Explications de vote écrites - 8ème législature Jordi SOLÉ

. – It is beyond doubt that I fully support the free movement of persons and that UK nationals should be able to enter the Schengen area without visas and EU citizens should be able to enter the UK. However, I strongly disagree with the removal of the rapporteur against his will due to pressure from Spanish MEPs from the EPP, S&D and ALDE to secure the inclusion of a footnote describing Gibraltar as a colony. As this could set an unacceptable precedent, and I support Gibraltarʼs right to self-determination, I voted against the report on a ʻvisa waiver for UK nationals after Brexitʼ.

. – I voted against the reform of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. I respect the rights of the creators and I consider that it is essential to establish a regulation that protects them adequately, but I am not satisfied with the current reform proposal, especially for the incorporation of two elements - the so-called ‘link tax’ and the ‘Upload filters’ - which under the guise of guaranteeing fair remuneration for authors, end up benefitting large search engines and platforms to the detriment of their competitors. Due to the rejection of the amendments that had been proposed by the Greens/EFA, and that raised alternatives to the most controversial aspects, we voted against the directive.
I will continue working to achieve a regulation that guarantees both copyright and freedom of expression, since I believe that they should be perfectly compatible.

. – Although deeply committed to the right to demonstrate, I voted against the resolution on the right to demonstrate as supported by the European right-wing parties. We believe it is a resolution a minima that fails to draw consequences from the violence that occurred during the recent demonstrations in several Member States, such as France and Spain, where there was a clear disproportionate use of force by law enforcement authorities in Catalonia on 1 October 2017.
Also, the resolution included unacceptable references to restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of information and freedom of expression, in the interests of territorial integrity.
For all these reasons, Greens/EFA together with GUE/NGL and S&D decided to table an alternative Joint Motion for a Resolution that could cover and solve all the above-mentioned concerns, although it could not be approved by the European Parliament.

. – I voted against the resolution of 31 January 2019 on the situation in Venezuela, which recognises Mr. Guaidó as the legitimate interim President of Venezuela. I decided to vote against this resolution because my position was fully covered by the resolution tabled by my own group – Greens/EFA – in which there is no unilateral recognition of Mr. Guaidó as President of Venezuela, but instead there is a condemnation of the escalation of violence in Venezuela, as well as an honest call on all sides to enter into an inclusive and credible dialogue aimed at finding a long-term and lasting solution.

Although I am a strong supporter of the fight against terrorism, and this report contains recommendations that are very welcome, such as the increase and strengthening of cooperation, the extension of the competences of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, a greater protection to the victims, and a better monitoring of illicit financial flows, the perspective that it takes, as well as certain realities that it omits, have prevented me from voting in favour.
I cannot agree with the promotion of widespread suspicion and the lack of concreteness of certain policies that simply favour social division and xenophobia and prevent effectively combatting terrorism. The funds and the strategy of the European Union should not be designed or destined to the progressive mass surveillance, nor the algorithms that operate as supposed guarantors on the Internet and which only lead to errors and dehumanisation, nor to the biometric parameters that are so in vogue.
The real fight against terrorism is not the one that criminalises migration, but the one that establishes targeted surveillance, and above all favours social cohesion in Europe, allowing to effectively root out extremism (also the rightist one that has alarmingly escalated in the EU).

After having discussed with representatives from different sectors (creators and platforms), who had completely different visions and interests, and after some important amendments were rejected at the vote on the copyright directive today, I decided to abstain.
The final text contains improvements compared to the proposal that we voted on in June. To have a diverse, quality and viable cultural production, we must protect authors’ copyright and establish a system of fair remuneration for creators. Large platforms (the smallest ones have been excluded from the text approved) must pay when using the work of artists and journalists, so that they receive an equitable share of profits. On the other hand, the text contains more guarantees to prevent control of the authors’ copyright laws from restricting freedom of expression, but focuses on preventing users from seeking financial profit when certain content is uploaded to the internet. Online encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia and software using open-source platforms will not be affected by the regulations. However, I did not vote in favour of the proposal because some of the amendments tabled by our Group, which improved the text (particularly aspects of Articles 11 and 13), were rejected.

The vote on copyright in the digital single market has been one of the most controversial of this plenary session. I am in favour of protecting the rights of authors, also in the Digital Market, and fair remuneration for content creators. I believe, however, that by accepting the JURI Committee we would have lost a margin of manoeuvre to present further substantial modifications and improvements.
We are defining Parliament’s starting position against what will be long and complex negotiations with the Council; it is necessary that the positioning is clearer and generates less division and doubt. Of more concern is the fact the content filtering system on platforms proposed by article 13 may impair freedom of expression on the network. There are reasonable doubts – that no one has been able to dissipate – about the real effectiveness of these filters and their effects on freedom of expression. There should be another debate, we need more time to find a better and a less ambiguous text.
These are the main reasons why I voted against the proposal. I thank the thousands of citizens, as well as the representatives of the cultural production industry who have sent me their opinions and positions.

I voted in favour of this report since I really hope this European Values Instrument will see the light very soon and that the upcoming MFF proposal from the Commission will include appropriate resources to implement such an instrument.
The main lesson we should take from Europe s experience with democracy is that democracy is something we must take care of and protect every day. A vibrant and vigilant civil society is democracy s safety net.
Every now and then in this Parliament we raise concerns about democracy and fundamental rights elsewhere in the world, and rightly so. But we also have reasons to be concerned about some current trends within EU borders. Let’s look for instance into the undemocratic reaction Spain has taken in order to stop Catalonia’s democratic self-determination. Every time fundamental values are violated in the Union the EU must be there to react and to help. But these violations should also be prevented, and this instrument will be good for that.
Finally, I think further steps should be taken in the promotion of fundamental rights by making the European Charter of Fundamental Rights directly applicable in all areas and all Member States.

. ‒ I voted against the report about the composition of the European Parliament because all references regarding the transnational lists have been deleted.
The opportunity to vote on a list of candidates from different Member States would have helped to reinforce the mechanisms of representation in Europe, and therefore, I considered it a good proposal to strengthen democracy across the Member States and to make our work more responsible. The transnational lists would have contributed to revitalising the European project with a bottom-up approach.
Regrettably the report also recommends the introduction of electoral thresholds for achieving representation, and disregards the possibility of allocating seats for regions with legislative powers and a long tradition of self-governing institutions.

. ‒ I voted in favour of opposing the Commission delegated act to include Tunisia on the list of third countries at high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Whilst acknowledging the utmost importance of fighting against money laundering and terrorist financing, I consider it is a mistake to include Tunisia in such list right now.
Tunisia is a strategic country in the European Union’s southern neighbourhood and it is the only country that has been undertaking a rather successful democratic transition, which we have to support.
I fully agree that we need to strengthen efforts in combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. However, the Government of Tunisia has already shown a clear commitment in this direction. Proof of that is the six-month work plan that the Tunisian Government is currently developing.

We voted against the EU Citizenship Report 2017. This report includes a paragraph (Recital G) that is completely unacceptable. Surprisingly enough, the EPP had collected 77 signatures to table an amendment to supress this paragraph, including 6 members of the Partido Popular who ended up withdrawing their signatures. However, by virtue of Rule 169(5) that establishes that where an amendment is withdrawn by its author it shall fall unless it is immediately taken over by another Member, 7 other MEPs stamped their signatures in support of the amendment and it was finally put to vote in plenary.
The amendment fell by an extremely narrow margin (256 in favour vs. 285 against the deletion of that very paragraph, with 102 abstentions) and thus, Recital G remained in the final text of the resolution, which forced our vote against the whole report.
We strongly deplore the wording and content of this paragraph. Changes in the borders of a Member State can happen as a result of a democratic exercise, when a majority of citizens express their will in a peaceful democratic mandate. Democracy is, after all, one of the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU.

Me felicito de que mi grupo haya sido el principal impulsor de la creación del Comité de investigación sobre el escándalo del Dieselgate. Un logro que pretendía ir acompañado de una ambiciosa homologación de vehículos a escala Europea, para evitar nuevos fraudes como el del Dieselgate.
Sin embargo, a pesar de que la legislación propuesta establece medidas para controlar el mercado de automóviles, éstas son claramente insuficientes si los que primamos es la protección de los consumidores. Desafortunadamente, las demandas de nuestro grupo en este sentido no han sido tenidas suficientemente en cuenta.

He votado a favor del paquete sobre economía circular puesto que representa una reforma ambiciosa de la legislación europea actual relativa a los residuos y envases. Este paquete va más allá de reducir los residuos y busca un enfoque integral haciendo hincapié en el potencial de la economía circular para crear empleo sostenible. Por todo ello, celebro su adopción.

While I clearly support the fight against terrorism, I voted against this EU directive due to a range of concerns regarding the definition of terrorist offences and the risks posed to fundamental freedoms.
In particular, the definition of ‘terrorist offences’ is far too broad, including actions which cause ‘major economic loss’. The criminal offense of ‘public provocation’ is also too vague, and would be open to interpretations by Member States that would seriously threaten freedom of expression.
By voting against, I wanted to send a clear message that I reject the problematic aspects in this directive.

Sixty years after the Treaty of Rome, the Union still needs to become the place in the world where freedom, democracy and human rights are best guaranteed; where the right balance between economic progress, social justice and protection of the environment is best achieved; where a concept of open citizenship is best put into practice; where injustice inside and outside the EU is fought against with the strongest determination.
But to achieve the lead in all of these domains, we need to overcome the eagerness of the Member States to block further integration. We need to get rid of populisms of all kinds, also those represented in this House, who always blame the others for their own failures. For the Union to have a future we need more integration, more solidarity, more confidence towards supranational institutions, and greater political ambition.
And also the political courage needed in order to respect and embrace the democratic, legitimate and pro-European aspirations of European countries like Catalonia.

During the last economic and financial crisis the euro area showed a lack of convergence. Everyone agrees that the Economic and Monetary Union is inefficient unless the Eurozone has a fiscal capacity in order to properly react to macroeconomic shocks and give the economies of its Members States more stabilisation tools.
More political ambition is needed in this sense. I am not fully satisfied with the rapporteur’s proposal because I believe it should go further. Nonetheless I support it since it is a step in the right direction. And to improve ownership of the fiscal capacity, we also propose a stronger economic governance with the European Parliament and national parliaments involved.
That is why I urge the Commission to initiate the legislative proposals needed in order to establish the legal basis for the creation of a budgetary capacity for the Eurozone, and the end of measures that do not require Treaty change, before its mandate is over.

He votado en contra de este acuerdo. Sin embargo, no se trata de un voto en contra del libre comercio si no a favor de unas normas comerciales que respeten y fomenten una mejora de los estándares económicos, sociales y laborales alcanzados en la Unión Europea; un voto a favor de la transparencia en las negociaciones comerciales; un voto a favor de que las disputas entre inversores y gobiernos europeos no se resuelvan en los tribunales especiales de arbitraje si no en los sistemas judiciales ordinarios; un voto a favor de las normas sobre seguridad alimentaria, protección al consumidor y el medioambiente, y los derechos labores de los ciudadanos europeos; un voto a favor de garantizar la supervivencia de los pequeños agricultores y ganaderos; y un voto a favor de reforzar los agentes más débiles de las economías locales.