28 Written explanations of Carles PUIGDEMONT I CASAMAJÓ

We voted in favour of this initiative as it embeds one of the most relevant ambitions ever issued by the European Commission. 2050 is a year where Europe may champion the world in carbon neutrality. A greener and healthier Europe is possible. The Catalan Government I led approved the ambitious Law on Climate Change 16/2017 of 1 August 2017. The Spanish Constitutional Court annulled 15 articles in 2019, for instance about regulating fracking; about establishing assessment on climate change’s evolution and impact; or even about establishing objectives to reduce carbon emissions.

We support this plan even if we deeply regret the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. The UK is a great asset for the Union, but at the same time the vote of the citizens must always be respected. We believe that the UK is and will always be a key European partner. According to the Catalan Government, in 2018 almost 18 000 British citizens were living in Catalonia and 19 300 Catalans were resident in the UK. Also, we want to stress that there are more than 2 000 Catalan companies that export regularly to the UK that must be protected. We will work with the Commission and the Catalan Government in order to guarantee the rights of these people.

We vote in favour of this report because we have always supported human rights, democracy and the Union’s efforts to spread them all around the world. As Catalans and as people whose human rights have been attacked. The defence of human rights and democracy must be always peaceful, with no hint of violence. But we urge the EU institutions to defend, guarantee and implement human rights and democracy in all EU Member States. It is necessary to stop the current EU’s fake moral authority. We want to stress also that the EU cannot afford itself to have double standards and it needs to implement those measures that does demand to third countries.

We supported this initiative because this annual report demonstrates the ongoing work made by the Union through its foreign and security policy. We also regret that multilateralism needs to be defended by the EU. It is therefore necessary for the EU to be an effective global actor, and a tangible and proactive leader at the international stage. The problem is that the EU cannot be credible when seeking such a goal: there are political prisoners and exiles, and until this happens the Union will see its credibility undermined.

This is a wonderful idea and we hope the European citizens will have the possibility to make their legitimate demands, to present their ideas, and to have a voice. The governance of the Union needs a deep reform, we all are indeed agreeing in this. The Conference must be honest, it must listen to the citizens, not make a mere aesthetic intent. We must move more and more towards that desired Union of citizens that is embedded in the Treaties.

We believe that Venezuela’s Maduro regime is wrong. At the same time, the appointment in April 2019 of Mr Guaidó as president did not follow the correct political and legal procedures and the European Union let itself be dragged by factional interests, mostly imposed by Spain. In cases such as this, the EU must be a mediator. We worry about the situation of human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Venezuela, which has been deteriorating for many years, in particular since Nicolás Maduro came to power in 2013.

We vote in favour of this report because we believe in the European rule of law, which possesses primacy over the Member States. Hungary and Poland have to comply with European law and the Commission has to make this law to be guaranteed and respected. The problem comes when there are double standards: Did Hungary and/or Poland imprison political dissidents? This is something that another Member State, Spain, has done since 2017, and the Commission has failed to stop it. European rule of law is for all Member States.

We support this initiative as it poses an opportunity for the Union to act as a single voice. Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, including the oceans, are key to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement and strengthening the EU’s resilience and adaptive capacities to climate change. We would also like to see a higher involvement of multiple stakeholders.

We do not like the decision taken by the British people in June 2016 but we must respect it. The decisions of the citizenship must be respected. We would love to see the UK to come back to the EU, and this will happen when, among other things, the EU has become a truly democratic project where no one will ever think to exit. We have voted in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement but with a heavy heart.

. ‒ We support this report because it is important to make a thorough verification of credentials. We also support the fact that Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies is a Member of the European Parliament and as such the EP should not make any decision regarding his rights as MEP, as well as asking all Member States, all EU institutions, and the EU as a whole, to respect and guarantee the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

. ‒ We support this initiative because, as many others, we are also in favour of reaching complete equality between men and women. The gender pay gap has to be corrected, also thanks to the help of the European Commission and the other European institutions and agencies.

I have abstained in this vote. This FTA is surely necessary for European companies, especially SMEs, as 99% of tariffs disappear and 169 GIs (12 Catalan) are defended and guaranteed. And it presents a chapter on Trade and Sustainable Development, which is also a legal innovation when it comes to FTAs. Yet Vietnam is a communist one-party authoritarian regime and the EU may end up, not willingly, to increase its resilience even if it does want to change that South-Asian nation.Therefore, we must keep denouncing that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has political prisoners and exiles, and so does the EU, sadly. The Union cannot pretend to push for the democratisation and the strict application of the rule of law abroad when it fails to do so in its Member States. Once we put our home in order, we will be able to push for our interests without any fear of being pointed out as hypocrites.

I abstained. In terms of investment protection, EU-Vietnam bilateral standards are established, the Vietnamese Government or officials will not be able to conduct discriminated harassment or expropriation of EU companies, whose safety, on the contrary, will have to be guaranteed by the Vietnamese Government. Also, a dispute settlement court mechanism will be set up in order to guarantee proper transparency and accountability in the upcoming trade relations between the Union and Vietnam. Yet the EU must do more in order to prevent Vietnam’s communist regime from attempting to disregard human rights by pushing for real implementation of International Labour Organisation Conventions and an end to political repression. We have to be aware, though, that as long as the EU has political prisoners and exiles of its own, its demands may fall on deaf ears.

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 possible partnership 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 business 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.

We support this motion because the welfare of animals is linked to the welfare of people. Trafficking in animals, many of them not vaccinated or without the necessary permits and certifications, means trafficking in diseases. This report reminds us that more than 70% of new diseases are of animal origin. The saddest thing is that this matter could be avoided: the Commission must strengthen the implementation of Regulation 576/2013 and impose sanctions on those stakeholders who profit from this traffic. In addition, the illegal trade of pets in the EU undermines the proper functioning of the single market because there is a bad practice in the digital sale purchase. Finally, customs authorities should increase cooperation, communication and training between themselves in terms of pet trade, and we would like to encourage all those who read this that the best is not to buy a pet, but to adopt it.

As with the report on Parliament’s estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2021, we also abstained in this vote because we do not fully agree with the amounts of money dedicated to political groups, parties and foundations. We also advocate, as we said together with other MEPs in an email sent in March 2020, a reduction of General Expenses Allowances (GEA) and, if they are not used, or not fully deployed, due to sudden events such as the current COVID—19 crisis, GEA should be dedicated to other needs, such as health. We are pleased to see that this resolution advocates again a Single Seat in either Brussels or Strasbourg, and for this we demand that the EP be listened to. Finally, we want to make reminder that this Parliament vetoed Catalan MEPs (myself and Mr Comín) for 7 months, until the ECJ ruled otherwise on Thursday 19 December 2019, and that it is still vetoing Mr Junqueras, a Catalan political prisoner.

We abstained in this vote because we do not fully agree with that big amount of money dedicated to the political groups. We also advocate for a reduction of General Expenses Allowances (GEA) and, if they are not used, or not fully deployed, due to sudden events such as the current Covid-19 crisis, GEA should be dedicated for other needs, such as health. We like to see that the resolution advocates again for the Single Seat in either Brussels or Strasbourg, and for that we demand the EP to be listened to. Finally, we want to remind that this Parliament vetoed Catalan MEPs (myself and Mr Comín) during 7 months, until the ECJ ruled otherwise on Thursday 19 December 2019, and that it is still vetoing Mr Junqueras, a Catalan political prisoner.

. ‒ As a Catalan, I have always defended, I still defend, and I will always defend the inclusion of Catalan geographical indications (GIs) in all free trade agreements (FTAs), trade partnerships, trade associations that the Union promotes with third countries. In fact, I have been making as many amendments as possible on this. But as a Catalan exile, with my two companions also being exiles, and with friends and former members of the Catalan Government in jail as political prisoners, it would not be coherent to vote in favour of any trade opening to third countries that, like the People’s Republic of China, keep political prisoners, exiles, is continuously persecuting political dissidents, and has a new authoritarian agenda throughout the globe. When it comes to human rights and trade, I will always put human rights and democracy first. Fair trade conditions cannot be separated from democratic rights. The EU must prioritise agreements with other democracies.

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.

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.

. – Although I do not object with the work put up by my colleague Mr Stanisław Brudziński on this file, and in many other Discharge 2019 files, I could not give my consent to this resolution on the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) due to the total lack of empathy, understanding and reach of this agency towards the violations on fundamental human rights happening in Catalonia. I myself am exiled in Belgium because I would not have a fair trial back in Spain – so as much as my colleagues now in jail, as political prisoners. It is utterly sad that the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency does not want to even make a mention on the Catalan political prisoners and exiles; something that the UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Amnesty International have done. Paragraph 7 of the FRA Discharge 2019 Resolution is especially poignant: Because the FRA does not protect nor promote fundamental human rights, at least in Spain – therefore, in our Union.

. – 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.

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.

. – I have voted in favour of this report because I 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 this is now called). The fabrication comes from the profoundly anti-independence police body Guardia Civil and it stems from political espionage in relation to 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 the fake news and misinformation campaigns of other countries, not least Russia.

. ‒ This report’s Recital BG states that close ties between Catalan pro-independence leaders and Russian intelligence officials need to be investigated. This is based on an article by The New York Times which indicated that Russia had helped the Catalan pro-independence movement, without providing any evidence in this regard. The key source of the article, an alleged ‘European’ intelligence report, is actually not a European intelligence report at all. In fact, HR/VP Josep Borrell acknowledged in a written response that the only EU body with the capacity to produce intelligence reports, EU INTCEN, has never produced any intelligence report on this issue.The article fails to mention that this ‘10-page European intelligence report’ has most likely been produced within the framework of a confidential investigation by the Spanish judicial body that the article refers to. This investigation is in turn entirely based on speculative police reports, as acknowledged even by the Spanish prosecution service.It is not acceptable that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and Russian interference in EU internal affairs is exploited to push for such criminalisation against legitimate, democratic political dissidence within EU Member States. This is why we voted against the final version of the text.

We have voted in favour of this resolution because it gives recommendations to the Commission on how to endeavour the new Southern Partnership agenda. We would also like to condemn the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Aqla and any human rights violations committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories. We support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the two state solution, but we cannot support labelling Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state. Whereas calling on Israel to respect the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories is essential and working to ensure that Palestinians can have a state of their own is necessary, MEPs should avoid labelling Israel as an apartheid state. Israel, while being a Jewish state, is a democracy that grants citizenship rights to Jews, Arabs and other groups. There is no structural discrimination within Israel’s borders that prevent non-Jews from voting, exerting basic civil rights, etc. Stating that Israel is an apartheid state only intends to demonize the Jewish state and call into question its very existence. We cannot accept such denomination for Israel when the EU does not even consider using it for states that commit blatant systematic human rights violations against minorities -i.e. China and Uyghurs.

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.