Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 February 2006 - Strasbourg

5. Explanations of vote

- De Veyrac recommendation (A6-0007/2006)

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The report on the air traffic controller licence on which we are about to vote is extremely important within the context of the creation of the Single European Sky.

The European harmonisation of national licences will allow controllers to work throughout the territory covered by the Single Sky. Furthermore, this licence will lead in particular to improvements in terms of the safety of air traffic management and ensure that the training of future controllers is harmonised at a high level of competence.

This report advocates the approval of the Council’s common position, which takes up the agreement reached a few months ago by our two institutions. The compromise that we have reached with the Council takes account both of the legitimate concerns about increasing safety and the free movement requirements of air traffic controllers.

At a time when Europe is sometimes misunderstood by our fellow citizens, it is important that we look to projects such as this to restore their confidence in European integration.

I shall end by thanking the European Commission’s services for their cooperation.

  Fernand Le Rachinel (NI), in writing. – (FR) Just this once, we can be pleased with this text for several reasons. The introduction of a common air traffic controller licence cannot fail to make a great contribution to the objective of safety that we all want to see for this sector, a sector in which we have unfortunately seen too many examples of tragic aviation incidents. To this end, I am also pleased that the supplementary system of black lists of airlines considered to be dangerous has been established and can be applied to all of the States of the European Union.

Furthermore, I believe that it should be noted that Europe is moving in the right direction in terms of the harmonisation of the professional training and competences of air traffic controllers. They are not in fact being harmonised downwards; quite the opposite. With regard to the conditions for entry into the profession, the qualifications required and the content of initial training, relatively high social, technical, linguistic and professional standards are provided for.

This is particularly essential since, all too often unfortunately, air traffic controllers have to manage extreme and dangerous situations such as the hijacking of an aircraft or an air crisis. We must therefore protect this profession, because the safety of the passengers of an entire sector depends on it.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome this Directive, the objective of which is to increase safety standards and to improve the operation of the Community air traffic control system. I am glad that the Council and Parliament were able to reach a satisfactory compromise on the amendments that we adopted at first reading.

- Resolution on Iran (RC-B6-0096/2006/rev.)

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List wholeheartedly supports the IAEA’s efforts to achieve a peaceful solution to the confrontation between Iran and the international community and believes that it is the UN Security Council that is ultimately responsible for deciding on the measures that should be taken. Because Iran is not within the immediate vicinity of the EU, this is not an issue for the EU if the Member States cannot achieve unanimous agreement in the Council on a common position.

It is in the Council that Sweden should make efforts to ensure that Iran does not develop into a nuclear power. The issue is not, however, one for the European Parliament to deal with. We have therefore chosen to refrain from trying to change the resolution and have voted against it in its entirety.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The title of the resolution before us, adopted by the majority in Parliament, is indicative of its underlying purpose: to fan the flames of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme.

It is no coincidence that the majority in Parliament rejected the proposed amendment tabled by our group, which urged ‘a peaceful political solution to the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programmes’, reiterated ‘its opposition to any military action or threat of the use of force’, and stressed that ‘an escalation of the dispute would exacerbate the crisis in the region’. The same is true of other proposed amendments, calling upon ‘all countries to avoid any threat to Iran’s territorial integrity and to condemn unequivocally any pre-emptive action’.

Instead of supporting measures aimed at diffusing international tensions, the majority in Parliament supports the idea of the UN Security Council taking control of the situation. This measure meets the wishes of the United States, which has long sought Iran’s international isolation, and an excuse for fresh interference and dangerous military adventures aimed at imposing its dominance in the region and at protecting its economic interests.

Hence our vote against.

  Richard Howitt (PSE), in writing. The European Parliamentary Labour Party supports the resolution on Iran, its condemnation of various remarks made by the President of Iran, and its serious concern regarding the present attitude of the Iranian authorities to the nuclear programme. The EPLP also gives its strong support to the involvement and initiatives of the EU-3, the IAEA and the UN Security Council, confirming the need to pursue peaceful and diplomatic means to solve the crisis. The British Government's position is that military action remains inconceivable and is not on the agenda.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. Since the unexpected victory of the new Iranian President, Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an increasingly tense situation has emerged between Iran and the international community, leading to a series of negotiations amongst Member States over Iran's desires for the development of nuclear energy.

I welcome the development of nuclear power when it is for civil use. It is for this reason that all possible diplomatic pressures should be applied to the government of Iran to get it to conform to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so that any suspicions can be ruled out.

I must emphasise that the people of Iran should not be demonised or blamed in any way; our dispute is solely with its leadership and I regret the recent comments by President Ahmadinejad on Israel.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) The people of Iran have no prospect of democracy, human rights or guarantees for minorities of the kind with which we in Europe are familiar. The state is run by a bunch of people who are absolutely convinced that God is on their side. They think they are entitled to decide how their people should live.

Many people have fled the country and among those who have stayed on, it is mainly women and young people who are desperate for change. That is why it is short-sighted to see Iran only as a closed bloc constituting a threat to the outside world. Even more so than in Iraq and Afghanistan, a military invasion, as is apparently being considered by the American President, is not the solution. The threat to use nuclear bombs, as is being publicly considered by the French President, is even more dangerous. Both threats would have the inevitable consequence that the people in Iran would look to their oppressing regime for protection, which would then be the lesser of two evils for them. This completely removes any prospect of real change, human rights or democracy. Europe would do better to ensure that various organisations of Iranians in exile, who advocate domestic change, could operate within the law.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Τhe joint motion for a resolution on Iran by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Union for Europe of the Nations Group is firing up tension and endeavouring to prepare public opinion to accept the new war being prepared by the imperialists on the pretext of the nuclear threat. Despite the lip-service pronouncements against war, despite the lip-service assurances that the ΕU does not contest Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy, it is obvious that a programmed, aggressive plan by the imperialists is being implemented in order to control energy sources and the area as a whole by any means.

Any differentiations expressed relate to antagonisms between imperialist countries about their share of the booty. At the same time, they are trying to obstruct other countries as well from developing technology and not being dependent on major imperialist countries.

Within this framework, a new version of the war plan against Iraq is being constructed. Irrespective of the responsibilities of the government of Iran, the peoples must not and will not accept the imperialist plans against Iran and other countries in the area.

Any intervention with or without the consent of the Security Council will come up against a global outcry and demonstrations by the pacifist and grass-roots movement. The people of Iran alone have the jurisdiction to resolve any serious political issues which exist in Iran.