Rupert LOWE : Written explanations of vote 

Members can submit a written explanation of their vote in plenary. Rule 194

Financial assistance to Member States to cover serious financial burden inflicted on them following a UK's withdrawal from the EU without an agreement (A9-0020/2019 - Younous Omarjee)  

Brexit Party MEPs voted against this legislative report, which concerns amending the European Union Solidarity Fund to cover the ‘financial burden’ that a no-deal Brexit could represent for Member States. We believe that this is highly political, as it is likening no-deal Brexit to a natural disaster, whilst also taking away funds from genuine natural disaster victims. For these reasons, we cannot support this report.

Objection pursuant to Rule 112: partially granting an authorisation for a use of chromium trioxide (Cromomed S.A. and others) (B9-0151/2019)  

I abstained on this resolution because it should be a decision made at nation state level and not by the EU for all 28 Member States.

Effects of the bankruptcy of Thomas Cook Group (RC-B9-0118/2019, B9-0118/2019, B9-0119/2019, B9-0120/2019, B9-0121/2019, B9-0122/2019, B9-0124/2019)  

The Brexit Party MEPs voted against many of the amendments on this motion for resolution concerning the effects of bankruptcy of Thomas Cook Group. Many of these are calling for more EU action to be taken and funds to be created in the event of similar events happening in the travel and tourism sector. We also voted in favour of any amendments that would reduce any future harmonisation in this area. Whilst we are of course sympathetic to those who have been affected by the collapse of Thomas Cook, more EU legislation is not the answer.

State of play of the disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches - public country-by-country reporting (B9-0117/2019)  

Brexit Party MEPs voted against this motion for resolution, which calls on the Council to break its deadlock and allow legislation on the CBCR proposal to progress forward. We voted against this because we do not want the European Union to continue making more legislation, as this is the prerogative of Member States.

The Turkish military operation in northeast Syria and its consequences (RC-B9-0123/2019, B9-0123/2019, B9-0125/2019, B9-0126/2019, B9-0127/2019, B9-0128/2019, B9-0129/2019, B9-0133/2019)  

The Brexit Party voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We do not support the EU developing its foreign policy, as it is superfluous and often counter-productive. The EU should not be involved in the current crisis nor the political resolution post-conflict.

Search and rescue in the Mediterranean (B9-0130/2019, B9-0131/2019, B9-0132/2019, B9-0154/2019)  

The Brexit Party believes that the best way to stop the tragic loss of innocent lives in the Mediterranean is to strongly combat people smugglers who lure migrants onto unseaworthy vessels. We believe that decisions on asylum claims should be conducted under relevant international law and nation states could, as a sovereign state, choose to accept genuine refugees to enter their country.
Brexit Party MEPs voted against this non-legislative resolution on the issue of search and rescue in the Mediterranean. We condemn all parties who are responsible for the unacceptably high death toll in the Mediterranean, particularly people smugglers and traffickers who facilitate dangerous and illegal crossings.
The Brexit Party strongly maintains that the issue of search and rescue and securing borders is the sole competence of a Member State. We oppose the principle of the EU developing a refugee distribution mechanism, as it should be the right of a sovereign state to govern whom it allows onto its territory. We also oppose the attempt by the EU to establish legal frameworks to distinguish what forms of assistance should not be criminalised, as this is a clear infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.

Opening accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania (B9-0155/2019, RC-B9-0156/2019, B9-0156/2019, B9-0157/2019, B9-0158/2019, B9-0159/2019, B9-0160/2019, B9-0161/2019)  

The Brexit Party voted against this non-legislative and non-binding resolution. We are opposed to further expansion of the European Union and are pleased to see the vetoing of further progression for these countries. We are opposed to expansion whilst the UK is currently a member of the EU, in any future transition or whilst we retain financial liabilities towards the EU. We think the EU is a poor choice for other Member States but after the UK makes a clean exit from the EU and at a time when we have no liability it is for those states to decide themselves.

Draft general budget of the European Union for 2020 - all sections  

The Brexit Party voted against any increases to individual EU budget lines and voted in favour of any cuts to EU budget lines. This vote was a series of amendments to the actual figures and size of each EU budget for the year 2020. Before it arrived in Parliament for amendment, the Commission had initially proposed a budget worth EUR 168.3 billion (+1.3% compared to 2019). The Council then adopted its position of EUR 166.8 billion (slightly lower). Now it was Parliament’s turn, which ended up being much higher than either the Commission or the Council positions. There will now be a negotiation period with the Council to find a compromise. A full UK contribution for 2020 is included in the proposal.

General budget of the European Union for 2020 - all sections (A9-0017/2019 - Monika Hohlmeier, Eider Gardiazabal Rubial)  

The Brexit Party voted against this non-legislative, non-binding resolution on the EU budget for 2020. The resolution was a shopping list of what MEPs wanted from the EU budget in 2020, with many calls for radially increased funding in many areas of EU policy. The Brexit Party voted against any calls to increase the EU budget and voted in favour of any amendments to decrease the budget.

Discharge 2017: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (A9-0011/2019 - Petri Sarvamaa)  

The Brexit Party voted to refuse granting discharge to the Asylum office. The discharge procedure is a process by which the European Parliament looks at the individual budgets and spending of each EU institution to give a positive or negative appraisal.
In this specific case, the asylum office has had a number of problems, such as errors in payments amounting to EUR 7.7 million, breaches of procurement procedures, misappropriation of funds, mismanagement, abuse of position in human resources issues, breaches of data protection rules, harassment and inappropriate behaviour towards staff.
The Brexit Party voted to refuse discharge due to all these problems, along with our principled position that we oppose British taxpayers’ having to pay for all these EU institutions and agencies.