8 Written explanations of Clara PONSATÍ OBIOLS

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 had 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 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.