22 Written explanations of Dace MELBĀRDE

It is notable that the European Parliament is marking the 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by having a resolution on it. The Parliament’s text calls for best interests of child to be respected, condemns all forms of violence against children, and, within context, correctly assess the current challenges.However, I could not fully support the Parliament’s resolution. One of my reservations related to the disregard of the subsidiarity principle, especially in relation to education and more importantly its content, which is the responsibility of the Member States. Furthermore, I am against the approach whereby the Parliament’s resolution is tying together rights of children with promotion of certain political agendas. Meanwhile, important amendments which recite the CRC’s original text, for instance, one of the first paragraphs of the preamble that states that children ‘should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding’ was voted down. Similarly major amendments on female genital mutilation (FGM) and references to some existing resolutions were all rejected.Thus whilst I support majority of the resolution’s text, I cannot fully support all of it. I therefore abstained in the final vote on the resolution.

I voted in favour for the European Green Deal resolution. It is high time that we not merely acknowledge the issue of climate change, but that we also start acting. We need higher targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy as well as less pollution and less waste. Within the context, it is paramount that all industries and sectors are subject to the same high standards and scrutinised within the context of the Green Deal. Nevertheless, we must make sure that no country is left behind and that this green transition benefits all Member States and their regions. Similarly, the EU must ensure that energy security is not in any way jeopardised along the way. Yet to be at the forefront of the change, it is a necessity, not an option, for the EU to set the bar high and aim for an emission reductions goal of 55% by 2030 and to be climate neutral by the mid-21st Century.

I abstained for the resolution on the 15th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Yet, I agree that there are significant environmental challenges that we are already facing now, both at the regional and national level within the EU on the hand as well as globally. We must remember that biodiversity is paramount if we want to ensure effective food production, healthy environment as well as sustainable development. In order to meet the biodiversity objectives, the EU needs to allocate appropriate and sufficient financing. That is why nature protection needs to be among the key priorities within the context of the European Green Deal while measures relating to climate proofing need to be part of the next multi-annual financial framework. However, I could not support the report in its entirety because we must refrain from blanket bans of techniques that are helping to put food on our tables already now. Similarly, we do need research of promising technologies that can offer viable solutions for the future.

. ‒ I abstained in the vote on the common charger for mobile radio equipment. Whilst I support the resolution’s call for a reduction in electronic waste and in theory I agree that a common charger would be convenient, we must also be pragmatic. We must be careful not to stifle innovation or to limit consumer choice. The current de facto standards for chargers emerged through market forces and fierce competition, not through regulation. By enforcing a common charger, we risk letting down our consumers who, in the near future, may not be able reap the benefits of the latest technological progress.Furthermore, we will not be reducing waste if, as Parliament calls for, the Commission sets one charger standard immediately, thus rendering all other existing chargers obsolete (and in effect contributing to increased waste in the short term). Nor is waste reduced if we constantly change the ‘common’ charger, therefore also effectively forcing users to constantly upgrade their accessories. Understanding the above, I remain reserved about the initiative for a common charger and cannot support Parliament’s resolution.

I voted in favour of Parliament’s COVID-19 resolution. I stand with those who believe that the EU should be at the forefront of attempts to tackle the coronavirus outbreak and the ensuing social and economic consequences. Among other things, the resolution correctly calls for a massive recovery package and an ambitious EU multi-annual budget, as well as support for businesses, workers and the self-employed. Thanks to my initiative, Parliament also supported amendments that acknowledge the especially difficult situation of cultural and creative sectors and cultural professionals and stress the acute and worsening financial situation in the media, especially news media, across the EU.However, I am against the actions of some political players who seize every opportunity to promote their narrow agendas by attempting to work on unrelated issues. Similarly, the naming and shaming of Poland and the condemnation of its domestic politics was unnecessary and unrelated. Indeed, the widest possible support for this resolution was jeopardised because of certain unnecessary inclusions and hence the European Parliament failed to show that it can truly speak with one voice when it matters most.

. – I voted in favour of Parliament’s resolution on ‘New MFF, own resources and Recovery plan’. Regarding the new EU’s long-term budget, it must be commensurate with the foreseen ambitions, from financing the Green Deal to helping the EU grow sustainably, as well as ensuring that the divergences and inequalities within and between the Member States are shrinking, not growing. The resolution correctly calls for a budget that meets the people’s expectations. The recovery plan must follow the same route.I much welcome the approved text which warns the Commission against the use of ‘financial wizardry and dubious multipliers’ in order to, as in past, achieve headline grabbing figures even though the underlying financing is clearly inadequate. To preserve our credibility, the Recovery Fund must be EUR 2 trillion in size and, I would add, help every individual and sector to recover from the COVID-19 crisis, including the cultural and creative as well as media sectors. This also means that the recovery package must primarily be disbursed using grants, not loans or guarantees. The resolution sends the right messages to the Commission and the Council, and shows that Parliament is at the forefront of the recovery efforts.

I voted in favour of the Parliament’s resolution on the Conference on the Future of Europe. I believe the time is ripe to reassess the priorities of the Union and define its future direction. The COVID-19 fallout has shown that the EU is not fully prepared to act in a uniform manner when faced by a sudden crisis. We need an effective and efficient Union based around solidarity; one that works for people, and is well prepared for the future challenges.At the same time, I share the view that the scope of the Conference must be open to all possible outcomes; any pre-determined direction would in essence be a violation of the very spirit of the idea. In order to ensure openness and active involvement, the conference must primarily be a bottom-up process, involving not only politicians and other recognised partners, but also citizens from every region of every country. Indeed, within the context of the Conference, there must also be a strict respect for the geographical balance. Thereby I believe it is best to ensure that working out the right format of the Conference prevails over the Parliament’s call for a timely start in autumn.

I voted in favour of the resolution on a comprehensive Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing and I welcome the related Commission communication of 7 May 2020. Money laundering is a serious problem with an international dimension and requires a coordinated approach in the fight against it.The EU must not tolerate illegal activities and has to be bold in identifying uncooperative jurisdictions. The headline-grabbing cases of money laundering involving banks or their branches operating within the EU have exposed the lack of effective supervision and necessitate a major overhaul of the existing EU anti-money laundering rules. We need to restore people’s trust in our financial and tax systems. Dirty money has no place in our economies.At the same time, it must be stressed that anti-money laundering supervision is first and foremost a responsibility of the Member States and we must be careful not to create a supervisory vacuum by establishing different levels of supervision. Hence, increased and comprehensive cooperation between competent authorities and financial intelligence units (FIUs) within and between the EU Member States must precede any plans relating to the creation of an EU FIU.

. – I welcome the 21 July agreement reached by the EU Heads of State or Government on the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the recovery fund. Understanding the vastly diverging positions from which the leaders began the talks, it was no easy feat to reach such agreement. However, the job is not done; as the European Parliament’s resolution correctly points out, what we currently have is a political agreement and the Parliament will have the final say on the next MFF. The resolution rightly suggests that the cuts to the grants part of the recovery instrument is unfortunate, that the rebates must be ended and that targeted increases on top of the figures proposed by the Council must single out programmes relating, inter alia, to youth, culture and research such as Horizon Europe, Erasmus+ and Creative Europe. However, I could not support the Parliament’s resolution in its entirety. Among other things, the resolution incorrectly states that ‘only the creation of new own resources’ can help to repay the EU’s debt. It also goes beyond the Council agreement on the rule of law, calling for reverse qualified majority voting in this regard. Hence I abstained in the final vote.

In order to achieve the climate and sustainability goals set by the EU, it is clear that the Union programmes must also play their part, becoming greener. This is no different for culture and education programmes, notably Creative Europe and Erasmus+, which must be better aligned with the European Green Deal objectives. For this reason I welcomed the report on greening the above programmes, and I am supportive of themes covered by it. At the same time, I could not fully endorse the report as it includes some problematic points that undermine the broader aims of the relevant programmes, such as increasing the mobility and learning opportunities. For instance, the report calls ‘on the Commission to record and calculate systematically [programme] participants’ individual transport-related carbon footprint.’ In reality this would mean that participants of Erasmus+ exchanges that come from the outermost regions of the EU would implicitly be stigmatised as their carbon footprint would inevitably be larger. Similarly, those from poorer Member States where comparable transport modes are more polluting would be classified as higher emitters. In the end this risks undermining equal opportunities, as those participants travelling shorter distances would be the seen as the greenest ones.

Tiesiskums ir viens no demokrātijas stūrakmeņiem un tāpēc ir svarīgi, ka tas ikvienā ES dalībvalstī tiek sargāts un stiprināts. Cita starpā ir vajadzīgi spēcīgi un labi finansēti mediji, kā arī NVO jābūt pilntiesīgiem partneriem demokrātiskajos procesos. Tomēr ES līmenī jau tagad pastāv rīki attiecībā uz tiesiskumu, tostarp Komisijas gada ziņojums par tiesiskumu, Komisijas tiesiskuma sistēma, Komisijas gada ziņojums par Hartas piemērošanu, Padomes dialogs par tiesiskumu un sadarbības un pārbaudes mehānisms. Tāpat pārkāpumi dalībvalstīs jau tagad tiek risināti arī Padomes līmenī. Eiropas Savienības Tiesa gādā, lai valstis ievērotu ES tiesību aktus. Šo apzinoties, tiesiskuma un pamattiesību mehānisma izveide nav obligāti labākais veids, kā risināt atsevišķus potenciālus trūkumus jau pastāvošajā sistēmā vai, lai mērķētu tikai atsevišķu dalībvalstu virzienā. Savukārt attiecībā uz budžeta nosacījumu mehānismu, jāatgādina Eiropadomes 2020. gada 21. jūlija secinājumi, kurus atbalstīja dalībvalstis. Tikmēr šis EP ziņojums, lai arī ietver vērtīgas atziņas, reizē nepamatoti norāda, ka “Savienība saskaras ar līdz šim nepieredzētu un pieaugošu pamatvērtību krīzi, kas apdraud tās kā demokrātiska miera projekta ilgtermiņa izdzīvošanu” un “lai stiprinātu Savienības spēju veicināt un aizsargāt tās konstitucionālo pamatu, varētu būt vajadzīgas izmaiņas Līgumā”. Ņemot vērā šos un citus argumentus, es atturējos šajā balsojumā.

I voted in favour of the InvestEU programme. I especially applaud that the Parliament improved the text by making more explicit references to Cultural and Creative sectors (CCS) and their unique situation and the financing needs. In particular, it is important, as amended, to stress that CCS SMEs have been particularly badly hit by the COVID—19 crisis, but, more importantly, that they can play an important part in ensuring a sustainable economic recovery. As stated, the cultural and creative, audiovisual and media sectors are essential for our cultural diversity and for building democratic and cohesive societies.

I voted in favour of the Parliament’s resolution on strengthening media freedom: the protection of journalists in Europe, hate speech, disinformation and the role of platforms. It is no exaggeration to say that the pluralistic news media sector around the world is now facing an existential threat. Media operating in smaller markets, regional and local media, printed press, freelance journalists and other smaller players are in a particularly dire situation. The COVID-19 crisis had amplified the already existing issues.The media sector is at the forefront of the digitalisation and data revolution, where there no longer exist geographical boarders. The global online platforms have become the major gatekeepers of the information environment. During the COVID-19 crisis they have only further strengthened their positions – both in terms of advertising market as well as the time spent online by their users. We need to ensure that there is high quality and pluralistic content available online. Thus, I strongly support the call for the creation of a permanent European fund for journalists and increased allocations for investigative journalism as well as the importance of providing EU funding for innovation and digitalisation of the newsrooms.

. ‒ I strongly welcome the agreement on the EUR 1.8 trillion recovery package — consisting of the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) worth over EUR 1 trillion, combined with the EUR 750 billion Recovery Instrument — for the next seven years. This is an unprecedented amount of money in the EU’s history, which will help the Member States’ economies not only weather the current crisis, but can also contribute towards sustainable and future-oriented growth objectives of the EU as a whole. I specifically welcome the boosted funds for the EU’s education, cultural and research objectives, primarily through the Creative Europe, Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe programmes. Similarly, I regard highly the fact that despite the initial differences of all parties, in particular, among the Member States, they were able to reach the terms of the above package in due time. At the same time, I consider that the unanimity requirement in the Council regarding the adoption of the MFF is still the correct approach not only for now, but also going forward, as this way legitimate concerns of all Member States involved are properly considered and dealt with in order to reach the best possible outcome for everyone involved.

. ‒ I welcome the Commission’s communication on a European strategy for data, setting a vision and a roadmap for achieving Europe’s digital future based on clearly defined rules. Such strategy is among the preconditions for spurring the continent’s innovation and competitiveness. It also provides an opportunity for the EU to re-establish the level playing field in the digital domain.The EU must nevertheless make sure that any regulation is accompanied with targeted and adequate investment for the nascent technologies such as AI. The recovery and resilience facility gives a unique opportunity for Member States to invest heavily in digital transition. If the EU is to stay relevant on a global map, it needs to match the commitments to such technologies to those of our industrial competitors. Furthermore, we must continue addressing the digital divide, both among and within the Member States. At the same time, the much called for strengthening of the Union’s technological sovereignty must not be achieved at the expense of global cooperation.I remain positive about the foreseen steps to be taken within the context of the European strategy for data and hence voted in favour of the Parliament’s resolution.

Es balsoju par šo ziņojumu, jo tā galvenā būtība ir vēršanās pret vardarbību pret meitenēm un sievietēm. Un, kā ziņojumā tiek pareizi norādīts, šāda vardarbība Covid-19 seku ietekmē ir palielinājusies. Attiecībā uz dzimumu definēšanu, uzskatu, ka nevar ignorēt vardarbību pret cilvēku tikai tāpēc, ka viņš vai viņa sevi atšķirīgi izjūt un definē sabiedrībā.

Korupcijai nav vietas demokrātiskās sabiedrībās un vēl jo vairāk institūcijās, kuru darbs ir tās stiprināt. Eiropas Parlaments ir Eiropas demokrātijas satvars, kurš izceļ, sargā un cīnās par Eiropas pilsoņiem un viņu prioritātēm. Lai atjaunotu un vēl vairāk stiprinātu uzticību Eiropas Parlamentam un Eiropas Savienības institūcijām kopumā, ir jāiegulda lielāks darbs caurskatāmības pasākumos un līdztekus jānodrošina, ka negodīgiem, koruptīviem vai apšaubābiem darījumiem, tai skaitā no trešajām valstīm, šeit nav veselīga augsne.

Es atbalstīju ziņojumu par kopējās ārpolitikas un drošības politikas īstenošanu. Tas precīzi atspoguļo galvenos ģeopolitiskos notikumus aizvadītajā gadā, īpaši vēršot uzmanību uz neprovocēto un nepamatoto Krievijas Federācijas militāro agresiju pret Ukrainu. Tomēr, lai arī es atbalstu ziņojumu, esmu pret tajā ietvertajiem mudinājumiem “pēc iespējas ātrāk” pāriet uz kvalificēta vairākuma balsošanu. Tas ir pretstatā tam, kā līdz šim tikuši pieņemti svarīgi lēmumi. Kvalificētā vairākuma balsojums ir arī pret mazo ES valstu interesēm.

Es balsoju par gadskārtējo ziņojumu par kopējās drošības un aizsardzības politikas īstenošanu, tomēr esmu pret mudinājumiem tieši vai pastarpināti dot zaļo gaismu kvalificētā vairākuma balsojumiem. Tas ir pretstatā tam, kā ES valstu starpā tiek pieņemti lēmumi un būtu pretstatā politikai, kur katras valsts nostāja tiek pienācīgi ņemta vērā.

Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas lēmumi Krievijai nav saistoši, jo valsts ir izstājusies no Eiropas Cilvēktiesību konvencijas. Tas ir tikai viens no soļiem kā Krievija mēģina izvairīties no atbildības starptautiskās sabiedrības priekšā par saviem noziegumiem un pārkāpumiem. Krievija katru dienu turpina savas zvērības Ukrainā.Tīšie uzbrukumi Ukrainas civiliedzīvotājiem, bombardējot daudzdzīvokļu mājas, enerģētikas infrastruktūru, skolas, slimnīcas un bērnu rotaļu laukumus, ir apzināta un aukstasinīgi plānota Krievijas stratēģija un kara taktika. Diemžēl šobrīd nevienai tiesai nav kompetences sodīt kara aizsācējus un kūdītājus – Putinu un citus siltos kabinetos sēdošos asiņainās agresijas režisorus. Tādēļ es atbalstīju šo rezolūciju, kura prasa nekavējoties sākt darbu pie īpaša tribunāla izveides, lai sodītu Krievijas politisko un militāro vadību un tās līdzskrējējus par agresijas noziegumiem pret Ukrainu.Īpaša tribunāla izveide nav vienkārša, taču plašs starptautiskās sabiedrības atbalsts tribunālam ir nepārprotams signāls Krievijas elitei un iedzīvotājiem – par pastrādātajiem noziegumiem Ukrainā būs jāatbild tiesas priekšā. Nesodāmība netiks pieļauta.

Klimata pārmaiņas un dabas aizsardzība ir mūsu paaudzes lielākais izaicinājums, un mums šis izaicinājums ir jārisina pareizi. Es iestājos par bioloģiskās daudzveidības aizsardzību un, skatoties plašāk, atbalstu Eiropas Zaļo kursu un saistītos klimata mērķus. Tomēr mūsu kā likumdevēju uzdevums ir nodrošināt, ka izstrādātie tiesību akti ir pilnvērtīgi, tai skaitā no sociālā un ekonomiskā skatupunkta, un ņem vērā iesaistīto pušu intereses. Diemžēl Dabas atjaunošanas priekšlikums piedāvātajā redakcijā nebija pilnvērtīgs un, attiecīgi, nebija atbalstāms. Tostarp šajā ģeopolitiski sarežģītajā laikā, kad, no vienas puses, mēs runājam par pārtikas drošības nodrošināšanu un palielināšanu, mēs nedrīkstam, no otras puses, iet pretējā virzienā un pieņemt likumu, kas draud samazināt ražu. Tāpat nedrīkst ignorēt sabiedrības viedokli, kurš attiecībā uz šo likumdošanas priekšlikumu bija izteikti sašķelts un attiecīgi norāda uz priekšlikuma nepilnvērtīgo izstrādi. Ņemot vērā iepriekš minēto, es balsoju pret Dabas atjaunošanas likumprojektu.

Eiropas kultūras un valodu daudzveidība ir ES pastāvēšanas pamatā. Tāpēc EP decembra sesijā balsoju pret nepārdomātajiem priekšlikumiem paplašināt Ģeogrāfiskās bloķēšanas regulu, iekļaujot tajā audiovizuālo nozari.Ieklausoties nozares brīdinājumos un kopā ar Kultūras komitejas kolēģiem skaidrojot neprognozējamās sekas Eiropas kino un televīzijas nozarei, plenārsēdē mums izdevās nepieļaut vairāku nozares pastāvēšanai kritisko priekšlikumu iekļaušanu rezolūcijā. Tomēr rezolūcijas tekstā saglabājās vairāki diskutabli priekšlikumi, tāpēc es atturējos gala balsojumā.Šie priekšlikumi ignorē sarežģīto ES audiovizuālo tirgu. Tie pēc būtības aizliegtu audiovizuālajai nozarei mērķēti strādāt kā līdz šim, proti, savu dalībvalstu nacionālajos tirgos, tā vietā faktiski piespiežot televīzijas pakalpojumu sniedzējus piedāvāt savus pakalpojumus visā Eiropas teritorijā. Šāda pilnīga esošās sistēmas maiņa potenciāli nozīmētu mazāk Eiropas audiovizuālo darbu, tostarp mazāk filmu nelielās valodās, mazāk Eiropas televīziju un ziņu satura un galu galā — augstākas cenas patērētājiem.Jāņem vērā, ka Eiropas audiovizuālajā tirgū pārsvarā darbojas nelieli nacionālie operatori, kas piedāvā konkrēto valstu iedzīvotājiem veidotu saturu. Piedāvātās izmaiņas pilnībā sagrautu viņu trauslos ekonomiskos modeļus. Tas tiešā veidā ietekmētu arī informācijas telpas drošību, jo ziņu un pētnieciskās žurnālistikas raidījumi pārsvarā tiek finansēti no ienākumiem, ko televīzijas gūst ar izklaides un sporta saturu, ko tās vairs nevarētu atļauties iepirkt un veidot.