5 Written explanations of Clare DALY

The purpose of this technical dossier was only to ensure compliance of existing agreements with Union law relating to air services between China and the EU Member States. However, this type of agreement also contributes to the liberalisation of air transport, which includes increasing connections and emissions. In the context of the climate emergency and the lack of ambitious actions by the Member States and industry to reduce emissions (via all the instruments at their disposal – taxation, alternative fuel mandates), it is inconceivable to encourage the growth of such a sector.

Among other things, this text calls for several reforms of the WTO system that would confound the just, necessary and correct distinction between developed and developing countries, and entrench the subversive tactic of MDC-driven plurilateral negotiations within the architecture of the WTO.Contrary to claims in this text, these reforms would exacerbate the WTO’s actual historical role as a pillar of global inequality and the exploitation of LDCs by MDCs. Alongside the text’s revisionism concerning the role of the WTO and its uncritical promotion of the agenda of trade liberalisation, these provisions would normally have been reason for me to have voted against this resolution.However, an amendment was carried to insert language into the text calling for the EU to support the granting of a temporary waiver from provisions of the TRIPS agreement for COVID-19, to allow urgent access for countries in the Global South to generic vaccines and other medical services that would allow them to urgently address the COVID-19 crisis. The campaign for a waiver of TRIPS is a significant struggle to address global inequality in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, to support this call, I voted for the text overall.

. ‒ I voted against the final resolution because it is a recipe for prolonging the war, and escalating the conflict, rather than a resolution which could assist in delivering peace: the only way greater loss of life and destruction can be avoided in Ukraine.I unequivocally supported the sections of the resolution which condemn Russia’s war of aggression and call on the Russian Federation to immediately terminate all military activities in Ukraine, unconditionally withdraw its forces, and fully respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. I express my undivided solidarity with the ordinary people of Ukraine and call for urgent diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire, for negotiations to end the conflict and the withdrawal of Russian military forces.The decision by Russia to abandon diplomacy and invade Ukraine is contrary to international law. The sole responsibility for this is borne by President Vladimir Putin. However, ignoring the role played by the US and NATO in destabilising the area for the past decade, using Ukraine as a pawn in its battles with Russia, only serves to prevent an understanding of the measures necessary to secure peace.I voted against the resolution overall because it calls to accelerate the provision of military equipment and weapons to Ukraine, to strengthen NATO’s forward presence, to increase defence spending, and to activate European common and joint defence efforts ‘in order to strengthen the European pillar within NATO.’ It also, opportunistically, calls for opening the European energy market to fracked American liquefied natural gas (LNG). Our group, The Left, sought to remove these elements from the resolution, but the majority in Parliament voted to keep them.There is no military solution to this crisis. The policy of flooding Ukraine with weapons will, at worst, lead to a permanent condition of conflict, as has happened in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, at best, a greater loss of life and destruction in Ukraine. I cannot support these measures, which run the risk of expanding the conflict beyond Ukraine, risking a world war in which millions of people may perish. It is the ordinary citizens of Ukraine, Russia and Europe who will pay the price of this war with their lives, a decline in living standards and the destruction of our economies, reversing measures necessary to tackle climate change. The EU must work for diplomacy and a negotiated peace. I voted in the tradition of Irish neutrality.

I voted against this resolution because it is an effort to subsume the transport sector to the war effort and wage a permanent war with Russia rather than building peace. It does not address the urgent needs of the transport sector, and its 11 million workers. The main purpose is to make the transport sector contribute to the sanctions against Russia, with transport workers being collateral damage. It does not sufficiently call for strong measures to compensate workers for inflation, fuel costs and the various restrictions imposed on companies. It does not sufficiently take into account the impact of the war on workers, their working conditions, and the recognition of the hardship that this entails. Finally, it is impossible for me to vote in favour of a text promoting the ‘Military Mobility’ investment project, which aims to develop infrastructures for dual civilian and military use, going against the environmental emergency and showing a total lack of transparency regarding the projects selected.

I condemn the illegal aggression of Russia, but I disagree with a one-sided narrative that excuses the Western role in what is now happening. I urge a ceasefire, negotiations and genuine EU efforts to secure a peace. I oppose the policy of collective punishment, sanctions that also hurt European citizens, the flooding of Ukraine with weapons, and other actions that escalate the war and run the risk of igniting a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.I find much to agree with in this resolution. But unfortunately, this text also contains elements I cannot vote for. Demands for pumping even more weapons into Ukraine, demands for neutral states to abandon their neutrality, unrealistic conditions for ending the conflict, the continuation and entrenchment of a sanctions policy that isn’t helping anyone, and the presence of ominous threats and bellicose rhetoric which only inflame tensions and make peace less likely. That is why I cannot vote in favour of this resolution