kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this means that there is no other place in the world where companies and employees are paying as much tax as here.
it must be about addressing those who are bending the rules and those who are breaking the rules.
it must not be about increasing taxes.
it must be very clear there is a responsibility for national authorities in cooperation with each other to minimise all of these things that are undermining taxation.
it would be better to simplify the tax system so that the taxpayer could be certain of his or her tax liability rather than add a layer of complexity with antiavoidance rules which will scare ordinary people away from making sensible investments for the future and into paying more tax than they need to do today.
the prospect of a financial transaction tax is also being discussed in working documents aimed at creating a eurozone budget.
we know this actually from david cameron's socalled renegotiation which attempts to protect the british economy from these costs but will fail to do so.
clearly the eu is too scared of british public opinion to tell us before our eu referendum but we can put the pieces of the jigsaw together.
the report recommends an eu wide withholding tax and an eu exit tax added to which are proposals in committee for a global register of assets held by individuals.
in a free market context competition is always a good thing and tax competition between jurisdictions is always and everywhere a good thing.
the effect of such tax harmonisation is always to increase taxes to reduce competitiveness in this case of european economies and ultimately it is the individual consumer who pays more because these costs are simply passed on.
madam president the committee's amendments urge the eu to introduce a common consolidated corporate tax base.
the eu's solution is to destroy globally competitive business environments because it envies them.
not only that but in the eu the state is to be given more weapons with which to intimidate ordinary taxpayers.
general rules against tax avoidance as proposed today by the commission will be difficult to interpret and will consequently give the state a large stick with which to threaten the ordinary taxpayer.
this is clearly intended as a move towards a harmonised corporate tax rate.
if countries like britain want to have a globally competitive environment in which to create business jobs and wealth then we must leave an eu which is intent on harmonising taxes.
any attempt by governments to harmonise taxes is a conspiracy by those governments against the interests of taxpayers.
countries with high tax economies like socialist france cannot compete with countries which have lower corporate tax rates such as ireland.
we are also being asked to endorse the committee's proposal for an eu tax identification number.
not content with just its own budget the eurozone wants to use the eu's general budget as a means to keep the euro on life support.
these rules will not be used against large corporates as is claimed they will be used by the state against those who cannot afford expensive lawyers.
put these things together and you have the necessary building blocks for a wealth tax on citizens.
i believe parts of this proposal are rushed there are unintended consequences here and for people who claim to be in favour of tax sovereignty they should read what is in this report before they vote tomorrow.
mr president i believe that the setting of tax rates is a member state competence and i think where reports such as this go beyond that particular competence it is incumbent on all of us to take a stance against that.
the objective of the oecd base erosion and profit shifting process that my country is fundamentally in favour of and has been leading is to increase the tax take in europe cut out aggressive tax planning but not distort the market in such a way against european businesses in a circumstance where eu businesses pay fifteen more than us businesses.
it should be decided at a member state level and should not be imposed by this parliament or other parliaments of the twenty eight member states of the european union.
we have to address that issue at its source.
tax sovereignty in my view is a fundamental principle.
this is unfair and it is unjust because aggressive tax planning by multinationals leads to a loss of between eur one hundred to two hundred and fifty billion every year in member states' budgets.
i am sure that individuals in small organisations pay more proportionally. the other day i was speaking to some small business representatives in my constituency in the west midlands.
we have to address this and the bayet report does this and my congratulations to the rapporteur.
the g twenty has shown its clear commitment and we need to be doing the same.
this builds upon our earlier work where we call for country by country reporting for all companies as applied in the financial sector.
corporate tax evasion is a global problem which requires global solutions.
i particularly welcome the precise definition of what constitutes a tax haven.
one of the issues they raised and which they want europe to tackle is this unfair competition from multinationals to the sme sector.
all the while irish and european authorities have pushed taxes and charges on ordinary families who are already struggling to cope.
mr president my home country of ireland has a reputation as an enabler of massive tax avoidance for large corporations and the wealthiest in society and unfortunately the perception is true.
the response needs to be truly international.
the loopholes in the irish system have been designed to perfectly complement the loopholes in the us tax law to benefit massive us corporations.
worst of all we know from the tax committee that the eu wants to create a global register of all assets held by individuals no doubt in anticipation of an eu wealth tax on all citizens.
we all know where this is going the eu wants to tax the british directly if we are mad enough to stay in.
the fact is that if you leave politicians to their own devices they will simply keep increasing and increasing rates of taxation and the result of that will actually be that they damage the economy they kill the goose that lays the golden egg and they collect less tax.
if you have tax rates which are too high and you then increase them you reduce the revenues you have less money for education and health and all those good things that you want.
if i can get one message out into this chamber today it is that raising tax rates does not increase revenues beyond a certain reasonable limit.
well of course that is the sort of nonsense we expect from the left.
this is a good step forward and a clear indication that anyone who cares about tackling tax dodging should see that the uk is best placed to carry on the fight by staying in the european union.
tax dodging just like pollution climate change and international crime does not respect borders.
they want to know what the eu does and they want to know why it might be better or worse for us to be part of a union of twenty eight countries working together or to be on our own.
we have to take a collaborative approach to tackling this problem if we are ever to succeed and i am delighted that this is what is happening at eu level.
i welcome this ambition.
the commission's original proposal was good but my sd colleague hugues bayet has made it even better more ambitious in its scope and more precise in its definitions of key concepts where ambiguity only serves those who are looking to dodge tax.
it should set the templates for how we in the eu tackle tax dodging leading the way internationally and setting the example for other jurisdictions to follow.
i am delighted to give hugues' report my support and i would urge finance ministers like george osborne in ecofin next week to take on board his recommendations and make the anti tax avoidance directive as ambitious as possible.
in its proposal for an anti tax avoidance directive the commission proposes to implement three of the oecd's recommendations and has introduced a further three recommendations where the eu can and should go further.
real people in the south east of england they want information.
in fact it thrives in the mismatches that happen when countries do not speak to one another when they do not cooperate and so helpful little loopholes emerge.
i have to say it is hard to think of a more compelling case where collective action works than fighting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
we should remember that interest payments are legitimate investment costs.
i understand that some member states would consider stricter thresholds but this is perfectly possible as article three of the directive underlines the de minimis principle which allows member states to be more ambitious in application of the directive.
there are a number of other anti business measures in the report. i hope they will be softened or eliminated in the final vote. i would like to call on the parliament to focus on genuinely fighting tax avoidance rather than yielding to populist sentiment and punishing european companies with excessive taxation.
obviously you have to help the less fortunate and those who are sick but you should be allowed to keep the fruits of your own labour.
we support the fight against tax evasion and aggressive tax planning;
we support the implementation at eu level of international commitments that our government has entered into.
we want to see increased transparency but we do not support the rapporteur's ambitions of going far beyond what the oecd is proposing.
this report should have focused on the council's priority of ensuring that taxes are paid where value is generated. instead the rapporteur seems more interested in looking at the rates at which activities are taxed. that is not our business rather it is unwanted interference in the rights of member states to decide on their own tax policies.
we do not support a common corporate tax base or the establishment of an eu tax inspectorate with european tax identification numbers for companies.
we need to understand in this house that imposing far stricter rules in the eu than in the rest of the oecd will impact on international investment it will reduce growth and jobs.
by acting through the oecd we will ensure that member states not only fulfil their obligations but remain competitive in international markets.
we must ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share of taxes.
i just want to remind him that angel gurria secretarygeneral of the oecd said of ireland i am very happy very proud to say ireland has been a strong and very exemplary case of adapting and adopting'.
we do not think though that tax harmonisation is the way to go because the setting of tax rates is a matter for the member states' competence.
we saw in the panama papers that there were not very many us companies there mentioned as transferring their profits and that is obviously because they do not need to because they have their own internal tax havens in the states of delaware and nevada. we as greens published a report recently demonstrating that so i would like to ask cora whether she would support a proposal to have a withholding tax on such transfers by companies when it is not clear why the transfers are being made and what the implications are in terms of tax.
i think there are things we can cooperate on and i think that has to be done at eu level to reduce aggressive tax planning but i fundamentally disagree with you.
i believe that tax competition is a good thing.
it is a way of ensuring that we can promote industrial policy in poorer parts of the european union peripheral parts of the european union parts of the european union that did not have colonies parts of the european union where there was no industrial revolution parts of the european union where there is now a strong industrial and enterprise culture.
mr helmer you are right. tax competition is a good thing.
the question is for whom?
secondly i hope to see the council reach swift agreement on this directive because it is a muchneeded fix.
thirdly i believe that there are other items on the agenda needed in order to achieve fair efficient and simple taxation in the internal market.
that would ensure a lower rate for everybody. this is important because i believe that we need a system that energises growth a tax system that is built for growth ensuring that fair rules are respected and that the economy works for everybody.
so we must be sensitive to the fact that most firms do pay taxes fairly and by economic activity by employment they are contributing to the prosperity of our society.
second let me say that we should not forget that this is just the beginning.
i also welcome parliament's agreement that it is necessary to build up complementary occupational pensions and to ensure that these are designed in such a way as not to hamper mobility on the labour market.
i would like to assure you that the commission believes as outlined in the pensions adequacy report published in two thousand and twelve that first pillar public pensions should and will remain the main source of old age income in the foreseeable future.
it made an essential contribution to the two thousand and twelve european year of active ageing and intergenerational solidarity.
retired citizens with a decent income. the white paper outlines how this can be achieved by balancing time spent in work and retirement and by saving more in supplementary pensions.
in particular the messages of the white paper have been strongly reiterated in the european semester's country specific recommendations. today the majority of member states have adopted reforms which enable and encourage men and women to work longer.
the thrust of mrs oomen ruijten's report equally confirms that there is a shared political will to face up to the challenges that our pension systems are facing and take relevant steps to safeguard their future.
i welcome the report's call on the member states to thoroughly evaluate the potential reforms taking into account changing life expectations so as to guarantee a decent living standard and economic independence for people in old age.
since the publication of the white paper last february we have achieved good progress in this implementation.
i note the concerns expressed in the report about safeguarding the importance of first pillar public pensions.
when we presented the white paper in february two thousand and twelve we aimed to show how to ensure against the background rightly mentioned by mrs oomen ruijten of ageing populations and fiscal constraints that our pension systems remain both sustainable and capable of providing
that is of course a great interest of ours. we want the eu twenty seven to be stable and prosperous but it would be a very sad thing if that lack of reciprocal goodwill were to lead to a suboptimal outcome.
it is a pity because we ought to be approaching these talks in a spirit of seeking mutually beneficial outcomes.
we want to have wealthy customers next door.
it was as he put it a gentleman's agreement.
presumably the same logic applies both ways round.
you rarely hear a speech by the british prime minister in which she does not look forward to a warm and close partnership with the eu and wish our neighbours every success.
but when the uk's brexit secretary david davis said exactly the same thing this house exploded in one of those moments of gibbering rage that we occasionally get even putting an attack on him into the resolution on which we have just voted.
that was very important and the efforts that they made to understand that issue are to be commended and are well recognised where i come from;
two i want to thank michel barnier in particular and his team and mr verhofstadt and his team here in the parliament for their particular attention to the irish question the good friday agreement the need to ensure that no border would be put in place on the island of ireland.
mr president after six months of negotiations the british have finally put their signature to something that recognises that different arrangements need to be put in place for the north of ireland a form of special status if you like but they are already going back on it. i am pleased that this resolution calls them out on that but we need to be very vigilant that is the european parliament the eu negotiators and the irish government.
we all need to make sure that there is no going back on the commitments of last week's communiqu.
the north of our country cannot be pushed back or placed under the yoke of british selfinterest once more. this resolution gives us the means to ensure that this does not happen.
it gives us the means to protect the good friday agreement including trade and open borders as well as rights and equality.
we are not there yet;
we have not achieved the full outworkings of ensuring that all of ireland remains together within all the eu frameworks yet.
the agreement provides the scope to achieve that.
we must redouble our efforts if we are going to get to that essential position.
an agreement is an agreement.
it is most important that eu citizens' right to live study work and unite with their families in the uk must be turned into law after brexit.
i also fully support irish people in ensuring continued free movement between the republic of ireland and northern ireland. i just do not see how to avoid a hard border when the uk leaves the single market.
the treaty principles are non negotiable.
the internal market with its freedom is indivisible.
the time has come to tell the truth about the consequences of leaving the single market.
even the best free trade agreement is a setback compared to single market benefits.
i fully supported this resolution because it means we can move forward and in the new year we will face discussions on the transition phase and on a future partnership with the united kingdom.
as has been said here in this house we all want a good relationship going into the future with our uk neighbours and partners but i will repeat my concerns around the ultimate solution to the irish border question.
today the united kingdom is part of the single market and customs union and the situation on the border is invisible as we want it to continue.
it would be the best solution to the conundrum if the united kingdom would remain in the single market and the customs union although we know that if that is not the case they will still have to come forward with very unique solutions to solve this conundrum.
mr president i voted for the resolution on the brexit negotiations with a heavy heart in the knowledge that it is the wrong solution for the united kingdom.
but the question before this house is whether or not the negotiations have made sufficient progress and unlike october when there was no joint agreement to vote on it is clear that progress has been made but sufficient progress means just that not a conclusion.
while i welcome what has been achieved on citizens' rights not least for the unborn grandchildren that i may have who won't be english or german or scottish or irish or even geordie or schwaben in their identity;
and to those who write to me constantly on this issue i say don't give up.
lobby your mps at westminster and make sure that you have a meaningful vote and they have a meaningful vote on the final deal.
criminal reports of violence against women last year.
on lgbt rights the record is also worrying.
instead i believe we need to focus on renewables.
if you want to encourage investment in jobs make sure you have politicians in place who are open to business and are not protectionist.
last year i was invited to italy to speak at a conference on reindustrialisation and the reason this conference was held was because the british gas group had spent eur two hundred and fifty million and eleven years on a project in brindisi to try and build a liquefied natural gas terminal and after eleven years of bureaucracy it simply gave up.
they said what is it about our country that we have stopped this investment that would have created jobs?
it is the neoliberal logic that says that it is workers and their families who should pay for this crisis and that the right of big business to amass vast profits is sacred and must not be questioned.
he might have added that it was his first experience of european integration.
the essential flaw of common ownership is that nobody has an incentive to treat the resource as renewable.
mr president in a speech as prime minister before the french national assembly tony blair once recalled his experience as a waiter in paris. there had apparently been a deal among all the waiters that they would put their tips collectively into a single pot and at the end of the week they would share the money out equally.
several weeks went by before he realised that he was the only person putting his tips into the collective pot and as he told the assembly to the delight of the right and the horror of the left it was his first experience of socialism.
we are one of the few countries in the eu which is not reliant on imports and yet we face these attempts at harmonisation.
with energy policy we can see coming up all of the worst aspects of the common fisheries policy.
mr president major accidents related to offshore oil and gas operations can have devastating and irreversible consequences.
we must minimise the risk of these accidents and in the event of an accident occurring in union waters deploy an effective response in a timely manner. for the time being there is no database at union level to collect and share data on accidents;
even if the retirement age were to rise significantly and even if these calculations are over estimated there is still a yawning gap between what we are currently providing and what we need to provide.
and thirdly an individual third pillar system based on savings with special incentives for those on lower incomes the self employed and those with incomplete contributions.
finally in the case of those who need to leave work or simply to work part time in order to carry out care duties we must ensure the introduction of care related pension credits so that those persons do not lose out on their pensions and become the next generation of poorer older people mainly women.
so we need a multi pillar pension approach and this would include three axes as it were.
of course if we look around europe we find it has had precisely the opposite effect.
the areas which have had the biggest per capita gdp handouts have remained stuck in the squalor of dependency.
like individuals entire nations can begin to arrange their affairs around qualifying for subsidies. the great fallacy behind the european project is the idea that you should be part of a big uniform unit.
it sounds plausible but it turns out not to be true.
if it were true then china would be wealthier than hong kong and indonesia would be wealthier than singapore and the eu for that matter would be wealthier than switzerland.
at the end of the day we have safety whether it is done at a common european level or at national level.
uk meps have made clear since the start of this process that what we need to see from the rest of the eu is action to bring other countries up to the high standards we have set at home as a result of that piper alpha disaster.
but the important thing to do is to make sure that we deliver it in a way that is also sustainable for our economies.
it slaps a massive import tariff making solar panels more expensive and delaying the day when people will adapt and take up clean sustainable solar energy. please can we have some joined up thinking then maybe we can have a cleaner future.
the challenge is how to deliver press regulation which supports a free press and free speech while protecting the vulnerable and the innocent. i agree with david cameron's proposal for self regulation with a minimum of interference from legislation.
on that basis i cannot support any extra interference by the european union.
the eu should resist the temptation to introduce overly complicated and inflexible legislation which would impede rather than enhance freedom of the press.