Explicații scrise ale votului Antoni COMÍN I OLIVERES

We fully share the deep concern regarding the interference of Russia and other foreign entities in the democratic processes of the European Union that are detailed in this report.
However, we voted against it because we deplore the inclusion of point 73. This point refers to an alleged wide-ranging Russian interference with secessionist movements in the EU, including in Catalonia, and calls on the relevant authorities to investigate it. The only purpose of this wording, which was incorporated into the file by Spanish MEPs, is misrepresenting a democratic movement as an instrument intended to destabilise the European Union. By doing this, Spanish MEPs seek to present a justification for the relentless repression of the Spanish state against the Catalan independence movement and discourage objections against the fundamental rights violations that Spain is continually committing in Catalonia.
The self-determination aspirations of the Catalan people are not ignited by Russia, but by the national oppression that Spain imposes on Catalonia. The Catalan independence movement seeks to establish a sovereign Catalan state within the European Union, not against the European Union (or the West), and expresses its full solidarity with Ukraine and all the peoples that suffer Russian imperialism and Russian interference.

While overall we agree with the content of the report, we abstained because it fails to mention the unacceptable actions of the Chair of the Committee on Petitions, Ms Dolors Montserrat, throughout the legislative term.
The right to petition is a fundamental component of Union citizenship. For this reason, it is essential that the Committee be able to examine in a rigorous way all requests from citizens related to the competences of the European Union. Nevertheless, Ms Montserrat manipulates this committee and prevents citizens from exerting the right to petition properly by prioritising requests that are either in the interest of the Spanish nationalism, or in that of her party, the Spanish PP.
A clear example of this fact is that Ms Montserrat is wasting time and resources to repeatedly process petitions about the school system in Catalonia, ignoring that the European Commission has already said - on all occasions - that the European Union is not competent on this matter.
It is necessary that the Committee on Petitions stop being the instrument of the national and partisan interests of her president, and return to its original function: a democratic instrument to defend the rights of citizens.

We have voted in favour of this report because we fully share the concern regarding the interference of Russia in the Union’s democracy. However, we deplore the approval by the Plenary of an amendment to this report (S&D’s Amendment 31) which seeks to promote, through the back door, an unfounded claim about the Catalan pro-independence movement. This is only the latest of a series of attempts by the Spanish government, the Spanish state (its police and intelligence services) and its press to push a narrative of supposed ties between the pro-independence movement and Russian intelligence.
The amendment only seeks to misrepresent a democratic movement as an instrument intended to destabilise the European Union, to cover up the relentless repression it is subject to and to isolate it from possible allies that might raise their voice against the fundamental rights violations Spain is continually committing.
The alleged involvement of Russian intelligence in the Catalan independence process is an absolute falsehood (or fake news, as it is now called). The fabrication comes from the profoundly anti-independence Guardia Civil police body and stems from political espionage of private messages obtained illegally (as acknowledged by the Spanish Prosecutor’s Office).
The European Parliament should better guard itself from involuntarily contributing to the spread of fake news, as this very seriously affects its legitimacy to condemn fake news and misinformation campaigns of other countries, not least Russia.

We supported the three amendments tabled by some MEPs, which, in our opinion, would have significantly improved the final text. However, we voted in favour of the resolution because it incorporates important points that were worth supporting, among others that: i) the general safeguard clause should not be deactivated before the review of the EU’s economic governance framework; ii) the future budgetary orientation resulting from this review should promote a sustainable, green and digital recovery that contributes to the European Green Pact and the implementation of the European pillar of social rights; iii) according to the European Fiscal Board, some sustainable growth-enhancing expenditure should be excluded from the net primary expenditure growth ceiling.

. ‒ In a moment when the world is still heading for a temperature rise in excess of 3°C this century – far beyond the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C – negotiations between Parliament and EU governments have ended up decreasing climate ambition. Parliament’s proposed target of a Union-wide 60% emissions reduction by 2030 has been downscaled to a net 55% by 2030. This net target takes into account increasing carbon sink levels, thus reducing the real ambition for capping GHG emissions, which is an urgent need.
We do not oppose this Law but its final lack of ambition, which will not put the EU on track to comply with the Paris Agreement and the net-zero emissions goal by 2050 at the latest in the EU and in each Member State. We voted against the final text of the Law because it does not reflect the urgency to tackle climate change nor the fact that the EU has been lagging behind for too long in this issue. This Law should continue its legislative path and go back to interinstitutional negotiations.

. – We generally support the content of the report on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of law report and the recommendations to improve the mechanism. However, we have abstained in the final vote because we find that it fails to address the fact that, in its report, the Commission overlooked some significant and systemic rule of law violations in Spain that were brought to its attention by multiple stakeholders.

The European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ is a clear proof of the will of the 1 123 422 European citizens calling on the European Commission to protect EU national minorities from some centralist Member States that discriminate against their linguistic minorities.
We have always supported this proposal and we find it very positive for the defence of Catalan language speakers, since it denounces linguistic discrimination and promotes the presence of the language in culture, in the school system, in media and public administrations.
Unfortunately, we abstained in our final vote because we do not find the proposal in the education system ambitious enough, as the only ones who have their fundamental rights threatened by language impositions are members of minorities.
We call on the European Commission to accept this European citizens’ initiative and to respect the will of European citizens.

This report puts forward very important points that should be addressed in order to improve the democratic functioning of the EU, such as the establishment of a single EU electoral authority, the need to increase the role of European political parties, and the reform of the democratic process for choosing the Commission President before the next European elections of 2024.
Despite our support for these points and the excellent work carried out by the rapporteur, Mr. Pascal Durand, we feel compelled to vote against the Report. The reason is that the amendments deploring the fact that elected MEP Oriol Junqueras was not able to take his rightful seat because of the non-recognition of his immunity by the Spanish Supreme Court, which keeps him unfairly imprisoned, and stressing that the European Parliament is the only body competent to waive the immunity of its Members, were rejected.
We consider that the case of Mr. Oriol Junqueras is of the utmost importance for the upholding of the Rule of Law in the EU. The vote against mentioning the ECJ ruling of December 19th affecting Oriol Junqueras and myself also shows that some MEPs in this house do everything they can to deny reality.

We support this motion because we deplore female genital mutilation everywhere, wherever it is practiced or defended. The EU must push for an end to such an abhorrent deed, one of the most diminishing and violent made to women, and above all the young.

. ‒ We support this motion because we also look forward to the best partnership possible between the EU and the UK. We do not wish to see any kind of punishment behaviour from the EU, and no distrustful behaviour from the UK. The EU and the UK have a historic opportunity to remake their relationship for the next decades, one of mutual respect and cooperation. This is what our citizens and businesses demand from MEPs and officials. In our case, the UK is Catalonia’s fifth destination in terms of exports, and nearly 40% of Catalan SMEs tend to export to that country. We will not let them down. Finally, we deplore and reject the point of this motion that says that any agreement as regards Gibraltar will need Spain’s assent. Gibraltar has been a British overseas territory since the beginning of the 18th century, and any agreement on Gibraltar will need the assent, mainly and mostly, of Gibraltar’s people.