Update: Amendmends are now available.
Vote results and texts adopted will be added when available.
On 14 and 15 December 2017, EU leaders will convene in four different settings with varying compositions and levels of formality: a regular summit of the European Council, a Leaders’ meeting on migration, a European Council (Article 50) meeting, and an enlarged Euro Summit. The agenda of the formal European Council concentrates on defence, social policy, and education and culture, whilst the informal Leaders’ meeting will focus exclusively on migration, and notably on the reform of the Common European Asylum System. At the European Council (Article 50) meeting, EU leaders will consider the Commission’s recommendation that ‘sufficient progress’ has been made in the negotiations with the United Kingdom, and decide whether to move to the next phase. The enlarged Euro Summit will discuss further developments in the euro area, the banking union and the gradual completion of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).
MEPs will discuss progress in the Brexit talks with EU Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans and chief negotiator Michel Barnier before putting forward a number of recommendations.
he concept of ICTs covers a broad spectrum of technologies, ranging from information technology (IT) through telecommunications, broadcast media, and all types of audio and video processing and transmission to network-based control and monitoring functions. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) and data and internet access services have taken the place of traditional telephone services as the key products for both consumers and businesses. Although linear broadcasting continues to be the principal medium of information distribution and entertainment in Europe, more and more audiovisual content is available on demand and 4G and 5G internet connectivity is subject to exponential growth. As a consequence, the EU has set up a regulatory framework for telecommunications covering fixed and wireless telecoms, internet, broadcasting and transmission services, through a series of rules which apply throughout the EU Member States.
Answer given by Mr Avramopoulos on behalf of the Commission to a question (Rule 130) by Lucy Anderson (S&D) regarding ‘Thefts of metal items’.
Question for written answer to the Commission (Rule 130) by Raymond Finch (EFDD) regarding “Article 50”.
With taxation constantly in the headlines as one tax leak follows another, the question of which tax jurisdictions are regularly associated with the schemes revealed has gained in importance. Broadly speaking, tax havens provide taxpayers, both legal and natural persons, with opportunities for tax avoidance, while their secrecy and opacity also serves to hide the origin of the proceeds of illegal and criminal activities. One may ask why establishing a list of tax havens is useful. Drawing up such a list started with the actions to stop harmful tax practices arising from the discrepancy between the global reach of financial flows and the geographically limited scope of jurisdictions, matching or inside national borders. This difference is central to the inter-connected issues of tax avoidance, tax evasion and fraud, and money laundering. Whatever name is used (tax haven, offshore centre, non-cooperative jurisdiction) they all have in common that they make it possible to escape taxation: low or zero taxation, a fictitious residence (with no bearing on reality) and tax secrecy. The last two are key for hiding the ultimate beneficial owner, and consequently for money laundering. In short, the tax-haven issue reveals the discrepancy between real economic activity and the form and appearance given to it, through complex and global schemes. In the EU, the process of adopting a common list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions was initiated as part of efforts towards good governance in tax, and the external dimension thereof. On 5 December 2017, the Council adopted a first common list. Full article…
Question for written answer to the Commission (Rule 130) by Notis Marias (ECR) on ” Illegal passport controls carried out by the Belgian authorities within the Schengen area on passengers arriving by air from Greece”.
One of the 16 key elements of the Commission’s digital single market strategy, presented in 2015, was a legislative proposal to facilitate the free flow of non-personal data. Although this proposal was not made during 2016, whilst the Commission gathered more supporting evidence, the mid-term review of the digital single market in 2017 identified the data economy as one of the top three priority areas for action in the second half of the strategy’s implementation. The European data economy could grow 18-fold, with favourable policy and legislative conditions in place, representing 4 % of EU GDP by 2020. On 13 September 2017, the Commission tabled a proposal for a regulation aimed at removing obstacles to the free movement of non-personal data across borders. It focuses on removing the geographical restrictions on data storage in the internal market, a move long demanded by stakeholders. In addition, the Commission proposes self-regulation to facilitate switching cloud-service-providers for professional users. Other, less widely agreed aspects, such as access rights and liability are left for future proposals. Within the European Parliament, the file has been assigned to the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee.
Over the past two decades, an ‘open’ internet and the spread of digital technologies have brought great economic benefits on both sides of the Atlantic. At the same time, the spread of insecure digital technologies has also enabled costly new forms of crime, and created systemic risks to transatlantic and national critical infrastructure, threatening economic growth and development. The transnational nature of these phenomena make it very difficult for effective policy solutions to be implemented unilaterally by any one jurisdiction. Cooperation between stakeholders in both the EU and US is required in the development and implementation of policies to increase the security of digital technologies and increase societal resilience to the cybersecurity risks associated with critical infrastructure. Although there is a great deal of congruence between the stated policy goals in both the EU and US, obstacles to effective cooperation impede effective transatlantic policy development and implementation in some areas. This study examines the scale of economic and societal benefits, costs, and losses associated with digital technologies. It provides an overview of the key cybercrime, cybersecurity and cyber-resilience issues that policy-makers on either side of the Atlantic could work together on, and explains where effective cooperation is sometimes impeded.