51 Written explanations of Brian MONTEITH
EU/USA Agreement on the allocation of a share in the tariff rate quota for imports of high-quality beef (recommendation) (A9-0038/2019 - Bernd Lange)
Brexit Party MEPs abstained on this legislative consent procedure proposal. The EU bans beef being imported from the USA, which has been treated with hormones, but allows a quota of non-hormone treated beef form the USA being imported. This has been a long standing trade dispute which has led to tariffs and counter measures between the two parties for decades. This proposal is a final agreement between the EU & USA, which will maintain the EU ban on hormone treated beef imports, but will give the USA a greater share of the non-hormone treated beef imports. This will mean there will be a reduction of beef imports to the EU from Australia, Uruguay and Argentina. While we don’t want to legitimise the EU negotiating the UKs trade policy, it is up to the EU to decide their own tariffs once we finally leave.
EU/USA Agreement on the allocation of a share in the tariff rate quota for imports of high-quality beef (resolution) (A9-0037/2019 - Bernd Lange)
Brexit Party MEPs voted against this non-legislative resolution. The EU bans beef being imported from the USA, which has been treated with hormones, but allows a quota of non-hormone treated beef form the USA being imported. This has been a long standing trade dispute which has led to tariffs and counter measures between the two parties for decades. This non-binding resolution is attached to a previous vote on the same issue. We opposed this resolution as it seeks to politicalise trade and calls on the EU to take more action in the world.
Situation in Bolivia (RC-B9-0187/2019, B9-0187/2019, B9-0188/2019, B9-0189/2019, B9-0190/2019, B9-0191/2019, B9-0192/2019)
The Brexit Party abstained on this non-legislative resolution. We reject the development of an EU foreign policy and attempted interference by the European Union abroad and within third states. Specifically on the judgement of whether or not the ending of President Morales term constitutes a coup d'état is a political judgement, one which the EU should not be making. We remain concerned by on-going reports of breaches of human rights and welcome steps to towards the return of Bolivia to a fully functioning democracy with free and fair elections.
Climate and environmental emergency (RC-B9-0209/2019, B9-0209/2019, B9-0211/2019, B9-0212/2019, B9-0215/2019, B9-0216/2019, B9-0218/2019, B9-0220/2019)
Brexit Party MEPs have voted against this non-legislative motion for a resolution. We believe that calls for a ‘climate emergency’ are fearmongering and that any climate action should be based on science. Additionally, we reject any calls for EU action and spending in this area as Member States are sovereign and should decide on such action themselves.
2019 UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) (B9-0174/2019)
Brexit Party MEPs voted against this non-legislative motion for a resolution. We believe that any climate change action should be based on scientific research and not fear mongering; moreover this is something that should be a Member State’s prerogative, rather than directed by EU action. We have voted against many of the unachievable targets set out in the amendments, as well as calls for further EU action.
EU accession to the Istanbul Convention and other measures to combat gender-based violence (B9-0224/2019, B9-0225/2019, B9-0226/2019)
Brexit Party MEPs abstained on this non-legislative resolution. The Istanbul Convention itself is a (non-EU) international agreement to combat gender violence. It contains a number of different elements including creating criminal offences, ensuring there are national helplines, ensuring there are shelters available for people who suffer domestic abuse, etc. The UK is already in the process of ratifying this convention and in most cases has laws that go beyond the requirements. While the Brexit Party of course welcomes moves to tackle these issues internationally, we cannot legitimise and support the calls for the EU to take action at international level.
Recent actions by the Russian Federation against Lithuanian judges, prosecutors and investigators involved in investigating the tragic events on 13 January 1991 in Vilnius (RC-B9-0182/2019, B9-0182/2019, B9-0183/2019, B9-0184/2019, B9-0185/2019, B9-0186/2019)
. ‒ Brexit Party MEPs abstained on this non-legislative resolution. Brexit Party MEPs strongly oppose any misuse of international legal instruments for political purposes. Whilst we express sympathy with the escalating political situation in Lithuania, we cannot support a resolution that instructs Member States on how to conduct their relations with third countries. For this reason primarily, we abstained on this resolution.
Crisis of the WTO Appellate Body (B9-0181/2019)
Brexit Party MEPs abstained on this is a non-legislative, non-binding resolution which provides commentary on the WTO Appellate issue. The WTO Appellate Body is a dispute resolution mechanism at the WTO. The issue is that the USA has been blocking the replacement of any of the seven members of the Appellate body and rejected attempts to launch a selection procedure. On 10th December the mandates of two of the three remaining Appellate Body members will expire, so will no longer become quorate. Negotiations to resolve this have failed so far. While we would like a solution to this problem, one of the paragraphs calls on the Commission to enter negotiations.
On-going negotiations for a new EU-ACP Partnership Agreement (B9-0175/2019)
Election of the Commission
Brexit Party MEPs voted against the ‘election’ of the European Commission. Brexit Party MEPs believe that the functioning of the European institutions, in particular the Commission, is fundamentally undemocratic. We therefore voted against the Commission in protest against the undemocratic nature of the election of the Commission.
Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Greece (A9-0040/2019 - Eva Kaili)
. ‒ Brexit Party MEPs abstained on this budgetary proposal. The EU Solidarity Fund is an EU budget to help areas that have been affected by natural disaster in Europe. This proposal is to mobilise EUR 4.5 million of the Fund for Crete (Greece), which suffered extremely heavy rains causing landslides, infrastructure loss and loss of life. While we oppose the EU spending British taxpayers’ money, as this was for humanitarian relief and wouldn’t require fresh funding from the UK, we chose to abstain rather than vote against.
Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument to finance immediate budgetary measures to address the on-going challenges of migration, refugee inflows and security threats (A9-0039/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier)
Brexit Party MEPs voted against this budgetary proposal. This proposal was to mobilise an extra EUR 778 million to support EU migration, refugee and border policies. The money would be spread between the years 2020-2023. We oppose the EU spending British taxpayers’ money and cannot support this fund spending on failed policies.
Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund to provide for the payment of advances in the general budget of the Union for 2020 (A9-0036/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier)
Brexit Party MEPs abstained on this budgetary proposal. The EU Solidarity Fund is an EU budget to help areas that have been affected by natural disaster in Europe. This proposal is to allow a portion of this budget to be fast-tracked as an upfront payment when a natural disaster strikes an EU country. The problem with the solidarity Fund is that it can be very slow in mobilising the money to help on the ground relief efforts. While we oppose the EU spending British taxpayers’ money, as this was for humanitarian relief and wouldn’t require fresh funding from the UK, we chose to abstain rather than vote against.
2020 budgetary procedure: joint text (A9-0035/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial)
Brexit Party MEPs voted against this budgetary proposal. This was the final vote to set the EU’s budget for 2020, which was negotiated behind closed doors by the Parliament and the Council. The final figures set the EU budget for 2020 at €168.7 billion (1.5% increase on 2019). This budget also assumes the UK will be making full contribution to the EU in 2020 even though the UK is meant to have left the EU by 31st January 2020.
EU-Ukraine Agreement amending the trade preferences for poultry meat and poultry meat preparations provided for by the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (C9-0105/2019)
. ‒ Brexit Party MEPs abstained on this legislative consent procedure. The proposal is for the EU to apply tariffs on certain cuts of meat, which, in the last few years, are being imported from Ukraine. The EU believes these certain cuts of meat are undercutting and distorting the market. The Brexit Party objects in principle to the fact that the EU negotiates deals and decides trade policy for the UK; however, as the UK will be leaving the EU, it is up to them to decide their own trading arrangements with third countries.
Amending VAT and excise duty rules as regards defence effort within the Union framework (A9-0034/2019 - Paul Tang)
. ‒ This non-legislative Report is merely a consultation on the Council making changes to VAT that will encourage Member States to operate within the EU’s Common Defence Policy.The Parliament’s suggested amendments extend the scope of the proposals to include Excise Duty as well as VAT. For both these reasons The Brexit party voted against.
Children rights in occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (B9-0178/2019, B9-0179/2019, B9-0180/2019)
Brexit Party MEPs voted to abstain on this non-legislative resolution. Whilst we wholeheartedly support the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we believe that the implementation of this treaty should be initiated and monitored at Member State level and not by the EU. For many of the amendments to the resolution, a free vote was given to reflect the fact that the Brexit Party is diverse, with members of many faiths or none, and who hold a wide range of cultural opinions. Given that the competency for education and abortion rights rests with Members States and that the Brexit Party believes it should stay that way, Members who abstained on any issues cannot have such votes used by third parties to determine what their position on a particular amendment might be.
Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund - EGF/2019/001 BE/Carrefour - Belgium (A9-0021/2019 - José Manuel Fernandes)
. ‒ Brexit Party MEPs voted against this budgetary proposal. The Globalisation Adjustment Fund provides money for workers around Europe who have lost their jobs in cases where there have been significant redundancies at a regional level. This proposal is to give EUR 1.6 million (60% match funding) to 400 Belgian workers who have lost their jobs from the supermarket chain Carrefour. The money will be spent on actions such as retraining, business start-ups, allowances, job search etc. The reason for the redundancies is due to the closure of one Carrefour hypermarket and competition from online shopping from non-EU sellers. We voted against as we oppose British taxpayers’ having to pay for redundancies and poor economic policies in other countries.
Objection pursuant to Rule 112: Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 (B9-0172/2019)
Criminalisation of sexual education in Poland (B9-0166/2019, B9-0167/2019, B9-0168/2019)
The Brexit Party members voted to abstain on this non-legislative report because under EU treaties Member States hold the sole competency for the implementation of education policies, including on the issue of sexual education. For many of the amendments to the resolution a free-vote was given to reflect the fact that as a diverse party our members are of many faiths or none, and hold a wide range of cultural opinions. Given that the competency for education rests with Members States and that the Brexit Party believes it should stay that way, members who abstained on any issues cannot have such votes used to determine what their particular position on an amendment might be. Members voted to abstain on the final resolution as amended because we do not believe the EU has the right to interfere in the sovereign affairs of a Member State, nor do we believe that it is right for the EU to cast judgement on the internal affairs of the Polish Government.
Financial assistance to Member States to cover serious financial burden inflicted on them following a UK's withdrawal from the EU without an agreement (A9-0020/2019 - Younous Omarjee)
Brexit Party MEPs voted against this legislative report, which concerns amending the European Union Solidarity Fund to cover the ‘financial burden’ that a no-deal Brexit could represent for Member States. We believe that this is highly political, as it is likening no-deal Brexit to a natural disaster, whilst also taking away funds from genuine natural disaster victims. For these reasons, we cannot support this report.
Effects of the bankruptcy of Thomas Cook Group (RC-B9-0118/2019, B9-0118/2019, B9-0119/2019, B9-0120/2019, B9-0121/2019, B9-0122/2019, B9-0124/2019)
The Brexit Party MEPs voted against many of the amendments on this motion for resolution concerning the effects of bankruptcy of Thomas Cook Group. Many of these are calling for more EU action to be taken and funds to be created in the event of similar events happening in the travel and tourism sector. We also voted in favour of any amendments that would reduce any future harmonisation in this area. Whilst we are of course sympathetic to those who have been affected by the collapse of Thomas Cook, more EU legislation is not the answer.
State of play of the disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches - public country-by-country reporting (B9-0117/2019)
Brexit Party MEPs voted against this motion for resolution, which calls on the Council to break its deadlock and allow legislation on the CBCR proposal to progress forward. We voted against this because we do not want the European Union to continue making more legislation, as this is the prerogative of Member States.
The Turkish military operation in northeast Syria and its consequences (RC-B9-0123/2019, B9-0123/2019, B9-0125/2019, B9-0126/2019, B9-0127/2019, B9-0128/2019, B9-0129/2019, B9-0133/2019)
Search and rescue in the Mediterranean (B9-0130/2019, B9-0131/2019, B9-0132/2019, B9-0154/2019)
The Brexit Party believes that the best way to stop the tragic loss of innocent lives in the Mediterranean is to strongly combat people smugglers who lure migrants onto unseaworthy vessels. We believe that decisions on asylum claims should be conducted under relevant international law and nation states could, as a sovereign state, choose to accept genuine refugees to enter their country.Brexit Party MEPs voted against this non-legislative resolution on the issue of search and rescue in the Mediterranean. We condemn all parties who are responsible for the unacceptably high death toll in the Mediterranean, particularly people smugglers and traffickers who facilitate dangerous and illegal crossings.The Brexit Party strongly maintains that the issue of search and rescue and securing borders is the sole competence of a Member State. We oppose the principle of the EU developing a refugee distribution mechanism, as it should be the right of a sovereign state to govern whom it allows onto its territory. We also oppose the attempt by the EU to establish legal frameworks to distinguish what forms of assistance should not be criminalised, as this is a clear infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.
Opening accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania (B9-0155/2019, RC-B9-0156/2019, B9-0156/2019, B9-0157/2019, B9-0158/2019, B9-0159/2019, B9-0160/2019, B9-0161/2019)
The Brexit Party voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We are opposed to further expansion of the European Union and are pleased to see the vetoing of further progression for these countries. We are opposed to expansion whilst the UK is currently a member of the EU, in any future transition or whilst we retain financial liabilities towards the EU. We think the EU is a poor choice for other Member States but after the UK makes a clean exit from the EU and at a time when we have no liability it is for those states to decide themselves.
Draft general budget of the European Union for 2020 - all sections
The Brexit Party voted against any increases to individual EU budget lines and voted in favour of any cuts to EU budget lines. This vote was a series of amendments to the actual figures and size of each EU budget for the year 2020. Before it arrived in Parliament for amendment, the Commission had initially proposed a budget worth EUR 168.3 billion (+1.3% compared to 2019). The Council then adopted its position of EUR 166.8 billion (slightly lower). Now it was Parliament’s turn, which ended up being much higher than either the Commission or the Council positions. There will now be a negotiation period with the Council to find a compromise. A full UK contribution for 2020 is included in the proposal.
General budget of the European Union for 2020 - all sections (A9-0017/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial)
The Brexit Party voted against this non-legislative, non-binding resolution on the EU budget for 2020. The resolution was a shopping list of what MEPs wanted from the EU budget in 2020, with many calls for radially increased funding in many areas of EU policy. The Brexit Party voted against any calls to increase the EU budget and voted in favour of any amendments to decrease the budget.
Discharge 2017: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (A9-0011/2019 - Petri Sarvamaa)
The Brexit Party voted to refuse granting discharge to the Asylum office. The discharge procedure is a process by which the European Parliament looks at the individual budgets and spending of each EU institution to give a positive or negative appraisal.In this specific case, the asylum office has had a number of problems, such as errors in payments amounting to EUR 7.7 million, breaches of procurement procedures, misappropriation of funds, mismanagement, abuse of position in human resources issues, breaches of data protection rules, harassment and inappropriate behaviour towards staff.The Brexit Party voted to refuse discharge due to all these problems, along with our principled position that we oppose British taxpayers’ having to pay for all these EU institutions and agencies.
Discharge 2017: EU general budget - European Council and Council (A9-0010/2019 - Isabel García Muñoz)
The Brexit Party voted to refuse granting discharge to the Council. The discharge procedure is a process by which the European Parliament looks at the individual budgets and spending of each EU institution to give a positive or negative appraisal.Historically the Council refuses to cooperate with the Parliament in this discharge procedure, as it contests the legal base for the Parliament to oversee its budget and 2017 was no different.We voted to refuse discharge as we believe there should be more transparency in how the Council spends its budget, along with our principled position that we oppose British taxpayers’ having to pay for all these EU institutions and agencies.
European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) (A9-0015/2019 - Vilija Blinkevičiūtė)
The Brexit Party have voted to abstain on this legislative report. Firstly, we do not believe that a no-deal Brexit would lead to significant job losses. That being said, as the UK would have left the EU by the time this legislation takes effect, and the UK would therefore have no legal obligation to contribute to this fund, the decision should be a matter for the remaining Member States to take as to how they wish this for this fund to be utilised. For this reason, the Brexit Party abstained on this report.
Fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters (A9-0014/2019 - Chris Davies)
Implementation and financing of the EU general budget in 2020 in relation to the UK's withdrawal from the EU (A9-0018/2019 - Johan Van Overtveldt)
. ‒ Brexit Party MEPs voted against this piece of legislation. This proposal is to allow the UK to continue making full budgetary contributions to the EU in 2020, in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The UK will have to meet a number of conditions such as adhering to a deadline to inform the Commission in writing that payments will be made, that the payment schedule is made on time and into a specific bank account, that the UK allows OLAF and EU auditing of EU funds on its territory.This will mean the UK can still get EU funding for 2020, that UK entities can bid for most (but not all) EU public tenders, and ensure payments for EU contracts to public and private entities in 2020 continue. However, some rights for the UK will be curtailed such as not having representation on management committees or expert groups.The Brexit Party voted against as we want a clean-break Brexit to stop making full budget payments to the EU and we believe that the UK Government should make up the shortfall for UK entities and universities that are currently receiving EU funds.
Periods of application of Regulation (EU) 2019/501 and Regulation (EU) 2019/502 (Committee on Transport and Tourism)
. ‒ The Brexit Party voted in favour of this urgency procedure. The report seeks to ensure that air and road travel is not disrupted in the case of a no-deal Brexit by updating the date of implementation to take into account the seven-month extension, as the dates in the original legislation will soon be expiring. The Brexit Party voted in favour as we support the European Parliament’s efforts to prepare for no-deal by putting contingencies in place to ensure that air and road travel is not disrupted, despite the European Union’s insistence that this would not be possible, and therefore proving that future and sincere cooperation is feasible in a no-deal scenario.
Periods of application of Regulation (EU) 2019/501 and Regulation (EU) 2019/502 ( - Karima Delli)
. ‒ The Brexit party voted in favour of this urgency procedure. The report seeks to ensure that air and road travel is not disrupted in case of no deal Brexit, updating the date of implementation to take into account the seven months extension. The Brexit party voted in favour as we support bringing forward this report in order to prepare for Brexit.
Eurojust and Serbia Cooperation Agreement (A9-0009/2019 - Juan Fernando López Aguilar)
The Brexit Party have voted to abstain on this report. Whilst data exchanges and cooperation, particularly for the purpose of combatting serious crime, are very important we do not support this being facilitated at EU level. However, if the sovereign nation of Serbia wishes to participate it would not be appropriate to block their decision. Therefore, as we support the underlying principle of cooperation and data sharing to combat serious crime, but not the EU facilitating it, we felt that abstaining was most suitable.
Draft amending budget No 4/2019: reduction of commitment and payment appropriations in line with updated needs of expenditure and update of revenue (own resources) (A9-0012/2019 - John Howarth)
The Brexit Party voted against this budgetary proposal. We would have supported the original Commission proposal as it reduced the amount of money in a number of EU budget lines and would lead to a reduction in Member States’ contributions for this year, thereby saving British taxpayers’ money. However, the rapporteur UK Labour MEP amended this resolution to redeploy the savings, meaning it would be spent in other areas of the EU budget instead of saving taxpayers’ money, so we voted against.
Adjustments to the amounts mobilised from the Flexibility Instrument for 2019 to be used for migration, refugee inflows and security threats (A9-0013/2019 - John Howarth)
The Brexit Party voted in favour of this budgetary proposal. The original Commission proposal was to reduce a payment plan for future EU spending in the field of migration and security. This proposal was linked to the Draft Amending Budget Number 4, which should have led to a reduction in Member States’ contributions; however, a Labour MEP managed to make amendments to reverse this. In this case, however, the proposition was to support the original proposal to cut EU funding, not the amendments by the rapporteur, so we voted in favour.
Objection pursuant to Rule 112: Active substances, including flumioxazine (B9-0103/2019)
The Brexit party abstained on this motion for resolution on active substances including flumioxazine. The report criticises the Commission, as they continue to extend regulated acts on allowing this substance when there are concerns as to how safe it is. The Brexit party believe that the Commission should not act in an undemocratic way without being held accountable; however, we cannot support the motion as it also calls on the Commission to create new legislation.
Objection pursuant to Rule 112: Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 (B9-0106/2019)
Foreign electoral interference and disinformation in national and European democratic processes (B9-0108/2019, B9-0111/2019)
The Brexit Party has voted against this non-legislative resolution. The Brexit Party wholeheartedly supports free and fair elections, free speech and democratic accountability. These principles, in part, are integral in our cause to leave the European Union. We believe that reports of Russian electoral interference have already been exposed as baseless propaganda in order to shut down debate and discredit legitimate democratic exercises, such as the UK referendum. Furthermore, the Brexit Party voted against the third amendment because it maliciously – and incorrectly – stated that the Leave.eu campaign received funding from foreign actors despite the National Crime Agency clearing Leave.eu of these allegations in September.
Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 and own resources: time to meet citizens' expectations (B9-0110/2019, B9-0112/2019, B9-0113/2019)
The Brexit Party voted in favour of this budgetary proposal. The original Commission proposal was to reduce a payment plan for future EU spending in the field of migration and security. This proposal was linked to the Draft Amending Budget Number 4, which should have led to a reduction in Member States contributions, however a Labour MEP managed to make amendments to reverse this. In this case, however, the proposition was to support the original proposal to cut EU funding, not on the amendments by the rapporteur so we voted in favour.
Employment and social policies of the euro area (A9-0016/2019 - Yana Toom)