4 Amendments of Caroline NAGTEGAAL related to 2020/2023(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has presented and published a comprehensive legal proposal for a future relationnew partnership, broadly in line with its negotiating mandate and the European Parliament’s resolution, and deeply regrets the fact that the UK Government has refused to accept a similar level of transparenc; urges the Commission to continue its transparency towards the co-legislators, as well as the financial services industry and consumers, and deeply regrets the fact that the UK Government has refused to accept a similar level of transparency; stresses that clarity and certainty are crucial to business continuity and a seamless provision of services to consumers, as well as to preventing market volatility;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Stresses the need to uphold common high standards in the field of state aid control and competition law; underlines that achieving a level playing field between the Parties will require a robust framework for state aid control, antitrust, and merger control that prevents unfair distortion of trade and competition;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Stresses that the resulting framework must be clear and transparent, and must not impose a disproportionate burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls, in the context of financial services, that passporting rights, which are based on mutual recognition and harmonised prudential rules in the internal market, will cease to apply between the EU and the UK at the end of the transitional period; underlines that, thereafter, access to the European financial market must be based on equivalence decisions made within the EU’s legal framework; notes that equivalence examinations are a technical process which should be based on clear and transparent criteria; recalls that equivalence decisions are unilaterally granted and withdrawn by the European Commission, taking due account of the impact on the market and the need to preserve EU financial stability; recalls the importance of the EU maintaining its autonomy to adopt any measures for prudential reasons;