Rakstiski balsojumu skaidrojumi Jordi SOLÉ

EU fisheries partnership agreements with third countries have greatly improved over the last 10 years by increasing its support for local fisheries development, monitoring and control, and human rights requirements. In particular, the EU-Mauritania agreement contains several clauses such as direct support to the local fishing sector with EUR 16.5 million, the obligation of Mauritania to publish its agreements with third countries or payments from EU ship-owners based on the actual amount of fish caught. However, industrial overfishing puts biodiversity, ecosystems and the marine environment at risk, in addition to having a negative impact on local communities that depend on these resources. The European Union must stop fishing overexploitation and not externalising its costs. It should contribute to the stabilisation of species that are highly vulnerable to fishing pressure and at the same time not contribute to the destruction of local jobs that push small-scale fishermen to emigrate. For all the reasons mentioned above, I decided to abstain on the consent vote to the EU-Mauritania Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement and Implementing Protocol.

The Joint Motion for Resolution on the situation in Belarus, after one year of protests and their violent repression, is yet another good example of how the European Parliament continues to support the Belarusian democratic opposition and condemns its persecution and repression by Lukashenka’s regime.
The resolution also condemns the Belarusian regime’s instrumentalisation of migrants for political purposes, in breach of international law and Belarus’s bilateral treaties with its EU neighbours. However, as a key amendment tabled by the Greens/EFA – calling for unconditional compliance with EU and international law, also during emergency situations, and for the implementation of ECtHR interim measures and relocation – did not pass, I decided to abstain to the whole resolution, without prejudice to my full support and solidarity with the people of Belarus standing up for freedom and democracy.

. ‒ The EU Climate Law requires that all other EU legislation is in line with the climate target of 52.8% reduction of emissions. Certainly, the approval of such binding legal rules is something that the Greens/EFA group have been fighting for during the last years. However, we as a political Group agreed to vote against the EU Climate Law because its climate target is simply insufficient to limit global temperature rise to 2°C, let alone the 1.5°C that climate scientists say we need to achieve. For this reason, we understand that the end result of the Climate Law is not in line with the Paris Agreement. Nonetheless, we will continue to push for the necessary reduction of emissions in all the other EU climate policies such as the upcoming package ‘Fit for 2030’.

The Greens/EFA campaigned in 2019 for border carbon adjustment to cover our carbon footprint.
As rapporteur for the European Parliament, Yannick Jadot, together with the Greens/EFA shadows Damien Carême, Manuela Ripa and Francisco Guerreiro, worked with all the political groups, following opinions from ITRE, ECON, BUDG and INTA, to define the principles on which the carbon levy should be built.
The ENVI Committee supported the rapid and gradual phasing—out of free allowances in parallel with the introduction of a carbon border adjustment. This was supported in ENVI by the major political groups, including the EPP.
Unfortunately, some lobbies, together with the right, have pushed to weaken the text on the environmental integrity and WTO compatibility of this mechanism, two criteria which are necessary for its existence and proper functioning. This is why the Greens/EFA group abstained on this report. We needed to show that despite our support for the introduction a carbon levy, it is no longer possible to avoid investing in what will be good for our economy and the climate.
The European Commission will present its legislative proposal in June. The battle has only just begun. The Greens/EFA Group will take part in it with determination and ambition.

. – The European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack’ represents a great opportunity to establish a framework of protection for diversity in Europe. Unfortunately, there are still too many Member States that don’t do enough or do nothing in this matter. Multilingualism and cultural diversity, despite being Europe’s heritage and raison d’être, are threatened. Likewise, and as requested by the adopted Resolution, if the Commission proposes legal acts in this respect, the instrument of the Citizens’ Initiative will be strengthened deepening in the democracy and legitimacy of the European project. Although such an initiative is essential and necessary for Europe, I abstained in the vote of the Resolution, the reason being that its paragraph 7 suggests that the promotion of regional or minority languages would discriminate against other languages in use. This paragraph distorts the spirit and the meaning behind the Minority SafePack initiative.

The content of the report on fundamental rights in the European Union 2018-2019 is mainly positive and contains progressive language when dealing with important areas, such the erosion of women’s rights, the attacks on media freedom and the treatment of refugees.
But I find very serious the last minute decision to remove from the final text the explanatory statement from rapporteur Clare Daly with references to police brutality and the imprisonment of political leaders during Catalonia’s referendum on independence.
Furthermore, I regret that the EU is unable to name and shame when it comes to fundamental rights violations in its own territory -while it does when these violations occur outside the EU territory. Double standards on fundamental rights are not acceptable.

Although content wise the report has some interesting points, Greens/EFA amendments on Oriol Junqueras’ case were voted down and one of them could not even get to the vote because President Sassoli blocked it. It is inconceivable that a report on the last European elections makes no mention to the very arbitrary and even unlawful way Spanish authorities acted in the case of Oriol Junqueras’ seat and immunity – also for the case of Junts per Catalunya-Lliures per Europa MEPs – which was confirmed by the CJEU itself in Case C-502/19 Junqueras .