kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this is the objective of the commission proposal on country by country public reporting.
we have a robust decision and will defend it in court.
apple and ireland have announced that they will appeal and they of course have the right to do so.
the public should see the number of employees what activities a company has in each country what profits they generate and what taxes they pay.
once agreed by ireland we will publish our decision for all to see and i hope that this can happen as fast as possible.
it existed only on paper. therefore there was no factual or economic justification for allocating almost all of the company's profits to the head office.
transparency is very important in an open democratic society.
in addition if the us tax authorities consider that apple should have paid a higher contribution for research and development to its us parent it could lead to a higher taxable amount in the us.
these reforms and even handed enforcement of our competition rules contribute to a fairer investment environment and a single market where companies can compete on merit as reflected in the quality of their products prices and the services they can provide and not on the basis of their tax arrangements.
the rulings therefore allowed apple sales international to pay very little tax on its profits.
firstly european tax authorities will next year start to exchange information on tax rulings a real change for the better.
to that end the eu the us and the international partners as such must work together and significant steps have already been taken by the oecd and endorsed by the
two thousand and three it is for the irish tax authorities to calculate the exact amount.
this is because apple decided to record most of its profits from european sales in ireland.
in this instance taxation is the competence of the member states and if the sovereignty of other member states was challenged i think some speakers here would be taking a different line to what they have taken so far.
eu member states have been rightly reluctant to cede autonomy over setting tax rates.
yes global corporations must pay more in tax and fair taxes but action must be taken at the g twenty or oec level not by the eu.
commissioner vestager has responded outrageously to this sovereign issue by attempting to use state aid measures to harmonise corporation taxes and to direct their collection. this is another eu power grab.
it is a tax trespass and tax breaks are not state aid. tax reform can only be achieved through international consensus by sovereign nation governments.
the apple case will not be decided here it will be decided in the european courts and the right of ireland to appeal this decision must be respected by all of us.
the european business environment will not be helped by reinventing competition rules for the us or indeed for other businesses that come into europe.
the multinational sector in ireland employs many thousands of irish people and indeed people from the european union.
the danger of having a political commission is that sometimes decisions are taken based on politics and not on law;
my final remark is this the commission now asks ireland to collect this back tax from apple while at the same time encouraging other member states to seek a portion of it.
in my view there was a clear determination on this case to get apple in the midst of this investigation irrespective of the damage done to ireland.
i find it difficult to tell the difference.
we should say no way we won't pay'.
however we should not change our ways because we are being told to do so by the commission.
you i believe commissioner but your boss i don't believe.
mr president i would like to say to commissioner vestager that global corporations of unprecedented size are making unprecedented profits but are avoiding paying taxes on those profits on an unprecedented scale thus forcing an ever increasing tax burden on small companies and on individual taxpayers in countries rich and poor right across the globe. ireland should do the right thing and accept that it has been involved in behaviour that is not in keeping with those that sought so bravely to make our nation a reality.
we should do it because it is the right thing to do in the same way that we should not borrow to burn as is demanded by another arm of this institution the ecb.
but the court will hear nothing about party politics or emotions or gut feelings.
base. not only will this make it more tricky for people to escape or to aggressively plan their taxation but also it will make it much easier for small and medium sized companies because they do not need to hire advisers in order to explain to them what they should be taxed on if they are active in more than one country maybe just
talking about what guidance we can give we have too little case practice now to make great guidelines but we have started to give guidance and to discuss in our high level state aid forum how to make sure that member states can work with this because obviously it is the responsibility of the member states to make sure that national tax legislation which is one hundred a national issue is upheld at the same
for it. thank you very much for a very qualified and encouraging debate.
not a single rule has been changed.
way. we do exactly as we used to do maximum ten years' going
aid. last but not least state aid control cannot change tax legislation.
if taxes are not being paid by some then they have to be paid by others and that is why it is not fair competition when some member states hand out selective benefits. a lot of you have been asking about the rule of law and the legal basis.
with. if a benefit is handed out as a selective benefit to a particular company it has to be taken
a lot of you mentioned small and medium sized businesses.
no this is exactly the way things are always dealt
door. it is either in the national parliaments as done in ireland a couple of years ago where the double irish was done away
this is also why mr hayes this cannot be a political decision.
treaty. i think we are up to eighty or ninety now which frees up resources for us to look at the more tricky cases where you have a true cross border issue and where fair competition is at
this was where data came out that enabled the commission to get concerned that something may not be as it ought to be that there was a risk of state aid being handed
with; or it is by unanimity in the council of ministers and we do that by the front door to propose to ministers to make things easier.
therefore the court has several times committed to the fact that we should be fair and transparent.
time as what we have decided in common in eu state aid rules. bernd lucke asked about why just now. well actually this is a very good example of why we need transparency because this case was only opened because of hearings in the us senate.
stake. i also lastly thank you for the encouragement to work within the oecd and the g twenty because obviously this is a global
if tax legislation is to be changed it is done by the front
this goes back to the very beginning because our founding fathers saw very clearly that you cannot have fairness and fair competition if rich member states or decisive member states hand out selective benefits to some companies which are not available to others. the courts have said very clearly that state aid can come in many forms it can be a very cheap piece of
these are businesses who pay their taxes. these are businesses who contribute by taking apprentices. these are businesses where you do not find the same statistics as i am quite sure that my colleague pierre moscovici has presented to you as you see with multinationals in terms of tax burden and taxes being paid.
the only secrecy here was the tax rulings and that is why unpaid taxes have to be paid just as well as other selective benefits will have to be repaid if they are seen to be illegal state
the encouragement to do what we do which is very basic to enforce competition law and our state aid rules so as to ensure fair competition.
it is built on the rule of law it is built on due process and it will of course be tested by our courts because of the completely legitimate opportunity for ireland to appeal.
because stand alone companies the small and medium sized businesses who are on their own they have to do their thing in the market.
they want the facts of the case the court practice how the case has been decided previously and that of course will be tested.
taxation where everyone participates in paying their fair share not more and not less and where all the companies who pay their taxes to see that we have fair competition and that we are willing to work
commissioner moscovici said it is strange for the irish to say i do not want your eur thirteen billion when they could have social programmes'.
many irish politicians already have.
can you guarantee that commissioner?
so commissioner can you guarantee the eur thirteen billion to ireland if the ecj agrees with you? or will other countries look for their share of that particular cake? commissioner moscovici has basically guaranteed that we can start drawing up plans for schools and hospitals and houses;
i do not know the answer to that question and crucially i do not know the implications of a positive answer.
that company and many other companies with whom you made these secret tax rulings at the expense of the taxpayers in ireland and in other countries including mine?
how many people would have been saved and better treated in your hospitals in ireland? how many people could go through education and have better job opportunities if your government had the opportunity for public investment and other measures with the money that you are saving
when the commission said jump to a savage austerity agenda they simply asked how harsh?
rather than spending irish taxpayers' money on this appeal our government should instead be restoring our international reputation by ensuring that ireland will never again be part of the international tax avoidance racket.
i'm sure you commissioner and many of your fellow federalists in this room are scratching their heads wondering what's happened to your best friends in the irish political establishment.
this ruling has no effect whatsoever on our tax rate or our ability to attract inward investment or to create jobs.
the announced appeal is morally wrong politically dishonest and economically stupid.
when the eu said eur sixty four billion and private bank debt should be placed on the shoulders of the irish people or when you demanded new water or property taxes your friends in fine gael and fianna fil quickly capitulated.
madam president i've stood in this chamber on countless occasions to defend the rights of national parliaments to set their own tax rates and i do so again today.
when you proposed trade deals with investment courts that would do more to undermine sovereignty than any commission ruling your irish friends proudly say we'll champion that for you'.
sinn fin will always defend ireland's sovereignty as we have on every occasion when it's been attacked by the european commission including on taxation matters but this ruling is not one of those occasions.
not in the interests though of the irish people or the irish economy but in the interests of the wealthiest corporations in the world and our global web of tax avoidance.
any investors seeking to remain in or come to ireland can be assured of a talented workforce and a.
i guess that there are opportunities and there will be opportunities to deal with corporations on an international scale.
absolutely right;
we have to raise tax for them. the second point should the eu be overriding national sovereignty and misusing state aid competition rules to do so?
the issue in relation to apple and tax it has paid fully its tax in ireland.
i think you are misinformed about that.
as you rightly say i asked the question how are we supposed to be the international tax collector in a circumstance where this money may well be owed to other member states?
this money does not belong to ireland this money belongs to other member states where profits have been made.
do you not believe that is the correct way that we are moving forward and that every country should sign up to that both european and international?
also do you think that profits that apple made on products that were sold across the european union should have been taxed in ireland?
it's really a pleasure to hear so much support for the sort of policies we've been working for here in the public debate but sometimes we haven't had so much support from other groups in in our committee work.
particularly on full public countrybycountry reporting we've been fighting for this for quite a long time so i'd be very pleased to hear if cora's group have now decided to support that.
it is one of the most dangerous trees in the world. to eat its fruit is deadly.
as part of the eu's march to nation statehood it needs to finance its overambitious policies this parliament civil service courts foreign policy and of course the burgeoning eu army.
to raise money it must have taxes.
the apple tax ruling forms part of the eu's long standing plan which includes vat and the common consolidated corporation tax base to take control of eu citizens' taxes directly.
the apple tax ruling is an attack on the tax sovereignty of eu nation states by the back door and the eu has weaponised eu competition law and in particular state aid rules to achieve this.
the ruling is a massive problem for those europhiles and conservative ministers who believe we should stay in the single market or want even eea status. remaining in either will lead the uk to be part of the eu's competition law acquis and eu state aid rules.
either could lead to retrospective tax rulings and stop us from having an independent competitive tax policy.
just as the manzanilla tree is the little apple of death for those that eat its fruit the eu is the big apple of death to prosperity and freedom.
people seem to be discovering this point only because we have a good competition commissioner.
beyond this point what i want to stress is that i do not think that tax competition is a problem.
but you promote the lever as you suggest of competition law being used to enable this parliament and this european union to take taxes off nation states.
do you not see that this lever is taxation of nation states by the eu by the back door?
i know more than yourself. you probably heard tim cook ceo of apple on rte ireland's national broadcaster who said that the reason he was in ireland was because of the people and the workers and not because of the tax.
do you not believe him?
we have also included provisions on transparency requirements. for example the banks will have to disclose profits made taxes paid and subsidies received country by country as well as turnover and number
members will be fully aware of the key elements of the text on which you will be voting later today but allow me simply to highlight a few important points. perhaps the most fundamental is that banks will have to hold more and better capital and comply with liquidity management requirements.
of this parliament. it constitutes a major step towards better regulation of the financial services industry and should therefore help rebuild the trust and confidence of our citizens in europe's financial services sector.
taking. we have in particular agreed in addition to the systemic risk buffer of capital that member states may introduce on a buffer that will be specifically applicable to systemically important institutions. this will be mandatory for global systemically important institutions. the rules on capital buffers have been carefully drafted to ensure a proper balance between the supervisory interests of home and host states of banking institutions. member states may adopt national measures to counter macro prudential or systemic risks at national level but sufficient safeguards have been included to prevent any disruptions to the single
which deserve particular attention. firstly as we all know the european union faces huge challenges in raising its competitiveness and achieving strong economic growth. we therefore have to balance the necessary accumulation of capital buffers and liquidity by banks with ensuring that adequate funding is released to the real economy and particularly to smes. i think that the package we have negotiated does indeed provide sufficient incentives to achieve the latter.
twenty five of the bonus by deferred instruments at discounted rate. i think this is a good compromise which should help to discourage excessive risk taking. as far as supervision is concerned the role of the banking authority will be enhanced given the large number of important supervisory tasks which have been
coverage requirement as well as limits on exposures to shadow
secondly while the basel accords concern the largest global banks our text covers both banks and investment firms. we have therefore had to include specific provisions to take account of this whilst ensuring that we still comply with global rules and meet the prudential business requirements.
delegated to it. our agreement on this legislative package does not mean that our work is at an end. the experience we gain in implementing the legislation will need to be assessed and evaluated. a number of review clauses have been built into the text which could lead to improvements in the future. they cover for example funding for all forms of long term financing for the economy the regime applicable to large exposures and the liquidity
banking entities. overall we consider that the result reached at the end of our negotiations is a satisfactory outcome and we very much hope that it will receive the support
market any violation of basel rules and any undermining of prudential supervision. concerning net stable funding ratio leverage ratio and liquidity coverage ratio we have agreed on a set of rules that strike the right balance between the basel requirements prudential supervision and our ambition to ensure both a secure financial sector and europe's international competitiveness.
of employees. from two thousand and fourteen these should be reported to the commission and from two thousand and fifteen they should be made publically available. the package also includes an agreement on the capping of bankers' bonus pay at a ratio of eleven to the fixed part of the annual remuneration. there are some possibilities for a degree of flexibility in raising this ratio to twenty one with shareholder involvement and the possibility of paying
this will be a major safeguard of stability in the financial sector and discourage unreasonable risk
printing money is counterfeiting.
you could hang for it. we have this extraordinary situation where we have had regulation lots of regulation which has been the wrong sort of regulation has it not?
it is illegal; if a private citizen did it they would go to jail. so let us look into our own hearts. all the very unpleasant arrangements that politicians bureaucrats and central bankers have between them at the expense of the taxpayer let us end them and let us end them now.
the problem which we have is a flawed banking system a fractional reserve banking system where bankers can lend money that they do not have.
i would like to see some central bankers in prison.
we must have a commodity bank on the one hand and an investment bank on the other.
what we have actually had here is criminal activity by banks and not a single banker has been sent to prison.
it is bound to happen because we have not addressed the real problems and that is the eu's fractional reserve banking system.
that is extraordinary billions of pounds have been taken away from taxpayers taken away from depositors and bondholders and yet not a single banker is in jail.
well by that definition by your definition a shock is people turning up wanting their money back.
and so we have had another disaster.
mr president it has indeed been a long and technical negotiation but the final package is good. i would really prefer less of a regulatory arms race on complexity and encouragement away from derivative products but that is for another day.
who has paid tax and where will be revealed by country by country reporting for banks and take note this is the forward march into all sectors.
similarly we have taken the progressive line of exempting all not just eu corporate hedging from excessive cva charges at least until better calibration is done.
on trade finance europe has now led the world and i thank colleagues for their support.
the whole area of cva is at best incomplete and at worst ill conceived for the eu developing countries and anywhere else that in contrast to the us does not have active cds markets for corporates in which to hedge the cva charge.
with growth scarce it is the wrong time to treat trade unfavourably so we have recognised the lower risk of short term trade finance loans that are underpinned by the trade of goods and services.
it has begun here.
there is balance in the constrained flexibility on capital buffers macro prudential controls and single market precautions and the role of eva in resolution plans and other areas has been reinforced.
who has misbehaved will be checked on an eu wide bankers blacklist with authorities required to check a banker's past.
bonuses inevitably take the limelight masking other important work but realignment of the pay bonus ratio to reasonable proportions reduces perverse incentives to risky behaviour even if the total pay remains the same.
that is the balance that has to be found.
ms bowles referred to this as a good compromise in terms of striking a balance and i very strongly support that.
we were united in sharing the single objective of ensuring that europe emerges from the current financial and economic crisis stronger and most crucially better able to serve its citizens.
i can inform you today that the council can support this amendment as part of the overall package and i am happy to be in a position to say that.
this amendment deals with the treatment of repos for the purposes of the calculation of the leverage ratio. it has been suggested that to use the text in its current draft form would not be wise until a more comprehensive examination of the issues at hand has been undertaken at the basel committee.
better financial regulation and stronger banks within the european union are one of the building blocks in this context.
of course i understand that some of you may not be entirely comfortable with certain aspects of the final political agreement.
the result of our negotiations is quite clearly a compromise but i think it is a very good compromise.
in two thousand and ten i worked with mr karas to put in place rules to ensure that bonuses were deferred and could be clawed back and that up front cash bonuses were limited.
in two thousand and ten seventy six of the people surveyed supported a cap on bonuses and higher financial regulation.
it is the failure of the banks to self regulate on bonuses or to exercise restraint that has now resulted in a bonus cap with a one to one one to two salary to bonus ratio.
this broken culture is rejected by the public.
on the issue of bankers' remuneration we know that remuneration packages can increase risk taking dramatically and do need global regulation. indeed i have supported measures to bring a remuneration package that is more long dated and risk sensitive but the bonus cap is a blunt tool which can result in being front loaded.
that amendment has been dropped from the text since the committee vote in may last year.
i have supported moves towards the global standard and towards a more level playing field.
in particular we believe it is important that losses are borne by equity holders and subordinated debtors before pain is shared with senior debtors depositors or the state.
however many of these were given up during negotiations and as a result we have a package which is not compliant with basel in a number of areas.
in the committee vote a year ago a number of changes were made to try to align eu legislation with global standards.