Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I am pleased that we have finally addressed the issue of withholding tax in the European Parliament. Let me remind you that already in 1989 the Commission proposed the first proposals to regulate the movement of capital between countries – the payment of dividends by public limited companies or royalties for the use of trademarks and copyrights. Unfortunately, only the discovery of the huge Cum-EX scandal intensified our work, after 23 three years! Currently, most Member States have signed a double taxation treaty. Unfortunately, the rules on tax refunds and collection vary from one country to another, not to mention third countries, which has been exploited by criminal groups and fraudulent financial institutions. It is estimated that the European Union has lost around EUR 140 billion in this way. As shadow rapporteur, I thank you for the excellent substantive work of the rapporteur, all shadow rapporteurs for working together and finding compromises, identifying the main problems. As a result of this in-depth analysis and the volume of work carried out, our report calls on the Commission to urgently harmonise the WHT refund procedure across the Union, to assist tax administrations in the flow of information. These measures will bring up to €20 billion a year to Member States' budgets, which is a significant amount in these times of crisis. Of course, our work does not end with this document. We should work without delay to harmonise the definition of the real recipient – and this is also very carefully emphasised. This is because this issue has a significant impact on the collection of withholding tax and the application of preferential rates. Currently, each member state interprets this very differently, which significantly hinders the movement of capital in the common market. The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union has not solved this problem. I hope that we will act much faster in this matter.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, The COVID-19 crisis, the consequences of which will be felt for a long time to come, but also the war in Ukraine, which has been going on for 14 days, foreshadows very serious economic difficulties for Europe. The imperfection of the current tax systems, the lack of solidarity between Member States or the need for a new "tax architecture" are the main challenges of the new reality that we urgently need to tackle. My goal is to improve and modify tax systems to make them fair, efficient and business-friendly. The priority is to restore fiscal sustainability and maintain the competitiveness of the international economy. The report contains proposals to improve the functioning of the European tax system by improving the flow of information or simplifying the treatment of taxpayers. Fair settlement of tax disputes, extension of automatic exchange of information or e-invoicing, extension of the scope of the VAT platform - One Stop Shop and unification of CIT income tax returns will help both entrepreneurs and tax authorities. Key in this regard are: solidarity between the tax authorities of the Member States and the abandonment today of very harmful tax practices involving the application of vague criteria of reliefs and exemptions to multinational corporations. In fact, it is the robbery of one Member State by another, which we can never agree to. I am a strong supporter of the sovereignty of the Member States and I am opposed to moving away from the principle of unanimity in tax matters. I focus on cooperation and exchange of information, not on top-down harmonisation, the creation of new regulations and the multiplication of regulations. Any changes to existing rules should be preceded by a thorough analysis of the effects they will have. I consider it harmful and unnecessary to harmonise the criteria for tax residence as an action interfering with the sovereignty of the Member States and putting pressure on the Council to return to projects that have not been supported. That is why I would like to reiterate and remind you that it is the voice of the European countries that should be the most important for the European Parliament. We are not here to "know better" how to make European citizens happy. Let us remember that we are here to serve the people who have chosen us.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Friends and colleagues! The Code of Conduct was created to curb unfair tax practices in the Member States. The assumptions of this code remain valid, because unfortunately they are not effective enough. The group has been operating for over 20 years. During this time, economic and political realities have changed. New economic challenges have emerged, but progress has also been made in the fight against tax fraud. Today, it is appropriate to review the criteria of the Code and to improve the decision-making process within the Group. Despite the guidance provided by the group, a non-transparent tax system is in place in many Member States, leading to surprising situations. Member States lose more CIT revenue to other members of the Community than to traditional tax havens such as the Cayman Islands. This is what European solidarity looks like in practice. As the ECR Polish delegation, we support the pursuit of a fair tax system with healthy competition, but without the possibility of abuse. The key to success, however, is not to limit the influence of Member States on the European solution. We only disagree with the change from unanimous to majority decision-making within the group. When seeking an optimal solution, the interests of all members of the Union should be taken into account and consensus should be sought. Healthy competition, even in a difficult area such as taxation, should never be prohibited. It is only necessary to create the right framework for it, to ensure the principles of fair play.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Every year in the European Union, we lose around €140 billion in corporate income tax losses, which can be spent on health, disaster relief and education. The exchange of tax information, while respecting the competences of the Member States, has an invaluable impact on the fight against tax fraud. When we successfully defeat them, we see how huge sums of money are being stolen from our budgets and our societies. However, we cannot apply further regulations without dialogue with entrepreneurs, for whom an even more detailed reporting system will be a costly and time-consuming burden. Entrepreneurs should do business, because it is a guarantee of our common prosperity and European success. We have six implemented directives on the exchange of tax information. The next two are ahead of us, and we are not able to effectively deal with European tax havens or golden passports. Did you know that only 4% of the 50 items of DAC3 data were used? We do not have data on the effectiveness of the implemented directives. Therefore, is further planning of changes in the issues of reporting by entrepreneurs of a detailed list of income and assets necessary? Will the provision of information relating to previous price agreements, where the protection of a company’s financial indicators is paramount, not undermine the principle of competitiveness in the single market? Let's make proper use of the tools we already have, improve and monitor cooperation. Let us not allow some Member States to apply the requirements so minimally.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The World Bank estimates the global cost of natural disasters at €440 billion per year . But it's hundreds of thousands of human dramas, because from floods and avalanches to heatwaves, natural disasters can destroy our entire communities. We must speak out about the shared responsibility of the European Union, but also of each country, region and city, to have plans at national and local levels and strategies for disaster risk reduction and disaster loss reduction. In this respect, the European Union plays a very important role in coordinating and securing the necessary financial resources for improving infrastructure. In the European Union, loud slogans about combating climate change and reducing the risk of natural hazards are not enough. EU cohesion policy funds, funds for regions, as well as additional resources in the recovery fund, national recovery plans are needed to secure a genuine resilience policy, to make the transition to a low-carbon economy, to be able to transform its infrastructure into a more disaster-resilient one and to recover quickly from a natural disaster. Today, we are also fighting the huge social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic recession. We are fighting for food security, ASE in agriculture. What does the European Commission do? It politically assesses the national recovery programmes and blocks the funds due to the Member State and slows down its response to requests for interventions and states. Do actions or just slogans unite the European Union? So not politics, but responsibility is the credibility of the European community. A safe and strong Europe is only the strength and security of each Member State.

Mr President, thank you very much. Taking care of the environment for the benefit of future generations is our duty and our great responsibility, and we all agree with that. However, this 8th Environment Programme to 2030, which sets very ambitious targets on the right track, needs to be improved, clarified and complemented in many respects. Because in this form he will not fulfill his role. Biodiversity, which is our heritage, is important. Only its protection will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the richness of nature. The lack of consistency in the document as regards forests and the forestry sector needs to be addressed. It is important to promote multifunctional and sustainable forest management, to maintain a balance between natural, social and economic functions, and to use this potential to achieve both environmental and climate objectives and ambitions. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the priority objectives should be supplemented directly by issues relating to waste management, and the definitions should be clear and very precise. And that's just missing. High doubts are also raised by vague indicators, which are not sufficient to develop a comprehensive monitoring framework for the programme. When creating regulations, we must remember about their effectiveness and proper application, because regulations with gaps give great opportunities for overinterpretation and application of excessive sanctions by institutions monitoring their implementation.