from those programmes today. Complaints that this has been happening with a lack of transparency need to be investigated.One can only remain sceptical about a strategic ‘security’ policy that ignores the perspectives of neutral EU Member States that also have no stake in arms production. Yet they are contributing to the fund from which EU ‘security’ programmes are being disbursed to arms producers.

2021/01/20

I have abstained on this report which from a certain perspective, could be seen as calling for further militarisation of Europe.I did so out of prudence. The text ignores the neutrality principle that is a constitutional core of EU Member States like Malta. Moreover, I am critical of the Defence Fund and the so-called ‘strategic autonomy’ focusing on the military that are being advocated in it.About a half of the grants allocated under the fund happen to go to the biggest EU arms producers and exporters, which leaves arms suppliers from other EU Member States with limited funding on which to draw. Moreover, the whole process by which the fund has been set up seems flawed.Companies whose leaders were part of the 2016 Group of Personalities advising the European Commission to create a military research programme are largely benefiting from those programmes today. Complaints that this has been happening with a lack of transparency need to be investigated.One can only remain sceptical about a strategic ‘security’ policy that ignores the perspectives of neutral EU Member States that also have no stake in arms production. Yet they are contributing to the fund from which EU ‘security’ programmes are being disbursed to arms producers.

2021/01/20

I voted in favour of this Resolution because it sends a timely political message at a moment when a growing number of Europeans are facing difficulties in accessing a decent level of housing.The ongoing economic crisis is leaving behind a new poverty on the continent.Now is the moment for European countries to revaluate national housing policies.Governments need to assert political will to enhance and deepen the supply side of the market. Likewise, EU state-aid rules on social housing should be relaxed.The housing emergency has been piling up for decades. Free market laissez-faire in housing policies, plus the 2008 financial crisis and the austerity measures that followed magnified the phenomenon.Already back in 2016, according to reports made during a debate on the topic organised by my office with the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless, the situation was getting out of hand.That housing affordability is now being included in the Semester process and the Commission’s country specific recommendations system is positive. This should be a mainstay of the EU’s commitment to strengthen the social pillar of EU action.Measures to avoid a repeat of the 2008 social debacle in the housing sector must reflect an ‘all that it takes’ approach.

2021/01/21

I voted against this report, while supporting the objectives of drawing up an EU list of tax havens, which I understand to mean jurisdictions that blatantly and knowingly run tax systems that help outside persons, corporations and other financial entities evade or avoid the taxes they should be paying.I fully agree that such approaches should be denounced and combated, which is why I support the increase of public scrutiny in the processes of the Code of Conduct Group that draws up the list. I also welcome the call to strengthen the screening criteria and make the list more effective in an increasingly digitalised economy.However, I disagree that this resolution should seek to override the tax sovereignty that Member States have under the treaties. This runs parallel with another exercise to name and shame certain EU members for being ‘secrecy’ jurisdictions when in fact they are applying EU laws on tax transparency and anti-abuse measures. The idea which the resolution supports for Europe-wide minimum tax rates denies the legitimate right of peripheral countries to set tax rates that compensate for the endowment and situational handicaps that they carry in the single market. I absolutely cannot support the disproportionate proposals for tax harmonisation featured in the resolution.

2021/01/21

I voted in favour of the final agreement on the proposal establishing a Recovery and Resilience Facility because the launch of this facility is a crucial measure by which to counter the ongoing economic crisis.An EU agreement on this public injection of money is an important step forward, especially in contrast to the very different approach adopted during the 2008 financial crisis. It is also very positive that the facility gives attention to economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as to the Pillar of Social Rights.However, one cannot but criticise the complex operational structure of the Facility, with a long list of targets pre-imposed on the plans national authorities are supposed to autonomously draft. Although well intentioned – as one would think – this one-size-fits-all approach might still in practice create unnecessary constraints on the economies of some of the smaller Member States.Finally, considering the difficulties already faced in the past, the strict linkage of the Facility to the European Semester process is very problematic. Even more so, is the acceptance by those on the progressive side of EU politics to let macroeconomic conditionality be attached to the approval of funding under the Facility.

2021/02/09

I have, with some unease, voted in favour of the European Central Bank’s report for 2020.The ECB has been an essential element in the ongoing effort to contain and repair the economic and financial damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. For quite a while, till the recovery package was fully negotiated by the EU partners, the ECB seemed like the only actor at EU level with a proactive and concrete strategy able to do so.The launch of the specially designed pandemic emergency purchase programme was indicative of this, serving as an ‘adequate’ early response. However one cannot but feel unease at how the ECB, not for the first time, seems to assume a leading role in strategic firefighting or policy innovation.In the US, Federal Reserve action to counter the pandemic was paralleled almost right from the start by fiscal responses from the US Government side. True ECB action was underpinned by national budgetary initiatives while eurozone rules were relaxed. But it is not the same thing.Surely allowing at EU level, an ‘independent’ technocratic set-up to lead the charge is tantamount to loosening the constraints of democratic control and accountability that the EU needs to maintain, especially during extremely serious crisis situations.

2021/02/09

. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report on reducing inequalities with a special focus on in-work poverty because it is essential that an EU-level structured debate on this sector takes place. EU policymaking has been for too long side-lining poverty issues, effectively providing them with only a secondary focus in major proposals – if at all.In the meantime, the EU is facing a second major economic crisis in a very short period. This is resulting in the growth of inequalities and poverty, worsened by a high level of precarious and low-quality jobs. Furthermore, the emergence of work undertaken via online platforms is worsening the situation for many entering the labour market. The austerity approach featured in major EU policymaking for the last two decades did not help either.At this point, the report’s proposals aimed at reducing in-work poverty, especially through stronger collective bargaining systems and adequate minimum income and pensions are highly commendable. The EU needs to decisively change its approach if it wants to reverse the growing trend of poverty and an economy based on low-grade jobs that is weakening the quality of life of its citizens.

2021/02/09

As I have previously expressed, the approach chosen for this proposal is deeply flawed. This is why I voted, together with the Socialists and Democrats Group, against the present agreement.The Capital Markets recovery package aims at mobilising private capital to help companies facing the COVID-19 crisis. In parallel, we have high regulatory standards that were introduced after the deregulation-incurred 2008 crisis. If flexibility has to be introduced, one cannot abandon our prudential rules and the fundamental reforms that led to them.A comprehensive review of the framework is scheduled for the near future. I simply do not see why we should pre-empt it with the excuse of the pandemic without a thorough assessment.At a time of crisis, investor confidence is key, and if we decrease consumer protection, it will be counterproductive to objectives of activating private funds.

2021/02/10

I have abstained on the final vote on this report and refrained from voting on all the separate measures it contained that were brought to a roll call vote.I certainly support, in itself, the Association Agreement that lays the grounds for a meaningful economic relationship with Ukraine, one which respects the country’s sovereignty and serves to encourage the independent development of its institutions flowing from a genuinely free and democratic electoral system.The EU has committed to co-operate on a broad range of areas, and the agreement notably focuses on the modernisation of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. With all this I fully agree.However, a number of opinions and facts are being alleged in this report regarding the electoral situation and the relationship of Ukraine with its direct neighbour, Russia.I have become increasingly suspicious of all parties involved in the Ukraine situation, their bona fide and the veracity of what they say to each other and to third parties, including the EU and its diverse representatives.At this time, taking sides one way or the other – as the resolution does at many points – just does not make sense, in my view.

2021/02/10

I voted in favour of the InvestEU Programme because through its implementation the EU economy will continue to receive an injection of much needed public investment.Although not any longer the highlight of EU funding packages, the InvestEU programme remains essential in that it should create EUR 400 billion of investment towards major EU priorities such as the digital transition and climate targets.Furthermore, the funding programme should support strategic investments in the area of health – a sector which urgently needs public support after years of dwindling investment and laissez-faire attitude by EU governments.Looking forward, EU institutions should keep the pressure on implementing partners in order to avoid a situation whereby support goes for the easy projects. Rather, the focus here should be on economic areas and regions where investment is most direly needed and where private actors would hesitate to invest.Finally, one hopes that unlike its predecessor, the InvestEU programme will achieve greater and deeper geographical balance in its disbursement of funding. In this regard, it is very positive that my Committee amendments in line with this goal have been maintained in the final text of the agreement.

2021/03/09

I have voted in favour of this report concerning the 7th Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation.Tax transparency and close cooperation of tax authorities in the EU ensure that the freedom to invest and to operate cross border is done in a fair way. Cooperation among tax authorities has indeed proven to be an adequate method to detect and prevent tax fraud and evasion.Improvements to this directive are also welcome, especially when, as in the present revision, the main aim is to conform to the requirements of an increasingly digitised economy.Digital platforms should be reporting sellers and the income they derive using their platform.However, I strongly disagree with certain provisions of the report that exceed what is really necessary. For instance, I cannot support a harmonised system of penalties across the Union, as such an arrangement would not take into consideration differences between Member States and their taxation systems.Finally, I disagree with the tactic currently being deployed to use measures that should be meant to sustain fair tax competition among open and attractive economies, as a boost for the harmonisation of direct taxation across Europe.

2021/03/10

This EP own-initiative report on corporate due diligence and accountability paves the way for stronger vigilance on the part of companies, especially multinationals, when questions arise about their responsibility for violations of human, social and environmental rights in their value chain.Preventing companies - in a binding manner - from scrambling tracks and escaping their responsibilities by holding them accountable for all aspects of their value chain should introduce fairness and liability in the globalised production process.Binding EU due diligence rules would oblige companies to identify and address infringements of social, trade union and labour rights. It would also address issues such as deforestation, corruption, bribery, etc. by helping to curb and reverse abuses.Companies covered by future legislation should no longer be able to dust off due diligence obligations onto suppliers.Effective remedies and access to justice should also be made available for victims of violations, including trade unions. Their voice should be given a central role.Yet, measures have to be proportionate and reflect the severity of any abuse and the size of the undertaking.The resolution covers only listed and high-risk profile SMEs, which is reasonable.For all these reasons, I voted in favour.

2021/03/10

The Syrian conflict has left tens of thousands of victims, displacing huge populations.Meanwhile, sanctions are mainly hurting civilians.The Assad regime commits widespread atrocities.Yet, voting on resolutions such as the present one raises highly political, highly ethical dilemmas.This House is entrenched in the belief that it has the compass by which to judge political behaviour elsewhere.Among its criteria, are mentioned the values of human rights as defined in Western Europe, which I share.However, this House interprets them in political mode, even if we pretend differently.Double standards prevail when votes are decided.Slanted information snippets get slit into resolutions.On Russia, the Crimea and Navalny; on China, the Uighurs and Hong Kong; on Turkey and the Kurds; on Venezuela; on Myanmar; on the Catalan representation in this House, the arising issues demand a principled, non-eurocentric and consistent approach.We do not have it, even as admittedly, more reprehensible developments occur in situations outside our parliamentary competence, upon which we seek to stand in judgement.In the circumstances, in order to remain coherent with the values I believe in, I can only abstain or stay absent on resolutions like this one on Syria, even though the evidence of reprehensible state action remains very strong.

2021/03/11

I voted in favour of this Resolution on the Rule of Law mechanism not without hesitation.Obviously, I agree with the principle that the respect of fundamental rights should be safeguarded in all the EU’s acts and policies. Procedures to implement this objective must be transparent and objective if they are to be valid and meaningful. They must be free of all subjective and partisan political manoeuvring, and applicable independently of the EU’s ‘executive’ and ‘legislative’ branches.Unfortunately, the record has been patchy at best when rule of law considerations have come up for scrutiny by EU institutions, not least this Parliament. Consistently, political criteria served to trump fact-based approaches. All sides have played this game.However, the text we have voted upon limits such effects. It puts clear boundaries to the field of application of rule of law checks. This is not ideal but in the circumstances, it promotes a meaningful focus for how rule of law considerations can be developed.So this resolution could be a step forward in the process by which EU mechanisms are introduced that would truly and legitimately safeguard the rule of law in the Union. At present, despite the rhetoric, such mechanisms do not exist.

2021/03/25

I voted in favour of the Resolution on the Guidelines for the 2022 Budget because, on the whole, the right priorities are set forward for next year’s budget.In particular, I appreciate the inclusion of my amendments giving due attention to island regions in the context of EU transport and energy policy and the EU’s approach to demographic issues.On the same note, the call is well-taken for a structured recovery strategy for young Europeans, with a focus on those entering the labour market, which has been included in the final text.However, on migration I admit that the mixed barrage of messages carried by the resolution is confusing.I am glad that my request for more funding for coordinating irregular migration with transit countries and countries of origin has been incorporated in the budgetary guidelines for 2022.By contrast, the Report’s approach to border control and the situation of EU border countries is poorly focused. Irregular migration is a pan-European issue and cannot be treated simply as a border concern.The real focus should be on the social and economic factors that constitute the root of forced migration, and not a border-control emphasis that is often anything but humane.

2021/03/25

. – Tuna fishing in the Mediterranean forms part of a strong tradition for many island and coastal communities in the region. Fishing communities here have long been associated with the traditional way of tuna fishing which is getting swept away by quasi-factory methods of harvesting tuna. Hence, it is very positive that Parliament’s list of amendments includes a strong message towards the protection of small-scale fishermen and their communities. For this reason, I supported these same amendments with my vote.In the overall context of how tuna is fished and marketed worldwide, global players have moved in to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for the food product by promoting factory farming approaches. The proposal in the new regulation to shift the responsibility from flag states of catching vessels to farming states would put at great disadvantage countries where tuna farming is strong, especially in an international context. For the latter reason, I cannot support the finalised text as proposed in today’s vote. One hopes that the upcoming negotiations can lead to both a high level of protection for small-scale fishermen as proposed by this House, as well as a reversal for the rules on farming quotas.

2021/04/28

I have voted against this report.Under the guise of laying out plans for a fairer tax system fit for the digital age, a minimum corporate tax rate is being introduced.International taxation has been changing a lot over the past years. Yes, it needs to adapt to digitalisation. Taxation systems should reflect, I agree, the fact that as a result of digitalisation, businesses and consumers interact differently. Value is being more often created in digital environments.What I disagree with is the method currently foreseen to implement digital taxation. Small countries with small markets would be put at a great disadvantage with regard to how taxing rights would be established. I will continue to make the case for tax competition at EU level and at global level. Peripheral economies need and will continue to need to attract foreign direct investment thanks to an appealing tax system. Not everyone is out there to cheat, but rather to compete for investments in a legitimate way. I also strongly disagree that if progress at international level stalls, the EU should go alone.The international tax environment that faces our EU businesses present on a global scale is already complex enough. It would be inappropriate to add another level of uncoordinated requirements.

2021/04/28

This resolution presents a distorted and unjust picture of the Maltese political situation.This has been done for political partisan reasons, relative to the situation in this Parliament and Malta.Clearly, political groups here find it convenient to shoot on rule of law issues at a member party of the S&D, which has been throughout at the forefront of the fight to enhance such issues, mostly to the disadvantage of parties within their membership.Maltese members of the EPP consider it useful to promote such a resolution in order, they believe, to bolster their own party’s anaemic standing within Malta.Consequently, this resolution ignores or belittles the big advances that the current Maltese Labour administration led by Robert Abela has made to strengthen the country’s institutions.It treats similarly the huge progress made in tracking down and bringing to full justice the actors responsible for the heinous murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.Moreover the resolution indulges in tendentious political argumentation and speculation based on evidence still being given in courts of law, undermining thereby respect for the very rule of law it proclaims, as well as the credibility of the process by which the rule of law in the EU should be safeguarded.I have therefore voted against.

2021/04/28

This resolution dealing with Russian policy towards internal opposition as well as its approach to Western neighbours is the latest of a long series of resolutions by this House denouncing that country.I agree to condemn without any reservations the treatment being given across the line to opposition leader Alexei Navalny.As a full member of the Council of Europe, Russia is failing to honour its commitment under the Council’s charter.I also agree that the EU’s relationship with Russia should be based on a mutual respect of international law, human rights standards and fundamental freedoms, with the aim of strengthening peace and security in the region.However, the resolution repeats and amplifies accusations that are part of a long exchange game between Russia and its critics.The objectivity and transparency of these claims is doubtful.Furthermore, on many levels, the Parliament’s position as described in the resolution contains rhetoric that can only lead to a further escalation of hostile sentiments between the two sides.Clearly, the end point to such escalation could be war, for which the blame would not be attached to only one side.The way forward should be less confrontational and more objective.Therefore, I abstained on this resolution.

2021/04/29

Sadly, the EU’s relations with Turkey have become highly problematic during the last few years.I am one of those who believe that a main reason for the problems is not solely confined to the Turkish administration, but extends to the EU itself, for first agreeing to the option of Turkish membership, then dilly-dallying over it, practically in bad faith.The report here voted rightly tackles issues related with the enlargement process of the country, and on which, the EU and Turkey are failing to converge.It is also correct in condemning the unacceptable strong-arm tactics against Greece and Cyprus.On the other hand, the report fails to give a tangible positive way forward for EU-Turkey relations. Instead, while the Resolution asks Turkey to follow the EU’s foreign and security policy, and while it wants Turkey to keep absorbing the bulk of migration flows from the Middle East, it wants to penalise the country for not following major EU lines in other areas.This approach can only fail to achieve whatever it is seeking to achieve, and can indeed be faulted for incoherence.Moreover, as is often the case in such reports, the conclusions clearly reflect a one-sided judgment.Therefore, I abstained on the final vote.

2021/05/19

I have voted for this resolution which highlights the urgent need to face squarely all digital and cybersecurity challenges in a context where the EU lags behind China and the US.Cyber-security readiness and awareness must remain key.The resolution emphasizes that the workforce gap has widened by 20% since 2015. Traditional recruitment channels are not meeting the demand for digital-savvy personnel.Indeed, education and training are essential to ensure SMEs and individuals are digitally skilful.With widespread digital interconnection, weaknesses in one sector will negatively impact on others.Considering cyber-security horizontally is a welcome perspective.It ensures coherence and interoperability across all sectors.Such a concern is at the heart of a current draft regulation I am working on, the Digital Operational Resilience Regulation for financial services (‘DORA’).This sector-specific regulation complies too with the principle of digital sovereignty, as cloud services would need to have a legal presence in the EU, to ensure EU law is enforced.The EU’s strategic resilience will depend on our capacity to frame, perhaps reduce, dependency on non-EU technologies.If the EU is at present, no leader in the field, it should still offer an ultra-secure and innovation-friendly environment to citizens and businesses alike.

2021/06/10

The procedure leading to the application of EU Regulation 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget should be one based on a technocratic, transparent and independent investigation, focusing on the flaws in the rule of law in a Member State according to a well-thought out methodology.Political statements that attempt to amplify or screen the real situation on the ground should not influence this procedure.The same Regulation states that when the Commission is assessing the conditions of a country, it shall take into account relevant information including decisions, conclusions and recommendations of Union institutions.However, it is unacceptable that a political entity such as the European Parliament, with many of its Members having a direct conflict of interest in the case, attempts to impose its will on the investigative entity - the European Commission.Through this resolution, the Parliament is in my view overstepping its role, with the procedure followed being highly inappropriate and detrimental to European values.Having said all of this, in no way can I condone or support most of the measures that are bringing the mentioned Member States under scrutiny.For these reasons, I abstained on the final vote.

2021/06/10

I voted in favour of this resolution because I agree with its general thrust: that the EP has the right to scrutinise the progress on the ongoing assessment by the Commission and the Council of the national recovery and resilience plans.However, this vote in favour is conditioned by the following reservations:Firstly, the European Parliament’s role is to scrutinise the Commission’s performance in defending the pre-agreed targets, complex as they are, as adopted through the Regulation. This cannot translate into direct interference by this house in the design of the single Member States’ national plans.Secondly, the Resolution contains a strong reference to the European Semester’s Country Specific Recommendations. Recommendations tied to macroeconomic conditionality and relevant structural measures are already controversial in their own right.The obstinate resolve of various political factions to impose such recommendations over the social dimension that these national plans should have is reprehensible, especially in a moment where both society and economy are attempting to exit the biggest crisis in Europe since World War II.

2021/06/10

I voted in favour of the final agreement on the Public Sector Loan Facility because it is an essential pillar of the Just Transition Mechanism. With this Regulation, public authorities will have an added instrument with which they can invest money in a socially-just transition towards a climate neutral economy.The facility has a strong social dimension aimed at tackling the potential social inequalities that will result from this transition. For vital though it is, the transition is bound to create new inequalities. Policymakers must therefore do their best to guarantee that really, nobody is left behind.No European region, no economic sector, and most importantly, no individual should be left alone to carry the burdens that will develop. Moreover, the funnelling of money should not only go towards those that are quickest at eyeing an investment opportunity arising from the transition. Rather, those responsible for disbursing the funding need to dig well in order to target support towards the weaker sections of society, even those who are unaware of their changing circumstances due to the transition, so that they too can benefit from the new emerging economy.

2021/06/24

I support the principles this resolution upholds.Truly, an open debate on abortion is needed.Projecting people who are in favour of abortion as heartless or amoral makes no sense and is hypocritical.The inalienable rights of all women to bodily integrity and autonomous decision-making should be universally recognised.From such a point of departure, the complex dilemmas that abortion issues raise should be resolved by communities following an open and tolerant debate.The debate should respect prevalent cultural and behavioural norms but not let them override inalienable rights.It should be carried out on a national basis.The EU should have little to no say in such matters.Which is why I abstained on the final vote.Malta implemented the most radical changes in favour of LGTBQ rights without any EU pressures.So let it be with abortion.Meanwhile, I welcome other elements in the text, such as – the call for a universal access to SRHR and for an enhanced use of emerging technologies for treatments and diagnostic methods; the stress on the provision of a comprehensive range of health services, including physical and mental health; and the call for Member States to make available toxin-free health products for women.

2021/06/24

I fully support the principles laid out in this report, according to which Member States and Commission have a shared responsibility to protect the EU financial interests.Fighting corruption can only be achieved through transparency and effective anti-fraud mechanisms, especially when it comes to infrastructure works financed by EU funds.However I strongly oppose the manner by which parts of this resolution have been crafted.In an attempt to shame it, Malta is named as having failed to appoint its prosecutor to the EPPO.The drafters knew that the delay in naming a prosecutor was due to the inability to find a suitable appointee following the timely launch of a call for applications, which was then rerun.They knew that the problem had been finally solved.Trying to project this as a deliberate act that needed to be named and shamed is unworthy of this institution and I want to register my protest against such a distorted way of conducting the business of this House.For this reason, I would have voted against the resolution.Only, this could again have been wilfully mis-interpreted as a vote against the principles that must be followed to protect the EU’s financial interests.So, I have abstained.

2021/07/06

I voted for this report because I agree that the EP needs to be informed on how the general regime of conditionality to protect the Union budget is functioning.That process must be applied without unnecessary delays.However, the following reservations hold:The European Parliament debate on the rule of law in Member States has been transformed into a political ping-pong between the major political groups.This is a disquieting development that has been eroding the credibility of the Parliament among citizens of the countries under critical scrutiny – but not only them.The adoption of new rules creating a clear conditionality related to the EU budget should – one hopes – make for a serious and objective if circumscribed debate in rule of law terms regarding conditionality.Meanwhile, the European Commission’s role in the process of investigating conditionality is increasingly being questioned.Is it the right instrument to accomplish this task? Doubtful.For its part, the European Parliament cannot adopt the position of judge, jury and prosecution on conditionality cases, or make it seem like it covets such a triple role.Should the EP seem like it is overstepping its fundamental legislative role, limited as it is, the damage inflicted on the defence of European law, rights and values could be irreversible.

2021/07/07

I have voted in favour of this resolution. The issues at stake go beyond considerations and legal procedures related to Article 7, which have in the past been subject to partisan manipulation. They relate to human rights values as enshrined in Article 2 of the TFEU. About these, there can be no compromise. One cannot tolerate that in the EU there is public discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI citizens and other minorities.It is even more unacceptable that such discrimination and injustice is being set into a national Law, as in Hungary, one which blatantly restricts the rights and freedoms of LGBTIQ persons, as well as children’s rights.Under the guise of ‘protecting children from information advocating for a denial of traditional family values’, a government in the European Union is discriminating between citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation.The new law, purposely vague, will create a context in which LGBTIQ people will feel threatened, unprotected and where homophobic attacks could be allowed.This way, fascism beckons. An elected democratic government respectful of European values should equally protect each citizen without any discrimination.The new legislation in Hungary is disgraceful.

2021/07/08

I voted in favour of this draft amending budget, because its adoption is essential to allow the mobilisation of the funds allocated to the Brexit Adjustment Reserve.This special instrument, proposed outside the planned EU multiannual financial framework, aims to counter the adverse consequences of Brexit for the economies of the Member States.The social, economic and political impact of Brexit has been somehow overlooked over the last two years due to other major events, namely those connected to the COVID-19 crisis. However, Brexit is still having a huge socio-economic impact on businesses and citizens alike, especially those most linked to the United Kingdom’s economy.I come from a country which has been directly experiencing the resulting consequences. The economy has been greatly impacted by Brexit, since the value of all imports from the UK is equivalent to 27.3% of Malta’s GDP, the highest for any Member State.Therefore, I strongly support the general call for a quick European response to those regions and businesses suffering most.Finally, the speed with which this agreement has been reached is commendable. One surely hopes for the same straightforward approach when it comes to other very essential instruments.

2021/09/15

I have voted against this report for several reasons.Mainly because it endorses new initiatives with Taiwan that undermine the ‘one China one nation’ notion, which China rightly considers as the defining principle of its existence.But also because the report is imbued with a euro-centrism that at different levels makes its analysis of complex realities one-sided to the point of naivety, thus creating the basis for mistrust and frustration towards China.The report does emphasise certain key topics, like the importance of cooperating with China to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a new terrorist base and the need for dialogue and cooperation.Indeed, it is on the basis of openness and transparency that issues which cause unease within the EU should be raised – like the Belt and Road Initiative, concerns about forced labour and the competition over access to microchips.Such a process should allow for both sides – again in full transparency – to express in all frankness reservations about any aspects of the policies they follow.For instance, in my case I consider the policies presently being followed by China on the ground in Hong Kong and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region as misguided and wrong.

2021/09/15

I have abstained on this report although I am supportive of the directives on administrative cooperation for exchange of tax information.I am in favour of widening the scope of the directives to cover income and assets, since with their exclusion, circumventing taxes is facilitated.However, this change is being powered by a paradigm shift on taxation which, initiated over recent years, ignores part of the issues at stake.The final aim is to override the tax sovereignty of Member States. I cannot agree with this.Moreover, the approach is broad-brush and drastic. So another aim is to eradicate so-called aggressive tax planning without deigning to provide a sound legal definition for it.This has the dubious effect of allowing loose attacks on legal tax practices, to render them arbitrarily illegitimate.At the same time, tax competition is also to be considered outside the pale.Yet peripheral regions and small countries need to maintain tax differentials with larger, more sophisticated ones if they are to attract businesses and investments in a continental free market economy.Such considerations plus others are not being taken into sufficient account when the future of what we want to be ‘fair’ tax systems is being debated, which is unacceptable.

2021/09/16

Many perceive the US withdrawal from Afghanistan as a second Vietnam due to the similar circumstances and outcomes.Understandably, therefore, policymakers are looking at the Western rapprochement to Vietnam, as the model for post-war Afghanistan: a structured policy for the refugees wanting to leave Afghanistan, money aid with imposed conditionality, and a relationship based on diplomacy and trade.At this point, the success of such approach will much depend on the Taliban willingness to engage. Western parties should also be aware, however, that while Vietnamese communists were always inspired by progress, emancipation, and autonomy of their people, the current Afghan leadership seems locked into conservatism and religious dogmatism.It is therefore correct that this Parliament resolution condemns the ongoing persecutions in Afghanistan, the repression of women and minorities in the country.It is also right to request a continental approach to the refugee crisis arising from the US departure from the country.However, I totally disagree with the tactic adopted in the Resolution to use this situation as another opportunity to push for a European Defence Union, or even worse, to remove unanimity in favour of qualified majority voting in the field of EU foreign affairs policy.

2021/09/16

. ‒ I voted in favour of this report because there is an urgent need to work towards a process of rebuilding fish stocks in the Mediterranean region. Depletion of some stocks has been reaching irreversible levels. Biodiversity is under serious threat. Immediate corrective action is needed. But also, we should ensure the survival of the fisheries sector. Yet, it should be clear which fisheries sector we are targeting as a priority.It is inconceivable that measures supposedly designed to protect and rebuild fish stocks cater in the first place to the requirements of industrial fishing concerns which, in reality, have been the main culprits in decimation of fish stocks. Meanwhile, they marginalised fishermen operating ‘artisanally’, as micro family enterprises, according to a traditional economic model. Yet around such a model whole communities have lived and still live as communities.In the process of seeking to preserve fish stocks, Mediterranean traditional fishermen who have throughout the centuries constituted a vital pillar of the social fabric in the region, must be equally protected. It is in line with this criterion that I will define my position in any future vote that comes before us on this issue.

2021/10/05

I have voted in favour of this report.Nevertheless, I here register my disagreement with certain provisions of the text.In pursuing and deepening transatlantic cooperation, I do not share the belief that the EU need be involved in defence matters or be committed to a defence union.Moreover, tax competences in European relations with the US should, in my view, remain subject to national competences.Therefore, my vote in favour of the report, which is a very good one, should not be taken to mean that I support the references and chapters which refer to defence and tax issues.

2021/10/06

I voted in favour of the implementation report on the EU Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey. I agree that these tools of EU external policy are essential to promote the EU’s soft power with its partner countries in ways that are mutually beneficial, meaningful and transparent.Regarding the facility for refugees in Turkey, it remains vital to directly assist Turkey in managing its migration crisis. For it is also a European migration crisis.The numbers of refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey are massive. In 2020 they amounted to almost 4 million individuals, mainly from Syria but also Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.The short-term shifting Europe’s migration problem to our neighbours is welcomed by many but does not offer a permanent solution.Countries of origin, especially in Africa, need to be further assisted to develop and create substantive job openings.The EU trust fund for Africa should be supported and strengthened. But it must be backed by trade agreements that do not insist on reciprocity based on a purely free trade logic.A Marshall Plan for Africa, where public agencies take full charge and do not simply delegate initiative to the private sector, remains the solution which makes best sense.

2021/10/06

Next year’s annual budget for the European Union is being drafted with the knowledge that Europe needs crucial and well targeted funding to exit two years of sanitary and economic crisis.The EP’s position is on most points commendable.We’re asking for more money to be directed towards Europe’s social recovery with a focus on youth, employment, education, support for SMEs and funding for young farmers.I also fully agree that more funds are further dedicated to research on health as well as areas crucial for the development of our economy.However, I would like to repeat my reservations regarding EU funding directed to military and defence spending.I appreciate that the Parliament, in this Resolution on next year’s budget, included my amendment that asks for the status of neutrality of some of the Member States to be taken into consideration when framing the EU’s common security and defence policy.I truly hope that structured exceptions for the involvement of these countries can be created, be it from an operational aspect, or from the funding perspective.In the absence of such a pillar, my only option is to vote against the EU’s expansion into the defence sector.

2021/10/20

I firmly support the objective of fostering transparency and integrity in the public sphere, which is a principal aim of this resolution.However, I had to abstain on the vote because another principle the resolution seeks to promote is the introduction of a minimum tax rate and the end of unanimity (within the EU) regarding tax matters. I disagree with this, as I believe in a healthy and transparent framework for tax competition that takes account of each country’s specific endowments.Nevertheless, the text offers a comprehensive assessment of the Pandora Papers and their political implications. Leaks of the Pandora type have become an effective tool to reveal chicanery at the highest levels of society on a vast scale. They have helped trigger political action. Over the past decade, the EU has adopted a wide-ranging series of legislative reforms to combat tax avoidance and evasion, as well as money laundering.There is still an ever-increasing need for better cooperation between law-enforcement authorities in the EU, and proactive initiatives are needed on an ongoing basis since tax-evaders will continue to find new ways of shielding assets.Europe cannot keep relying on periodic leaks (whose origin may be dubious) to keep them in check.

2021/10/21

. ‒ I abstained on the vote for this resolution.As happened on other occasions when this Parliament voted on the affairs of sovereign states – whether EU members or not – I am uncomfortable with the processes that deliver such resolutions. I very much doubt whether it is legitimate for us here to pronounce ourselves on other peoples’ affairs especially because our internal processes themselves, as they should be, are eminently political.Tunisia is a country which deserves the full support of European nations. It is facing enormous difficulties and challenges, not all of which have been developed in-house.Europe has rejoiced that in past years, the people of Tunisia embraced democratic forms of governance. But democratic progress has hardly anywhere been smooth and continuous, as our Tunisian friends have told us. Democratic institutions need time to develop and they will be subject to discontinuities.This being said, I share the concerns expressed about the concentration of powers, and the need to preserve the parliamentary framework in a context of institutional stability and the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms.Concerns arising from this at present, had best be expressed addressed privately to the Tunisian authorities, and away from any interference in Tunisian national affairs, whether from authoritarian or other sources.

2021/10/21

I have voted in favour of this report. The anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) initiative at the level of the European Union constitutes a reasonably good step forward in the protection of journalists from abusive legal action across borders meant to chill their investigative work.The report, however, lacks a straightforward and up-to-date assessment of the journalistic milieu as well as of the nature of present-day journalism, not least with the interfaces between media houses and centres of elite influence and power in the political, economic, social and moral spheres.Though journalists exist in the mould of Woodward and Bernstein, not all of them are so.Journalism – or what is dressed up as journalism – can serve, as the Sebastian Kurz scandal revealed, to project misinformation and manipulate opinion.We remain without a proper compass for what is legitimate for journalists, lobbyists, publicists and issue campaigners to carry out, and what is not.Perhaps as a result, we also lack guidance on what redress should be permitted to people, groups or interests who genuinely feel that they are being wrongly or maliciously targeted by misinformation.In a world where the massive manipulation of issues is no longer a monopoly of state security apparata, such questions cannot be ignored.

2021/11/11

I voted in favour of the report on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations, themselves a relatively new phenomenon.The proposals being advanced to create a stronger and clearer framework for their status and funding (including associated political foundations) make sense.In particular, one cannot but endorse statements requesting that European political parties observe democratic and transparent procedures when selecting party leaders, candidates for elections, as well as when adopting internal rules and political programmes.However, I agree only with caution with the proposal to amend current rules to clarify that respect for EU fundamental values should apply to both European political parties and their member parties.Such a provision has to be interpreted with great care since it could be applied in a partisan manner by prevailing political majorities on contentious issues like migration, human rights, abortion, secession from national entities, and religious beliefs and customs.Finally, I have reservations regarding the point that the financing rules of European political parties and their foundations should be made compatible with pan-European constituency campaigns at the European elections.I do not agree with the introduction of such campaigns and anyway believe that this matter falls outside the scope of this resolution.

2021/11/11

Regarding the present resolution for which I have voted in favour, my reasoning and motivation followed exactly from what I set out as my explanation of vote (though it could not be tabled for procedural reasons) on the resolution in a previous plenary about changes to the abortion laws in Texas, which reads as follows:‘On this resolution I have throughout voted with the S&D Group to which I belong, even though on abortion issues I am not completely aligned with the Group’s views and have voted differently in most instances. However, though I still hold nuanced views on this highly moral subject, I felt I needed to register my total abhorrence at what has happened in Texas: an issue that is most delicate has been instrumentalised for partisan reasons at the highest level of the state, trampling on the long, legally established rights of women, and thereby putting totally unfair burdens on lower-income and socially disadvantaged women and families. Where abortion has been acquired as a fully legal right in a democracy it cannot and should not be arbitrarily revoked.’

2021/11/11

The migration situation in Turkey continues to present an ongoing flashpoint.It is clear that Turkey cannot handle this crisis alone and needs further financial assistance.It is also clear that Europe’s interest is to assist Turkey in fulfilling its responsibilities towards asylum seekers under international law.The draft amending the EU budget for 2021 aims at bolstering the needed funding with the aim of continuing to deliver support to the most vulnerable refugees in Turkey.Currently, over 3.5 million Syrian refugees are present there.So, I fully agree with the European Parliament’s position to approve the amending budget, while stating that the budgetary ceiling for funding to the EU’s neighbourhood and the world appears to be too low to respond to major crisis needs.Further money is needed, especially as the ongoing refugee crisis in Turkey could easily morph, as in the past, into a major internal EU problem.This amending budget is a positive move.However we still need a comprehensive agreement for future budgets, covering increased European Union funding for the continued support to refugees in Turkey and the wider region.

2021/11/24

. ‒ I voted in favour of the Parliament’s first reading on the Digital Markets Act because I believe that the proposed actions point towards the right direction in order to ensure a fairer and a more open EU digital market.The present situation whereby a few companies have total control of the online market is dangerous and unacceptable.We have been led to believe that from many aspects, our economy is reaping the fruit of a digital market that thrives within an open market system. Yet, small businesses and consumers alike find themselves trapped inside a quasi-monopolistic scenario.More often than not, one or two gatekeepers set the rules of the game, dictate who enters and who exits the market, and what is on offer on this same market.Therefore, I support the move towards the opening of the market through interoperability as well as a structured system, intended to ensure a level playing field that keeps in check those actors that control the competitive aspect of the digital market in the EU.From a competition aspect, these would be positive initial steps. Now a debate on the possibility and feasibility of breaking up these monopolies should also take place.

2021/12/15

I voted in favour of this report essentially because it puts the issues of nuclear non-proliferation on the EU agenda. Nuclear weapons states – one is an EU member – committed themselves 53 years ago to convince non-nuclear countries to accept the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, they continued to modernise and develop new armament systems.There persists today a long-held sense of frustration at the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament, which in part is attributable to the fundamental imbalance in the non-proliferation architecture. I welcome nevertheless the fact that this report relies on the principle of a meaningful control over weapon systems, no matter who owns them, as well as on the full respect of international humanitarian norms. It also accepts that the future development of nuclear energy should be restricted to peaceful purposes, though some member states would ban it.The upcoming French presidency of the Council will push for a military and defence union. Apart from other problems, this risks locking the EU into blindly following the minority interests of a few nuclear weapons states, instead of becoming a global mover for peace. I therefore regret the too-cautious position adopted in the report regarding the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which is key to strengthening the NPT.

2021/12/15

This report seeks to assess the implementation of the hotly debated Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, especially in the context of the UK’s withdrawal from the Union.The problem – as frequently happens with such reports – is that this one lacks the objectivity needed to understand events in the round, and not just from the perspective that happens to be dominant for a given time.Indeed, the Report shies away from making a clear and transparent self-audit on where things went wrong from the European Union side of things in the Brexit process.The needed critical focus on providing solutions aimed at fine-tuning the application of Article 50, allowing us to learn from past mistakes, is lacking.Finally, the report again regurgitates elements of the sterile blame game ongoing since the UK announced its withdrawal from the Union.So, the resolution laments that UK citizens never really had a clear picture of the relationship their country would have once the country left the EU. As if sadly, EU players do not indulge in a similar game when promoting campaigns they support.These fundamental flaws undermine the credibility of the report and I have abstained in the vote on it.

2022/02/15

Explanation of votes - Report on the implementation of the Sixth VAT Directive: what is the missing part to reduce the EU VAT gap?This report reflects on how to address the VAT gap: the difference between the amount of VAT actually collected and the total due to be paid.The gap arises because the still transitional VAT system is complex and patchy. Frauds – some systemic, like the cross-border carousel fraud – also result.The objective is here reaffirmed for a future VAT system that provides clarity for businesses and is fraud-proof. Solutions like efficient exchange of information mechanisms, adequate means for national authorities, high standards of VAT reporting are identified.Special attention is paid to SMEs, overburdened with compliance costs if they want to sell across the EU. A uniform VAT system could iron this out. Digitalisation can help as well cut costs and if it imposes a burden in the short term, SMEs should be financially supported in acquiring the latest technology and expertise.Finally, this report highlights environmental and social aspects. Member States should continue to implement reduced VAT rates with the specific aim of supporting lower-income households. Introduced gradually, VAT can also promote environmentally friendly consumption: hence the call for the phasing out of all zero-rates and reduced rates on harmful environmental goods and services in order to achieve the EU’s climate objectives.I voted for this report.

2022/02/15

. ‒ I voted in favour of this report. Raising awareness about the reality of foreign interference is essential. Transparently financed and independent news media are vital for media freedom and pluralism, helping to counter ongoing malicious attacks that could ultimately disturb democratic processes and elections. Media tools created by foreign donors have created concerns in this regard, especially as, in parallel, the incidence of cyberattacks attributable to hostile state actors have increased in recent years. Social media have also disrupted information sharing, often encouraging polarised opinions at the expense of fact-based information.This text presents concrete solutions: for the EU and Member States to boost resources for think tanks and fact-checkers, the creation of a permanent EU news media fund in the 2021-2027 Creative Europe programme, and an EU-wide database on incidents of foreign interference.All measures are commendable. Missing though is a self-critical approach that would take into account what the EU, its Member States, their secret services, plus auxiliary organisations also do to participate and / or intervene in the affairs of non-Member States and Member States. We need an objective framework within which to judge what is legitimate and what is not in this increasingly important domain of international relations.

2022/03/09

I voted against this report.Granting citizenship is part of the sovereign rights of Member States and an exclusive national competence.Citizenship by investment (CBI) and residency by investment (RBI), because they are formalised, have due diligence in their implementation, as opposed to the informal and arbitrary forms of conceding citizenship that currently operate in most Member States. If one wants to argue for restrictions on how citizenship is granted, then it should be done for all schemes and for all states.Indeed, this report claims it wants to defend EU values when condemning investment for citizenship schemes. But it also foresees the establishment of ‘a CBI and RBI adjustment mechanism’, where part of the proceeds from such schemes contribute to the Union budget. If they contradict EU values, should schemes be expected to share their revenues with the EU’s budget?The due diligence process enables the revocation of citizenship in cases of abuse and when sanctions apply against nationals of a third party state. The same cannot be said for other citizenship processes. Actually, though the report is long on claims that CBI and RBI lead to flagrant abuse, it presents no concrete evidence that this has happened to any significant extent. Now why is this?

2022/03/09

I voted in favour of this year’s report on the ‘European Semester for economic policy coordination: annual sustainable growth survey’ because it represents a balanced approach towards the EU’s economic governance structure.The report puts a level of conditionality on ending the escape clause period. I agree. The European economy cannot afford to blindly follow a strict timeline without considering the socioeconomic situation in Member States.Meanwhile, however, some very fundamental matters remain missing. The current energy crisis, further worsened with the conflict in Ukraine, did not get the needed attention. The rise of energy prices for the last months was a major game-changer. Europe has experienced supply driven inflation due to this single but very central economic input. The issue must get due attention during the coordination process of the Semester.Also, despite the huge socioeconomic misery experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the relationship between the need to reverse the massive reduction on health spending in Europe over the years and the need to keep the European economy in shape that the Semester process is all about, has been generally ignored.Until the European public health sector is properly upgraded, health-related expenses should be exempted from the calculation of the structural balance.

2022/03/10

I voted in favour of the resolution on the start of the implementation of the 2021—2027 Cohesion Policy period because the report rightly raises a number of issues related to the implementation of the current funding programme dedicated to the area.In particular, it raises the concern that with new arising funding priorities, cohesion is seemingly taking the backburner spot in many scenarios. This includes the prioritisation of Member States authorities when it comes to the absorption of EU funding.Furthermore, I agree with the view that the focus on achieving both the green transition and the digital transition need to go hand in hand with cohesion instruments. This also goes for the apparent prioritisation that EU authorities are giving to funds within the Recovery and Resilience Facility.The EU must not forget its original priorities, especially when it comes to achieving socio—economic convergence and further cohesion between its different Member States and regions. The risks of abandoning this fundamental goal is to face further divergence and possible eventual disintegration.

2022/04/06

. ‒ Brexit disrupted traditional trade flows that predate the UK membership of the EU but which became incorporated in the EU intra-trading system.The Brexit negotiations covering the British exit of the EU dealt with many of these problems but failed to provide acceptable arrangements or transitions for peripheral and small scale zones, like Malta, Cyprus and less so, Ireland. This happened for extremely sensitive products – medicines, where there had been reliance on an importation that basically treated these island situations like they were part of the British market.Unravelling this reliance and replacing it with a viable alternative was given very low priority, possibly because of the small market volumes involved.So, stocks of familiar and basic medicines came close to running out which would have created great hardship.I have thus supported this temporary exemption for Malta, Cyprus and Ireland, ensuring continued access to medicinal products.However, we still need to have a framework that takes into account the size, traditional trade flows and need for flexibility that access to medicines in small scale and peripheral zones must secure in order to safeguard the welfare of their populations.

2022/04/07

I have voted throughout against the proposals carried in this resolution. It is a typical instance of a rush, perhaps well intentioned, to mend things when they are not broken.I disagree with:– the proposal to create transnational lists. It is an artificial construct, that will remain unintelligible to the ordinary voter. The details proposed supposedly to reassure smaller Member States are grotesque and reflect the syndrome of the Brussels bubble;– the proposal to create a new European electoral agency. It will only make for a duplication of roles and meaningless monitoring mechanisms that will anyway have to rely on nationally held resources;– the proposal to have one day established right throughout the Union for voting;– the proposal to have the candidate of the political party with most MEPs to be in line for the Presidency of the European Commission. The European Parliament should just retain consultative and approval functions over the President of the Commission as appointed by the European Council.The challenges facing Members of the European Parliament do not regard the ‘Europeanisation’ of their election, but how to make their work understood as immediately relevant to their concerns by ‘ordinary’ citizens. This is not the direction taken by the resolution.

2022/05/03

The Commission proposal for a regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market is on various counts fundamentally flawed. To start with, there is no identification of the real impact of foreign subsidies on the internal market. Moreover, the preferable route of achieving an international agreement on state-aid rules has been ignored. Instead, there is an attempt to impose EU state-aid rules on third countries. The likelihood of increased bureaucracy discouraging new investment into the EU has increased.Yet, policymakers are ignoring tit-for-tat considerations. Clearly, EU state actors have their own methods of aiding industry that do not necessarily combine with state aid rules in other countries; like for example, US allegations that euro area exchange rate policies amount to hidden subsidies to EU exporters and investors. Similarly, allegations might come out against major EU funding programmes.Finally, the Commission will be extending its reach quite heavily; national competition authorities have been almost completely sidelined over the issue. Meanwhile, the so-called ex-officio tool gives full discretion to the Commission to act how and when it wants over any deal without any margins or checks and balances over its actions.I therefore voted against the adoption of this Parliament report.

2022/05/04

. ‒ This EP Report on islands and cohesion policy gives the right picture of the main issues at stake for the EU’s insular regions by recognizing their particular situation vis-à-vis mainland Europe.I fully endorse the Report’s conclusion when it ‘regrets the EU’s lack of vision for European islands and calls for a European island vision to be developed and for the islands’ strengths to be exploited’.As an MEP representing a constituency consisting of islands, along with others, I have been trying to convey this message, but it has not always received the attention it deserves. For instance, in the climate package, the European Commission has given little to no consideration to the special needs of islands. On air transport, with the measures that are being proposed, island risk losing competitivity in tourism while having to absorb greater inflationary pressures than on the mainland.It seems as if the general EU approach towards islands is one of not so benign neglect, when the need is for a tailor-made approach to policies that will apply to them. The time has come for the Commission to establish a fully-fledged Directorate-General that operates horizontally to propose and amend EU policies relating to the special needs of islands.

2022/06/07

The unjustified military aggression by Russia against Ukraine has triggered moves towards greater EU unity on issues like energy independence; strategic autonomy; a pushback against outside interference in European democratic processes; defence and security policy. On the latter front especially misgivings arise.Forward moves are being accelerated towards a foreign policy plus a defence and military agenda that risk transforming the EU into a military alliance fast.There seems to be little respect for the sovereignty of Member States, such as neutrals like Malta, whose core security interests are not aligned with those of ‘mainstream’ larger members. Yet they acknowledge a comprehensive European response is desirable given the Europe-wide destabilisation provoked by Russia’s President. Their dilemma as neutrals is being disregarded by drafters of current Union defence ambitions: how will the neutrality of a Member State fit into a common European security and defence architecture?To make matters worse, this report introduces the principle of extending qualified majority voting to EU foreign policy. Such an extension would set the basis for a contestation of EU foreign policy approaches on the grounds that they breach national sovereignty. The coherence of any EU foreign policy approach would thereby be undermined. I have therefore abstained in the vote on this report.

2022/06/08

This resolution takes the findings of the Conference on the Future of Europe as basis for a proposal to summon a Convention that would revise existing EU treaties.No matter how worthy the members of the Conference are, they do not have the democratic legitimacy that would justify this approach.Their selection and work procedures were organised along lines that in reality were defined by self-selecting and pre-determined, possibly elitist criteria.Also, treaty reform via a convention is a bad idea. As an ex-member of the 2002 Convention on the European Constitution, which was a big fiasco, I have direct experience of how bad it can be.To make matters worse, the resolution sets as a priority for the Convention the further extension of qualified majority rules instead of unanimity, in order to prepare for wide-ranging federalist changes to how the EU operates, not least in defence and security matters.It is obvious that such approaches will only further the interests and views of the larger Member States and I totally disagree with them.In my view, at this stage, Europe should continue to develop as a Europe of the nations in the best sense of the Gaullist tradition.For these reasons and more, I voted against the resolution.

2022/06/09

In evaluating the implementation of the RRF, a comprehensive view of what is at stake should be adopted.The RRF is an instrument created under unprecedented pressures caused by the global pandemic, which now seem to have lost urgency.The RRF attempted to counter that crisis by investing heavily in projects defined by the EU’s political priorities, mainly related to the climate warming and the digital targets.Since then, the geopolitical situation facing Europe has changed drastically.A supply-induced inflation is being amplified by an economic tug-of-war with Russia triggering socioeconomic consequences that were not considered when the Facility was drafted.Workers, big and small businesses, public administrations are struggling to cope.So, the current structure of the RRF might no longer be truly adapted to the present contours of the ongoing crisis.I am concerned that this report on the implementation of the RRF does not make sufficient allowance for the need to maintain full flexibility in RRF operations, politically, institutionally, economically and socially.Considering the very unstable situation we are facing, it is essential that national plans and their drivers remain open to the possible need of adaptation as needed.This has to be fully acknowledged.However I voted in favour of the report.

2022/06/23

After detailed consideration, I have voted against the motion to turn down the Taxonomy Climate and the Taxonomy Disclosure Delegated Acts.I agree that the European Commission has followed an abusive procedure to introduce them. Strictly speaking, on this basis, the delegated acts should be voted down.I agree that again, strictly speaking, nuclear and natural gas with which the delegated acts deal are not environmentally neutral.However, they offer reasonable transitional paths to environmentally neutral energy, and could become crucially important in keeping economies going as public authorities strive to achieve anti-global warming aims.Inclusion in the ‘green’ taxonomy of nuclear and gas covers this scenario in the clearest and most transparent manner.To be coherent with what I have been advocating for small and peripheral economies, where I argue in favour of special transitional approaches to preserve the competitiveness of such economies, I cannot now in logic vote against an equivalent approach for nuclear- and gas-bound economies.Also, in order to attain Green Deal targets, justified anxieties about security of energy supplies in a scenario of potential drastic scarcity and rising global inflation must first be allayed. This can only happen when access to sources of nuclear and natural gas energy is flexibly in place.

2022/07/06

Global challenges such as those related to climate, health and conflict require a global solution.The end of the Cold War provided an opportunity for global coordination on major issues, including Third World development and the nuclear threat.Yet, multilateralism experienced huge setbacks following the second Bush administration and its interventions in the Middle East as well as US/European meddling in regions of interest, such as Libya.That major EU players support multilateralism as a way forward for international relations is therefore a welcome state of affairs.I fully agree with various points made in the Report, such as that the EU must defend multilateralism and avoid actions that undermine this objective.Indeed, one must ensure that steps towards the EU’s further integration maintain a global multilateral perspective by not creating overlapping structures that might contradict the idea of global governance, sectorally, vertically or horizontally.Though I voted for the report, I highlight my unwavering reservations to the Report’s support for Qualified Majority Voting in foreign and security policy, as well as the Report’s call for all Member States to join European security and defence initiatives. This takes no account of the geopolitical situation of different Member States, such as the neutrals, and is unacceptable.

2022/07/06

Measures are here being proposed to tackle climate change and ensure that the EU commits to a carbon neutral economy.Yet, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the revised taxation of energy products as proposed will not affect the whole of the EU in the same way.To create conditions that enable air transport to decarbonize, the proposal aims to scale up via structural changes in taxation ‘sustainable’ aviation fuels. They should take over from high CO2-intensive fuels in the short to medium term.However, a real energy transition must be smooth. In all fairness, it cannot simply remove operational flexibility and reduce connectivity – vital for islands, and peripheral and remote regions that depend a lot on air transport.The report does not take this into account. It foresees an abrupt increase in the share of sustainable aviation fuel within the transport mix. This will hit hard Member States whose economy depends on imports and visitors arriving by air.Moreover, the EP report ignores operational realities for remote airports in its anti-tinkering measures. The reality of an airport in the middle of the Mediterranean is not the same as that of Frankfort airport in terms of turnaround flexibility.For these reasons, I have voted against the report.

2022/07/07

I voted in favour of the 2021 Annual Report on the financial activities of the European Investment Bank because it contains a balanced approach towards the need for transparency, governance and accountability.Furthermore, I agree with the focus that the report gives on the Bank’s work in relation to the EU’s climate strategy and, in this context, the calls on the EIB to strengthen its support towards people and regions facing socio-economic challenges deriving from the transition towards a carbon-neutral economy.As regards social and labour rights, the EP’s stance that the EIB shall ensure that labour rights are fully protected throughout the entire supply chain of financed projects is commendable. Such an approach should clearly also apply to the internal structures and mechanisms of the bank.Finally, I would like to raise my reservations as regards the report’s approach to taxation, especially in the context of the EIB’s role and modus operandi . The attempt in Paragraph 42 to amalgamate various tax—related wishes into one paragraph is somehow confusing and weakens the report’s say on the matter.

2022/07/07

I have voted in favour of the EP’s Interim report on the 2021 proposal for a revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework because I agree with its main message that the current Financial Framework requires a broader revision.The trigger for this revision mainly ensues from the ongoing crises - especially the one related to energy prices - that are creating an abnormally high level of inflation.Clearly, the value of the current allocated funding and programmed investments has to be re-estimated accordingly.Yet, the EP has to remain conscious of the arising needs that many Member States are facing and that they would not necessarily agree to increase their contribution towards the EU budget.On the same point, any proposals for the introduction of new own resources should also be made with the different national sensitivities in mind. With many manufacturing and service industries struggling to survive, a new EU tax could be of great concern to whole economic sectors.

2022/09/13

The proposal to bring together design, architecture and the arts into one Europe wide project that would reorganize the spatial environment in which we live according to the new economic and social realities of the Green Deal is praiseworthy.Taking the post-World War I Bauhaus movement as a model is a good approach.However the ‘New European Bauhaus’ still needs definition and clarity, besides separate and transparent funding.The role of European, state, regional and local bureaucrats and politicians remains diffuse.How they will interface with architects, designers, urban planners, artists and educators is vaguely referenced.The bottom up approach being generally indicated seems commendable, but there will be a need for a real driving force behind the whole initiative.Assuming that this force will emerge automatically or that politicians and bureaucrats will best assume it is probably illusory.Moreover we need a more comprehensive view regarding how the NEB will affect or be affected by market forces.Yet, all things considered, the whole idea merits support, which is why I voted for this resolution.Perhaps a good question to ask is whether the original Bauhaus would have achieved the success it did, had it been organised on the lines that are being developed for the NEB.

2022/09/14

It is necessary to promote and maintain an environment that, in the field of financial services, encourages innovation among SMEs and promotes start—ups in new technologies.However, this must be done in parallel with increasing transparency regarding crypto and blockchain transactions and operations.Among the risks to have emerged is the erosion of tax transparency. Since traditional financial intermediaries have no role, crypto often ends up exempt from tax reporting requirements. Such unequal treatment between new and old technologies is unfair, creates distortions and allows opacity and fraud.One solution is the collection and exchange of information on transactions in crypto—assets. The report rightly recognises the global effort of the OECD on a new reporting framework for crypto—assets, which the EU must continue to support.It is also necessary to equip tax administrations with the tools and skills to deal with these dynamic technologies. Rules applicable to non—crypto assets are mostly inapplicable to crypto—assets, which creates difficulties.Finally, this report argues for pooling of EU resources to develop common technologies for efficient tax collection and enforcement. That should boost the efficiency of tax administrations, especially in smaller Member States, which may struggle to cope with the arising problems.I have voted for this report.

2022/10/04

. ‒ I voted in favour of this resolution, with reservations about the call for impromptu tax increases on various fronts.The disproportionate profits in energy markets must be corrected on the basis of sound, dispassionate assessments. Simultaneously, increased transparency and regulatory oversight of market-based and OTC gas trading and acquisition prices should be enforced.As the resolution proposes, priority should be given to relief for those subject to extreme energy poverty, vulnerable households, and SMEs. On the other hand, the proposed and desirable upgrade of the EU energy platform into a joint European procurer of energy sources to attain scale economies in purchasing power requires full, but still pending, political alignment among Member States.Just as importantly, preventive measures must be taken as of now to counter future crises when the EU has irreconcilable differences with countries that supply it with energy.The development of renewable energies is the major way forward to ensure energy autonomy and sustainability. In 2018, I promoted a pilot project that set up the Clean Energy for EU islands secretariat, designed to support islands in their efforts to become renewable energy communities and to promote related projects. Beyond the urgency, long-term goals should not be forgotten, at macro and micro levels.

2022/10/05

Standing by current forecasts, 2023 will be a tough year for the EU economy with repercussions likely to be felt in all parts of society.The European Parliament’s take on the EU budget for 2023 represents a balanced position in the context of the pressing needs which the Union is facing right now.Budgetary needs have increased immensely. Yet funding sources remain somehow static in volume and variety, due to the challenging financial situation which Member States are experiencing.I agree with most of the Resolution’s proposals and voted for it, with some reservations.In particular, the funding directed towards defence and military spending. One understands the urge of most Member States to centralise it. However, the role and scope of neutral Member States’ contribution within a budget dedicated to a pseudo-defence Union is questionable. They should be granted an opt-out.Finally, considering the most urgent needs the EU is facing, one wonders how the EP can give primacy for funding to the continuation of the ‘Future of Europe Conference’ – a mechanism that has been useful to generate discussion and ideas, not to legitimise treaty change.Now, we really have no option but to set our priorities right.

2022/10/19

The REPowerEU proposal aimed at countering the negative socioeconomic impact that the Ukraine war is having on European society is welcome. It is a timely proposal that needs an urgent conclusion. I have therefore voted for the fund it seeks to establish.Yet some reservations on the European Parliament proposal remain. In particular, the EP adds extra burdens on national administrations. It has been reported that the first country to have applied for RRF funding – Spain – is experiencing considerable problems in administering and funnelling the funding package already allocated. Is it wise to increase the burden on national administrations? Administrative and procedural burdens should be pared to a minimum in order to accelerate the process of activation and disbursement in line with the current emergency. In particular, there should be no requirements to repeat processes that have already been followed in the context of national recovery and resilience plans.Furthermore, as already emphasised through the amendments I tabled at committee level, we need special treatment for island regions. The approach to favour cross-border projects in continental Europe is indeed positive. Yet this should not further disadvantage insular regions which would have immense difficulties finding the right conditions to launch cross-border projects in the field.

2022/11/10

I voted in favour of this set of rules, which will improve the protection of critical EU infrastructures.In the permacrisis that we are experiencing, with the climate crisis, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, our critical infrastructures (like highways, communication networks or clean water, necessary to maintain normal life) are exposed to an increasing number of attacks and natural disasters. Cyberattacks, which are becoming more complex, are not the least.Critical infrastructures, increasingly interconnected, will be protected upstream, as the critical entities that operate services essential to the internal market will adopt common and harmonised procedures for identification and protection from threats.I particularly welcome the extension of the scope of the text to sectors like digital infrastructure, water, food and health.Finally, I would like to make the link with DORA, which promotes a similar objective for digital operational resilience in financial services: that of strengthening the integrity of the EU market.The greatest attention should also be given to refraining from adding to burdens while avoiding duplication with other resilience-building initiatives, so that critical actors are not faced with an unnecessary administrative load.One thus welcomes the alignment with the Network and Information Security Directive (NIS2), similarly to what has been done with DORA.

2022/11/22

The EU is facing increasing budgetary needs to counter a series of emergencies related to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are also the looming financial requirements of the Green Deal. The latter are likely being underestimated.At present, the EU’s budgetary response to these emerging demands has been to borrow money. Eventually, such an approach must be sustained by a budgetary input that taps new resources. Parliament does well to search new venues in this regard. However, the new resources should be defined by the requirements that arise from the response needed to combat the continental crises being faced, as in the environmental challenge.The report gives the idea that the EU should move ahead on tax matters falling under the OECD Pillar 1, even without a multilateral global agreement on the area. I disagree. The report disregards the national interest of peripheral economies to attract foreign investment by differentiating their tax structures from those of the central, highly advanced European economies.Still, considering the exploratory approach of the report, its non—binding character and the real priority to ensure that the EU can self-finance its activities under closely defined parameters, I have voted for it, with the reservation expressed above.

2022/11/23

Proposed almost fifty years ago in a United Nations resolution, the two-state solution with a sovereign Israel and a sovereign Palestine co-existing side by side remains the only long—term peaceful and ‘fair’ solution to the Palestinian conflict.Yet it has become increasingly distant because of: Palestinian acts of terrorism, fuelled by desperation; tough Israeli repression, at times barbaric; the rise of the religious right in Israel and the actions of illegal Israeli settlers; and the inability of the US to maintain a consistent Middle East policy – all factors that reinforce the stalemate.A two-state solution eventually requires a relationship of equality between the two sides, which is not the case now.Daily, Palestinians face state-backed violence. In 2022, more than 120 Palestinians were killed during clashes in the West Bank.EU players remain proponents of a two-state solution. Yet, their position is blunted by the value they attach to the EU-Israeli economic and military relationship. This is important, but not at the cost of disregarding the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.The attainment of peace and stability in the region depends on tough but mutually acceptable solutions. Pushing the Palestinian population to desperation will only achieve the contrary.Such considerations guided my vote on the resolution.

2022/12/14

I did not vote on this resolution; except positive for the whole text, only to make clear disgust and condemnation of the facts at issue.However, I disagree with how this matter is being dealt with.I agree: the Parliament needed fast to make its reaction clear.But proposing a wide-ranging resolution on ‘classic’ lines subject to horse trading and manoeuvring between the political groups is not the way.Especially when it prejudges what the real issues might be; implicitly limits them; and serves to project the view that the Parliament is under external attack, rather than that its own flaws have become deadly.Overall the resolution projects the idea that it’s business as usual, including the bland way by which ‘reforms’, formerly side-lined, have been uploaded into the text.We need a stringent definition of what our core tasks should be and how they should be conducted, without crass references to ‘values’ among other slogans.Following from this, we need a holistic game plan of reform, established independently of the cabals that run the Parliament’s administration.That cannot be provided in-house, but has to be done by an outside, universally honoured referee bound in double quick time, to provide a deep assessment of what should be done.

2022/12/15

I voted in favour of the Report on upscaling the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework because I agree with its main message.When considering the major crisis we are going through, the EU needs to radically adapt its budgetary approach.Obviously, the Report is the result of hard negotiations between the major political factions.Still, the EU budget should focus harder on social issues.Both the COVID crisis and to a larger extent, the ongoing inflation plus energy shake-up are exposing the fragility of the social safety net, which was side-lined for years due to other priorities during a long period of practically zero inflation.Already by the end of 2021, 95.4 million EU citizens, equivalent to 21.7% of the EU population were at risk of poverty or social exclusion.Meanwhile, one fifth of the EU population was living in households where dependent children were at risk of poverty or social exclusion.Clearly, more EU investment must be directly funnelled towards programmed social projects in the Member States.Finally, I must again put on record my strongest reservations against the EU budgetary turn towards an EU defence union and for further EU funding to be directed towards defence spending.

2022/12/15

I have voted in favour of the report because I agree with the main message behind the text that the EU is justified in seeking to strengthen its commitment to the promotion and protection of democracy and human rights worldwide on the basis of multilateralism and international law.The Report rightly emphasises the importance of placing this at the heart of the EU’s diplomatic relations.However, care needs to be taken not to position the EU in a role where it is perceived by outside powers as being hypocritical and applying double standards according to how the winds of its own special interests blow.That perception has been growing, not least in the wake of the energy crisis.Also I disagree with the Resolution’s call for qualified majority voting to replace unanimity on major policy issues.There has to be compromise in developing an EU position: QMV will likely disallow medium and small sized countries from having a meaningful say in the development of such compromises.Specifically therefore I voted against that part of the text which endorses QMV and confirm that I am totally against it.

2023/01/18

The EU rightly supports the Ukraine in its fightback against the Russian invasion but is not a co-belligerent. This resolution sometimes seems to be fudging this distinction, which is a dangerous position to adopt. A better approach would have been to again make the EU’s opposition to the Russian stance crystal clear and to reiterate the determination to provide all necessary help short of becoming a co-belligerent to the Ukraine.Making ‘extreme’ claims – like accusing Russia of genocide – can only be counterproductive, since they can have little meaningful impact outside of propaganda, while limiting the scope for mediation and back channel initiatives to be exercised out of Europe. Indeed, the compromise formula followed by the EP when drafting its resolutions may be less than helpful in crafting a text that at a time of war, even if it is between third parties, sets out priorities for future action. In such a context, the less that detailed commitments are made – especially when they are unrealistic (such as regarding the Ukraine’s eventual membership of the EU) – the better.I voted for the resolution because it was the only way to demonstrate again condemnation of the Russian invasion, despite my serious reservations about parts of its content.

2023/02/02

I voted against this report. In deciding about the energy performance of buildings – a very sensitive social issue – this House needed to go for a common denominator that could be proportionately applied by all, independently of national and regional differences. Instead, on the grounds of climate ambition, it has blithely attached the major costs for change to ordinary citizens.The aim of creating a building stock that is highly energy efficient and carbon-free is commendable and vital in the long run. The costly measures being proposed will nevertheless affect homeowners negatively in a tremendous way. Social consequences, according to the various home-owning cultures and structures in the EU, should be thoroughly considered. This has not been properly done.Negotiators tried to take into account the constraints and needs of vulnerable and single-parent households, social housing in general, and rural and remote areas. However, they ignored too many essential considerations for these exposed (and other) sectors.Obligations need to be realistic and achievable: those endorsed in this report are not. A more moderate position should focus on ensuring that residential building owners are incentivised to improve their property’s energy performance, rather than penalised. It should also focus on more realistic and incremental targets.

2023/03/14

As its name implies, the EU common security and defence policy is part and parcel of the EU’s developing defence policy in which clearly the intention is to continue ramping up the defence/military component. In my view, the policy is being developed with scant attention to, or respect for, the position of Member States (no matter how few) whose political status is that of neutrality. Yet under EU rules they participate fully in budgeting for this aspect of EU policies.The fact that the CDSP covers ‘only’ civilian aspects of EU external interventions does not screen the reality of an overlap – destined to become deeper – between military and civilian interventions. The text actually reflects this overlap, not least because of the deeper underpinnings of common defence/military aims it assumes to hold. As a state whose constitution prevents it from taking part in military alliances, unless under the aegis of the United Nations, Malta’s endorsement of the CDSP cannot but be problematic.Moreover, the text fails to consider that, in their approach to CDSP, certain Member States might have post-colonial legacies and interests to keep up with, when they should have been made transparent. For all these reasons, I abstained on this vote.

2023/04/18

I am in favour of this proposal to renew for another year the so-called Autonomous Trade Measures, which provide for the suspension of import duties, quotas, and trade defence measures on Ukrainian exports to the EU, as support for the Ukrainian economy.In order to assist Ukraine against the challenges that producers and exporters are facing because of the ongoing war, the new measures include an advanced safeguard mechanism to be activated in case of need.The European Parliament should continue to back all EU economic and political support for the Ukraine through an agreement that lays the ground for a relationship based on a proportionate economic reciprocity.The Association Agreement between the two sides provides the correct framework for such cooperation. The measures being envisaged will help to maintain and enhance the current trade flows between Ukraine and the EU, which is Ukraine’s largest trading partner. Ensuring the continuity of Ukraine’s trade capacity and of living up to our commitments to sustain that country is crucial.However it should be made clear that in no way should this approach be considered as a privileged fast track towards Ukraine’s accession to the EU, which should under all scenarios follow the same path as for all other accession processes.

2023/05/09

When the project to launch a European union was initialled, the aim was to establish such a union via economic and social convergence between its Member States, with separately a European defence union. The latter was given a negative by national parliaments. The convergence project continued successfully along political, economic, social, environmental and cultural dimensions.In recent years, security and defence issues have been hitched to this approach on the basis of ad hoc rationales and responses covering particular geostrategic situations. The relative commitments went beyond what new Member States, especially neutral ones, assumed on joining the EU.Justified on the grounds that they formed part of Member States’ target of achieving ever closer unity, and financed from the EU’s common budget, their legitimacy remains questionable.The proposal now to finance ammunition production via EU funds falls into this general picture and is completely unacceptable. Though one agrees with the overall aim of fully supporting Ukraine in repelling the Russian invasion, using this to divert EU resources towards the full blast production of ammunition is not an acceptable way forward.So I have not voted on all the component parts of this resolution and have voted against on it as a whole.

2023/06/01

The proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence represents a significant step towards promoting responsible business practices and sustainability within the European Union. It aims to address the social and environmental impacts of corporations, ensuring that they take responsibility for their actions throughout their value chains.Specific requirements are being set for companies in terms of risk assessment transparency, and remedial measures. Companies must assess and address the risks and impacts associated with their activities, and also assume responsibility for what their suppliers and subcontractors do.With the implementation of this directive, corporate accountability will be enhanced and sustainable practices encouraged, bringing fairness and liability in the globalised production process.However, the proposal also raises some concerns among businesses, particularly regarding the potential administrative burdens and costs associated with compliance. There is a need for an approach that balances carefully the interests of both business and the broader society.Overall, the proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence represents a significant development in aligning business practices with societal and environmental goals. It signals that ESG is here to stay. I have therefore voted for it.

2023/06/01

Although I disagree strongly with how internal democratic processes related to the rule of law are being shaped in Hungary, I have abstained on all votes for this resolution including the final one.Monitoring rule of law issues in Member States is a delicate process that has become increasingly salient because the application of financial and other sanctions at EU level has been made contingent on evaluations carried out during the process.On the basis of how this has been carried out, about which I have direct experience, my belief is that it is still too subjective and too dependent on political positioning, if not manipulation.Furthermore, what makes the process of scrutiny even less satisfactory is that it remains subject to appreciations that take into account, in a non-transparent manner, the alignments of the governments whose performance is under scrutiny.The yardstick employed to measure breaches of the rule of law or what could be judged as such can vary according to the size of countries, the political stance of governments, and the impact of mainstream media or leading social media influencers.For this reason, I do not have full confidence in the mechanisms by which rule of law scrutiny in the EU is being conducted.

2023/06/01

This draft report recommends measures to address the identified contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law related to the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware. Its proposals are praiseworthy.I voted in favour, because I believe it is necessary to update the relevant legal framework on a European basis: setting norms, limits and the scope for investigations of abuses; the issuance of sanctions; as well as the funding of research into surveillance systems and who runs them.However, the concern and care we are now showing about this sensitive subject risks appearing misplaced and the outcome ineffective.Most national security concerns are zone, regime and event related. Some areas of concern are national security related for some, and not for others.As in rule of law issues, the salience attached to the disregard of proper democratic safeguards by one or other of the governments of Member States remains dependent on the political slant of the government concerned.There is still no common and updated legal framework that defines how modern democracies should control the cyber surveillance carried out by their own secret services. It would be counter-productive if measures contemplated to face off the Pegasus issue were to be half-baked and inadequate. That risk remains present.

2023/06/15

I have decided to abstain on all the votes regarding this resolution, as well as the final one.In Poland, the state of play of the electoral law and its democratic mechanisms are extremely disappointing. The recent electoral law represents a lack of respect for any democratic standards and a silencing of democratic opposition.However, I believe that the monitoring of such processes should be carried out through objective and accurate procedures, excluding any form of political influence. If the EU requires democratic and transparent elections, this should imply a democratic and apolitical monitoring of electoral procedures. In my view, the EU has not managed to stay objective.Assessing breaches of the rule of law may not always be so obvious. Democratic evaluations such as the election observation mission by ODIHR called out for in the resolution should take into account certain criteria before identifying the country’s place in the rule of law scrutiny, such as its size, media influence or where its government stands.Finally, I believe that the EU has still a long way to go to achieve objective and fair evaluations of democratic processes and rule of law assessments.

2023/07/11

I voted against this report, as I disagree with passerelle clauses as mechanisms that modify the decision-making rules that affect acts of the Council of the Union, allowing a shift from unanimity to QMV.While QMV aims to enhance efficiency and promote collective decision-making, it presents challenges for small and medium-sized countries. The limited influence, loss of sovereignty, unequal impact on economies and potential democratic shortfalls are significant concerns. It is essential to recognise the importance of ensuring fair representation and accommodating the specific needs of smaller nations within decision-making mechanisms to foster inclusive and effective global governance.The report takes into account policy areas such as human rights and international agreements, taxation, as well as long-term policies such as the democratic functioning of the Union and electoral rights. I am against replacing unanimity with QMV on all major policy areas.The democratic principles that underpin EU cooperation become marginalised if decision-making processes lack democratic legitimacy, as the preferences of smaller countries become disregarded. It must be ensured that the use of passarelle clauses is aligned with such democratic values, with the respect of national sovereignty, and maintains the trust and consent of Member States and their citizens.

2023/07/11

I voted for this report although I am not completely convinced that it will bring much value added to the EU in its conduct of economic and other relations with third parties. Whether on a bilateral or multilateral basis, relations develop following negotiations during which all sides try to influence the policy making of the other parties on a tit-for-tat basis. Such influence may take the form of measures in areas unrelated to the negotiations in course. If these measures apply disproportionately and/or are introduced arbitrarily, the party against which they are directed may take any measures it deems fit to respond. Do we really need a legal frame within which such responses should be structured? Though I doubt this, I have gone along with the current wisdom that in the absence of an Anti-Coercion Instrument within the EU, believes the Union would remain vulnerable to economic coercion from third countries. But the triggers for this instrument should be broadly defined and country-neutral, as so-called economic coercion can manifest itself in various forms. It should be made clear that the instrument is not an offensive but a defensive tool, meant to protect the Union’s legitimate policy space.

2023/10/03

I voted in favour of this report, given its compelling argument for the desirability of establishing a new EU-Switzerland partnership agreement.The report’s central message highlights the potential benefits of such an agreement: trust, stability, jobs and welfare for both regions. The proposal for an ambitious arrangement that modernises and consolidates all the strands of what has been achieved over the years in EU-Swiss relations within one partnership document is a step in the right direction. It reduces trade barriers and ensures a level playing field for EU and Swiss citizens and economic operators, crucial for encouraging economic growth and prosperity.The emphasis on protecting workers’ rights, consumers and the environment demonstrates a commitment to responsible governance. Switzerland is an important partner in addressing global challenges, including international peace and human rights. Its alignment with EU sanctions against Russia underlines the country’s commitment to our shared values.From a Maltese perspective too, I applaud the report. In the past, over many years preceding Malta’s EU membership, it was claimed in Malta that no partnership relationship was possible between the EU and another European country. This false claim, used to stampede the electorate towards EU accession, is again fully rebutted by the spirit and terms of the report.

2023/10/04

I have voted for this resolution. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in February 2022 was in total violation of international law. It crossed a red line and was totally unacceptable. Since then, the EU has adopted multiple sanctions packages to weaken Russia’s ability to wage war. I fully support them.The EU’s call for increased coordination, transparency and enforcement of sanctions is essential. This includes measures like expanding export controls, reinforcing sanctions on Russian energy exports and scrutinizing companies that maintain business with Russia despite the sanctions. Unity on sanctions and on the conduct of strategic communication to counter disinformation is vital.All this having been said, the point remains that security concerns raised by Russia over Ukraine and over related NATO issues cannot just be brushed aside as they have been. I regret that as part of its diplomatic efforts, the EU has been – or is showing itself as – slack in trying to find the grounds on which an honourable and reasonable end to this war can be found before it is too late. Beyond trying to accelerate the process of Ukraine becoming a member of the EU, the EU needs to formulate a model for how EU-Russia relations should develop long-term.

2023/11/09

I strongly disagree with enshrining the supremacy of EU law in the Treaties and voted against this report. Codifying in this way the primacy of EU law is not, as the rapporteurs claim, an effective solution to the ongoing ambiguities that define the interplay between EU competencies and the reach of Member States’ legal provisions, not least their constitutions. Indeed, the solution cannot be a one-decision-rule-fits-all provision, given the political complexities of defining EU competences and their relationship to national decision-making powers. Actually it could create new problems by eliminating the flexibility needed to navigate issues of deep national interest, such as neutrality, military cooperation, foreign policy, security, and taxation, thereby triggering avoidable but likely acute crises.Malta, in particular but not only, faces unique challenges that require a nuanced approach. The present situation should be maintained in order to allow for ongoing development through dialogue and experience of a flexible interface between EU law and national constitutional red lines. Such an approach would allow for the step by step and case by case clarification of dilemmas without undermining the formal and informal dynamics that contribute to the EU’s internal cohesion. Enshrining supremacy in the Treaties could end up provoking more, not fewer, internal disputes.

2023/11/21

I have unequivocally voted against this report, only endorsing its social chapter. It lacks all prudence in the presentation of amendments to revise the Treaties. It manifests a total disregard for national sensibilities and the need for balance between central federalising requirements and the sovereignty of the smaller and medium-sized states in the Union.The push for qualified majority voting, changes in decision-making structures, plus the establishment of an EU Defence Union without clear safeguards and opt-outs are totally unacceptable. Co-rapporteur Helmut Scholz’s reservations regarding the proposed amendments to foreign, security, and defence policy are in line with these considerations.Furthermore, the lack of clarity on mitigating duplication of military capacity with NATO and the potential budgetary implications is revealing. Indeed, why should Member States which stay out of the common defence policy or which are neutral contribute to fund it through the EU budget? In this area, a comprehensive, non-military concept of security coupled with adherence to international law should precede any restructuring.My vote against this resolution follows from the conviction that the proposed amendments misunderstand the realities of Europe today. Actually, though they proclaim otherwise, they lack the necessary respect for crucial aspects of the European identity, making them unacceptable to the peoples of Europe.

2023/11/22

The report addresses crucial tax issues stemming from the COVID-19 crisis, Russia’s war on Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis. They align with the urgent need to promote a just and sustainable taxation system.However, tax strategy should remain a national prerogative since it needs to reflect priorities dictated by, among other things, size, geographical positioning, natural endowments and economic advances that describe the situation of any given EU Member State.Thus the centralisation of tax policies at EU level should be approached cautiously, which unfortunately this report does not do well, if indeed it really tries.Above all, one-size-fits-all policies will not work here. They will instead serve to further inequalities and to weaken social cohesion, internally and externally. In this context, as a case in point, the EU-wide prohibitive tax being proposed on private jets, while sounding politically sexy, needs further evaluation.The aims of the resolution are praiseworthy in that they are mostly intended to support the establishment at European level of a taxation perspective that addresses societal, environmental and security challenges, while urging careful consideration of proposals to ensure their effectiveness and fairness.However, I cannot endorse the resolution as it fails to satisfy the requirements outlined above.

2023/12/12

I voted in favour of this report, with some reservations. Firstly, recognising the 50-year milestone of diplomatic ties between the EU and Japan gives witness to the enduring relationship between the two sides. Their shared goals, especially in addressing global challenges, highlight the necessity for an even closer partnership to counter growing tensions globally.The report rightly emphasises the mutual commitment to peace, security, environmental responsibility, and human rights. In particular, the condemnation of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine underscores the need for a strengthened understanding between allies of how to react to flagrant breaches of international law. Acknowledging Japan’s pivotal role in the Indo-Pacific region, both economically and strategically, aligns with the EU’s efforts to reinforce its own presence there.The report endorses joint actions on various fronts, from economic security to climate neutrality, recognising the interlinked security of Europe and the Indo-Pacific. By supporting continued dialogue, cooperation on global challenges, and advocating democratic values, the report fosters a comprehensive EU-Japan partnership.However, it errs by seeming to want to draw Japan and the EU into a military and security belt to confront China. That is not the way by which the complex geopolitical dynamics and tensions that have been growing in the region need to be addressed.

2023/12/13

The EU and the US possess distinct institutional and political structures, each covering different competences, making their alliance inherently asymmetrical. In recent years, the asymmetry has been carried over to political stances on security, environmental and global competitive issues.Addressing carefully and delicately issues of trust and reliability is paramount. At times, this report fails to do so, probably to camouflage uncertainty as to whether the EU should unfailingly accept and follow US positions or whether it should assert a completely different stance. A case in point: the report’s treatment of relations with China where more nuance was indicated.Regarding NATO, while advocating enhanced transatlantic collaboration, I disagree that the EU should engage in defence affairs or commit to a defence union. So, I put brackets around the NATO-related content of the report to which I do not subscribe.By contrast, I strongly support the emphasis on EU and US shared values like freedom, democracy, and the need for collaboration in addressing global challenges. Such emphasis however needs increasingly to take into account why in many regions of the world, the proclamation of EU/US shared values is considered as hypocritical because values are then applied selectively. The report ignores this problem. My vote: ‘Yes, but ...’

2023/12/13

The teport on the implementation of the 2018 Geo-blocking Regulation in the digital single market is a step in the right direction.It urges the European Commission to review the regulation by 2025 and to consider then that audio-visual services be excluded from geo-blocking. It should have set an earlier date. Imperatively, in a true digital single market, consumers have unrestricted cross-border access to digital content and services.Geo-blocking practices, preventing users from watching online content based on their location, are outdated and unnecessarily frustrating. The report rightly emphasizes the need to eliminate these practices. Its focus on the need to free audio-visual services from geo-blocking is well taken. Consumer interest in cross-border access to audiovisual content is evident. Citizens all over Europe want to access content from other countries.By removing geo-blocking, we can meet this demand, fostering cultural diversity and enabling consumers to explore content from various European cultures conveniently and legally.Indeed, the availability of affordable and available quality legal content online would be crucial in combating piracy in the audio-visual sector. Extending the scope of the geo-blocking regulation will not eliminate territoriality in the European online audio-visual market.Moreover, local adaptations will still be essential, ensuring content is accessible in multiple languages.

2023/12/13

I have abstained on this report because I am in fundamental disagreement with how progress towards a capital markets union is being piloted. The controversies surrounding this report illustrate the problem. The CMU project – deemed as essential by all big-time EU representatives and speakers – is being articulated through small step-by-step measures that have not achieved meaningful results.So, the proposal endorsed by this report, vital for CMU though it should be, seems not to have achieved sufficient political clarity or traction. Should the tax system serve to bolster bank lending by firms for investment purposes instead of financing investments via the issue of fresh equity? Should tax structures be changed to promote the latter?The upsides and downsides of debt-equity bias reduction vis-à-vis corporate income tax still requires adequate political resolution. But a coherent political will to implement a European capital markets union is absent. Consequently, it is futile to engineer small ‘forward’ steps, as with this resolution, that by their very cautious and tentative nature are inadequate and lack business credibility.

2024/01/16

I approve this report for 2023 on the Banking Union with reservations. The reservations arise because insufficient leeway is allowed for flexible implementation of ‘one size fits all’ policies. A case in point is the treatment regarding the rollback of the sovereign-bank nexus. Correct as the approach is overall, its application to small-scale, peripheral members of the EU could prove toxic.The report rightly emphasises the multifaceted benefits a fully developed Banking Union would bring, including stability, reduced systemic risk and lower costs for customers. It fails, however, to reflect sufficiently the implications of the need for the EU to develop globally competitive banking units that can compete with US and other behemoths, if it is to achieve strategic autonomy in the finance sector.In this process, would the absorption by larger conglomerates of most of Europe’s smaller banks, which have always had a local or regional vocation, be acceptable? Even so, the calls in the report for the completion of the Banking Union and urgent establishment of the European deposit insurance scheme (EDIS) resonate strongly.I fully support the completion of the Banking Union, with swift introduction of the EDIS, thereby reinforcing the commitment to a robust and resilient European banking system.

2024/01/16

My abstention on this resolution has been defined by scepticism as to its real meaning and value. Given the structure and role of the EP, its parliamentary diplomacy cannot project a coherent political view about international affairs similar to that of a nation state.This holds even less regarding a European defence and security policy which is being fashioned on the hoof. The policy depends on the state of the relationship most EU Member States have with NATO, disregarding the interests of neutral Member States which – while being required to pay for it – cannot subscribe to a defence policy that contradicts their neutral status.In fact, by way of establishing meaningful diplomacy with parliaments across the world, the EP would be most effective if it served to transparently exchange information and viewpoints on defence issues held by nation states.Unfortunately, such an exercise could be undermined by the increasing perception outside Europe that EP representatives have double standards. While preaching, as this Parliament does, a respect for the rule of law, nationally and internationally, they show this respect in a differentiated manner. The principles they invoke against Russia in its war on the Ukraine, they then ignore for Israel in its war with Hamas.

2024/01/16

I voted in favour of this report because it recognises the multifaceted nature of Europe’s past, acknowledging its complex, conflict-ridden and contested history.It also addresses historical injustices rooted in gender, belief and ethnicity.The report emphasises the need to avoid relativizing, distorting, or falsifying history for political purposes, underscoring the significance of interdisciplinary approaches and contextualisation in history education.Furthermore, I support the report’s call for a broader and more holistic understanding of European history, including the historical experiences of underrepresented groups.It is crucially important to move towards a citizens-driven ‘culture of remembering’ based on common European principles, values and a critical reworking of the past.The stress laid on this issue is commendable.Overall, I endorse the report as I agree that it is necessary to foster a critical historical consciousness to enable Europeans to understand, confront and learn from their past.All this having been said, one could fault in the report’s overall approach on one aspect. Strangely, it does not seem be completely liberated from a euro-centric perspective, one which implicitly considers European history and the consciousness about it that needs to be promoted, as a basic measuring rod for the calibration of large-scale and small-scale historical experiences elsewhere.

2024/01/17

I voted in favour of this proposal for several reasons. Firstly, the current framework laid out by Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 serves as the foundation for the single euro payments area. Updating this regulation to accommodate instant credit transfers in euro reflects the evolving nature of payment systems and promotes innovation, market development, and increased competition.Secondly, the proposal aims to address the low uptake of instant credit transfers in euro across the EU. By establishing uniform rules and technical requirements for instant credit transfers, including cross-border transactions, the regulation seeks to enhance efficiency, reduce market fragmentation, and provide benefits to both payment service users and providers.Additionally, the gradual introduction of obligations, such as offering instant credit transfer services and complying with EU sanctions, allows payment service providers sufficient time to adapt and implement necessary changes effectively. Harmonizing charges for instant credit transfers with charges for other types of credit transfers ensures fairness and encourages the adoption of instant payment methods.Overall, supporting this regulation aligns with the goal of creating a more integrated and efficient payments market within the EU while ensuring the security and accessibility of instant credit transfers for all stakeholders involved.

2024/02/07

As with other similar rule of law resolutions, I have abstained on this resolution. This is because I am profoundly mistrustful of the approaches deployed in this House to review cases that are raised here about breaches of the rule of law in EU Member States.I have my own reservations and negative judgements regarding the current Greek Government’s treatment of media freedom. That, however, is not the point.Agreed, rule of law issues are central to the identity of the Union and will need to remain like so whether the it is widened, deepened or consolidated on its present basis. Consequently, such issues need to be considered clinically and to the greatest extent possible, objectively, which is far from being the case here.All too frequently rule of law matters are considered in a polarised manner that is equivalent to playing political football. Serious problems are trivialised while trivial concerns are blown out of proportion according to which government is under review. This has been a repeated experience in the case of Malta. Unless the review of rules of law cases by EU institutions is reformed from the ground up, it will remain a flawed and unconvincing process.

2024/02/07

Support for Ukraine is a legitimate policy aim for the EU, given that the invasion of the country by Russia is a flagrant violation of international law within the European space. Such support needs to be well organised, efficient and subject to full accountability.The proposed regulation to establish the Ukraine facility is a good attempt to achieve these objectives and merits approval. It presents a crucial EU commitment to provide substantial financial backing of EUR 50 billion for Ukraine over the period 2024-2027. This addresses the immediate needs stemming from the ongoing conflict in that country and will facilitate long-term reconstruction and modernisation efforts.Including the entire EU support for Ukraine within a single instrument enhances efficiency and accountability. Important provisions are attached to ensure macroeconomic stability, leverage frozen Russian assets for reconstruction, and bolster the role of Ukrainian stakeholders in the planning and implementation processes. Social, gender, and climate parameters defining the regulation ensure that it reflects European shared values and priorities.Furthermore, it incorporates measures to combat corruption and promote transparency. The establishment of mechanisms for monitoring, scrutiny, and accountability underscores a commitment to responsible governance and effective oversight.I voted for the regulation.

2024/02/27

This report fails to account for the unique security and defence characteristics of individual Member States. Malta’s status as a neutral country prohibits participation in the projects of military alliances, unless they are backed by the UN. The report’s premises for EU action contradict this commitment.Moreover, I fundamentally disagree with the creation of a military dimension to the EU. This is not to deny that Member States have the right to create/participate in a European or other military alliance, if they so wish. Doing this, however, in the framework of the EU is not the right option. It will stamp the EU globally with the image of a military power bloc and it will inevitably override the interests of neutral Member States in the Union.A European military and defence policy, if decided, had better be pursued in the context of a European defence community with separate structures from those of the EU, even if operating in parallel with them. Therefore, I cannot agree with amendments to current rules that would confirm qualified majority voting for decisions on the CFSP and CSDP.Similarly, I disagree with the establishment of a European defence commissioner. So I voted against this resolution.

2024/02/28

As the lending arm of the EU, the EIB remains a crucial financial instrument in support of the EU’s political priorities. It is worrying that the pressure to turn the bank into a defence bank persists. The weapons industry has clearly all interests in such a development. This is despite the fact that that the EIB already has a number of initiatives which are, in their nature, related to the defence industry. Actually, there is no evidence of a financing gap in this area.To further increase military funding and legitimise ammunition or military equipment under EIB financing would equate to a severe reduction in the financing of other core areas, including the Green Deal and digitalisation projects.Moreover, ‘militarising’ the EIB’s profile would negatively affect the ESG rating of the bank. The consequences of the loss of credibility with financial investors are difficult to quantify but are likely to be long lasting.Finally, as a ‘defence bank’ engaged in the financing of military projects, the EIB would politically undermine those Member States (shareholders) having a neutral status. Consequently, expanding EIB financing towards the military industry is and will remain for me a political red line. I have voted against this report.

2024/02/28

This proposal seeks to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements in the internal market – particularly the financial services sector, and the InvestEU programme – thereby reducing administrative burdens without compromising policy goals. The initiative aligns with the Commission’s emphasis, in current administrative jargon, on achieving objectives at ‘minimum cost, ensuring efficiency and facilitating evidence-informed policy-making’.The significance of reporting requirements in enforcing legislation is accepted, but as new regulations have been introduced, disproportionate burdens have been imposed, especially on smaller enterprises. The proposal aims to streamline reporting obligations by reducing duplication and enhancing data exchange between authorities, which is still deficient. Coupled with safeguards for data protection and business confidentiality, it is a step towards a more streamlined and effective regulatory framework.I voted for the proposal. Overall, it presents a balanced, proactive approach to regulatory reform. It is also a sad comment on the state of the Capital Markets Union, with special reference to financial services. Progress is incremental and conditioned by too many provisos. These lead to the administrative complications that proposals like this seek to revisit and lighten. Sometimes the process amounts to running on the spot – at best, a game of two steps forward, one step back.

2024/03/12

There are relatively wide differences of views in this Parliament about the direction of economic policy. So, discussions within the European semester process tend to settle around compromises based on a common—denominator approach. This is vitiating whatever value—added the Parliament could bring to the semester process. The situation is carried over from year to year.Additionally this year, the discussion has been overshadowed by ongoing discussions on the Economic Governance Review that will qualify the political discourse on this process for the coming years. From the socialist side, the importance of the social dimension in the European Semester needs to be further emphasised, as has repeatedly been done over the years, coupled to the call for more public and private investment in the economy. Results obtained remain disappointing.Current rules allow, indeed encourage, governments to treat investment as the residual within their budgeting arrangements that can be adjusted downwards in order to satisfy SGP requirements. Meanwhile, growing disparities are being recorded in the standards of living of Europeans, from North to South and from West to East, while in most national contexts, social inequalities are on the rise. On both fronts, the contribution of this House has hardly been inspiring.

2024/03/13

I voted in favour of the 2025 budget guidelines because of the general approach it takes towards major priorities supported by the progressive side of the European Parliament, including support for societal cohesion, the green deal, and the digitalisation of the EU economy.It also embraces the idea of the EU budget as a European investment tool in line with the role of major EU funding programmes, such as InvestEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility.Furthermore, I fully support the Parliament’s position on the continuation of EU aid to Palestine, and in this regard, funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This position is not only important from a financial aspect, but it also provides a clear political message in the context of the War in Gaza. In this respect, Parliament should well consider cutting any EU financing collaboration with Israel.Finally, I must emphasise my total reservations on EU funding dedicated to defence. The EU budget should not serve to fund defence capabilities or weapons. This contradicts the neutrality status of some of its Member States as well as the idea of the EU project as a peace project.

2024/03/13

171 Written explanations of Alfred SANT

ParlTrack - 2011-2024