Activities of Gunnar HÖKMARK related to 2010/2105(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Innovative financing at a global and European level (debate)
Amendments (20)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that successful implementation of the 20-20-20 targets requires substantial financial commitment and new ways of supplementing existing financing for initiatives tackling climate change and energy challenges; encourages efforts by the Commission and Member States to find innovative means of financing through a shift towards basing taxation systems on carbon emissions as this would create revenues for the budgetary authorities and climate-friendly incentives to consumers and industry, including ways to encourage consumers and industry to shift towards a lower carbon emission environment;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges the divergent forms of carbon tax that already exist in some Member States and warns against the risk they pose to competitiveness in the Single Market and interference with the EU ETS; believes in the greater benefit of introducing carbon taxation in a coordinated manner; calls on the Commission to further examine possible instruments for coordinating carbon taxation for non-ETS sectors at EU levelrecognises that several EU Member States have had a carbon based energy tax framework for many years; believes that Member States can learn the best possible practise from each other in their methods of taxation and minimise interference with the EU ETS;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas in the EU in particular the cost of the bail-outs has triggered a subsequent fiscal and debt crisisadded to the debt crisis, caused by over spending, that has placed a burden on public budgets and severely endangered job creation and welfare state provision,
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that any innovative form of EU-coordinated climate change taxation should have its revenues earmarked forMember States may consider allocating revenues from climate change taxation to financinge R&D and measures aimed at reducing carbon emissions, stimulating energy efficiency and improving energy infrastructure in the EU;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls upon the commission and the European Central Bank to investigate the moral hazard implications for Member States of financing critical infrastructure projects via EU Project-bonds or Euro- bonds, especially where such infrastructure projects have a trans- national reach;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
K a. whereas the European Parliament has already asked the Commission to perform an impact assessment and provide an analysis of the positive merits of a FTT, hence, the European Parliament should wait for this analysis before taking further action,
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the work carried out so far by the Commission, but deplores its obvious reluctance to make concrete proposals and its failurethe failure of the Commission to respond to the call made by Parliament in its resolution of March 2010 for a feasibility study on an EU-based FTT;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the introduction of an FTT could help to tackle the growing and highly damaging trading patterns in financial markets, such as short-termism and automated HFT, and curb speculation; stresses thatAsks the Commission for an analysis taking into account the consequences of an FTT would thus improve market efficiency, reduce excessive price volatility and create incentives for the financial sector to make long-term investments with added value for the real economyon trade and countries that need capital in order to perform new investments and to finance budget deficits;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. SEven thouldgh no international agreement will be reached within the next few months, urges the EU to move ahead with legislative proposals on theregarding an introduction of a FTT, it is significant that there is no introduction of an EU -FTT; stresses that a low rate between 0.01 and 0.05% would prevent major shifts in activity towards other, lower-taxed jurisdictionince it would be damaging for the European financial markets;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that some EU Member States have already introduced similar types of transaction taxes with no apparent negative impacta clear negative consequence;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Notes that the experience of the introduction of a FTT in Sweden had highly negative consequences for the Swedish economy and was very difficult to implement;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission also to address in its feasibility study the geographical asymmetry of transactions and revenues and the possibility of a graded or differentiated rate on the basis of the asset category, the nature of the actor involved or the short-term and speculative nature of the transactionimpact of a FTT on those countries that have high sovereign debts and that are in need of an enhancement of financial transactions to recover from the crisis;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Fully supportConsiders Eurobonds as a common debt management instrument based on mutual pooling of parts of sovereign debt to safeguard low interest rates; calls on the Commission to move forward with an in-depth impact assessment regarding the feasibility of Eurobondsrisky, since it could have a reverse effect on the European economy, eliminiating the natural market sanctions with differentiated market rates reflecting sovereign debt;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Notes that the mutualisation of sovereign debt could lead to a moral hazard problem that follows from the bailing out of Member States not capable of following the SGP;