41 Written explanations of Lynn BOYLAN

I supported this resolution, as its main aim was to signal the EU’s continued support for Ukraine in the face of the Russian invasion. However, I am concerned that Ukraine is being used as a justification for further militarisation of the EU. The resolution contained several worrying points on military expenditure, which I opposed in the votes on amendments.The European Parliament has no right to tell Ireland to spend 0.25 % of its annual GDP on military support to Ukraine, which is why Sinn Féin requested a separate vote on this line to try to remove it from the text. Sinn Féin will continue to defend Irish neutrality and will not allow the EU to undermine it in any way.It is fitting that one of the new European Parliament’s first acts was to express solidarity with Ukraine through this resolution. However, I am very disappointed that the same sense of urgency was not accorded to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The proposal from Sinn Féin’s group to hold a debate on Palestine was rejected by the majority of MEPs. This perpetuates the double standard that the EU institutions have shown towards the two conflicts.

This objection relates to a proposal by the Commission to set new maximum residue levels (MRLs) for certain pesticides. The MRLs refer to the maximum amount of these pesticides that can be present in or on food imported to the EU.The Commission wants to keep some tolerance for imports of foods treated with these pesticides, to keep in line with international tendencies. However, these pesticides are completely banned in the EU due to health concerns (carbdendazim is toxic for reproduction). Allowing their presence in imported foods poses risks to consumers, and to farmers in third countries who use these pesticides on their crops. They also pose risks to biodiversity in countries where they are used.For these reasons, I voted in favour of the objection. The resolution accompanying the objection calls on the Commission to propose new MRLs that would not allow any import tolerance for these pesticides.

This objection relates to a proposal by the Commission to set new maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the pesticide cyproconazole. The MRLs refer to the max amount of this pesticide that can be present in or on food imported to the EU.The Commission wants to keep some tolerance for imports of foods treated with cyproconazole, to keep in line with international tendencies. However, these pesticides are completely banned in the EU due to health concerns (cyproconazole is toxic if swallowed, toxic for the liver and toxic for reproduction). Allowing their presence in imported foods poses risks to consumers, and to farmers in third countries who use these pesticides on their crops. They also pose risks to biodiversity in countries where they are used (cyproconazole is highly toxic for aqautic life).For these reasons, I voted in favour of the objection. The resolution accompanying the objection calls on the Commission to propose new MRLs that would not allow any import tolerance for these pesticides.

I voted in favour of this measure that would approve security arrangements for the launch of EU satellites from US territory. This move became necessary due to the war in Ukraine, which led to the withdrawal of Russian rockets from EU launching sites. In general, I am cautious about the EU’s approach to space policy. The Galileo satellites allow for GPS navigation that can be used by a variety of important sectors, from transport to agriculture to search and rescue. However, they can also be used for law enforcement and border controls. In the wider context of the European Space Programme, we must remain vigilant against the militarisation of space policy. However, this agreement was a purely technical measure, so I did not oppose it. It is however laughable that this vote in the European Parliament took place after several EU satellites had already been launched from US sites. The Parliament’s consent should have been sought earlier and not as a retroactive side note.

I absolutely condemn Russia’s war in Ukraine and its violation of international law. I extend my full solidarity to the people of Ukraine. However, this resolution represents an escalation of the EU position to the point where Ireland would be paying for NATO weapons to be used directly against Russian territory. For this reason I abstained.

While I recognise the concerns about the situation in Venezuela, this resolution is completely unbalanced. In particular I do not accept that the European Parliament should be deciding who the next president of the country should be. For this reason I voted against the resolution.

I supported this resolution as it mainly expressed solidarity and offered practical assistance to those affected. I am wary of the language around further centralising in Europe domestic services such as rescue services. Solidarity and cooperation is welcome. Moves towards replacing national competencies should be resisted.

I voted in favour of this resolution in solidarity with regions that have experienced serious natural disasters. The EU Solidarity Fund is a pre-existing fund specifically designed to mitigate the damage caused by natural disasters, in this case severe flooding brought on by exceptional weather events. The resolution mobilises the fund to mitigate the costs associated with the damages caused.I also welcome that this resolution recognises that, as climate change intensifies, there will be more extreme weather events, that there is special recognition of the vulnerable position of islands and coastal areas, and that it calls for easier access for such areas.

In recent years, Sinn Féin have supported a number of resolutions on Moldova, mostly focused on trade concessions and macro-financial assistance.This resolution seeks to integrate Moldova into EU security and defence policies. The calls for 'stronger cooperation on security and defence policy', 'security and defence partnership with the EU' and to 'progressively include the Republic of Moldova in upcoming legislative initiatives and programmes relating to European security and defence' made it difficult for me to support. I am very concerned about the escalating focus on militarisation and defence within the EU. The current militarisation approach overshadows the positions of neutral states within the EU, including Ireland. It is a very worrying precedent to see alignment with EU security and defence policy presented as a compulsory part of Moldova's potential accession to the EU.There are valid criticisms of Russian interference. However, there is no equivalent criticism of EU interference in the referendum, which is encouraged by this resolution. It is imprudent for Parliament to take such a clear position in advance of the constitutional referendum in Moldova, as this amounts to an attempt to influence a vote in a sovereign third country. Therefore, I abstained.

While incredibly concerned about democratic backsliding in Georgia, I abstained on this resolution as there were a number of significant issues with the text proposed to Parliament.Firstly, the resolution pre-empts the decisions the people of Georgia will have to make for themselves in their own upcoming election.Secondly, the references to the country's Euro-Atlantic integration and orientation at multiple points and alignment with EU foreign policy would suggest that there is only one electoral and policy outcome acceptable to the Parliament.As a representative of a neutral country, I am further concerned that enlargement policy is moving away from focusing on the fundamental values required for EU membership towards requiring alignment with the foreign policy of certain European countries.

We voted in favour of this mechanism, as it will provide revenues from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, so that Ukraine can service and repay loans from the EU and other G7 lenders.We have had previous concerns around the use of MFA packages more broadly in the context where countries have adverse conditionalities (such as privatisation requirements) attached. The specific conditionalities within the mechanism were around upholding democratic standards and fraud prevention (as contained within the Ukraine Facility) and in this context we were happy to support the vote.

I voted in favour on this technical budget file that reflects financial changes. However, I do not support calls for increased own resources funding for the EU.

I voted in favour on this technical budget file that reflects financial changes. However, I do not support calls for increased own resources funding for the EU.

I voted in favour of this motion that mobilises the already-existing European Globalisation Funds in solidarity with workers that were laid off in Belgium due to the closure of the Match-Smatch supermarket chain in Wallonia.

I voted in favour of Parliament's decision not to grant discharge to the Council as the Council does not cooperate in the process. Should we add justification of voting for the PfE amendments on RCV? If so, could add that I supported amendments that proposed the removal of articles that supported abolition of unanimous voting at the Council.

Although the budget was progressive in many aspects, I voted against it on several grounds that are red lines for Sinn Féin. This proposal was a poor deal for farmers and fishers, threatened Irish neutrality by calling for increased military funding, and called for more own resources funding for the EU. There were also amendments, which I could not support that threaten funding for UNWRA and calls for funding for walls at Europe’s borders. The proposal is not in line with Sinn Féin values.

We supported this report which placed an emphasis on education, training, affordable housing, etc.

I voted in favour of this resolution. The Medical Devices Regulation (MDR), implemented in 2017, requires medical device producers to certify their devices under the new safety schemes. Existing products need to be recertified under the new schemes, but there was a transition period to do so. The transition period has been repeatedly pushed back. But many manufacturers still do have not had their products recertified, citing a lack of capacity of certifying bodies.From a patient safety point of view, the sooner manufacturers comply with the new safety guidelines, the better. However, at this stage there have been so many delays and problems that not addressing these issues could limit patient access to important medical devices. The European Commission has already started work on an impact assessment with a view to revising the MDR, which this resolution supports. We need some practical revisions to the MDR which will allow it to be implemented properly and thereby improve patient safety. I did not agree with aspects of the resolution which tried to put a time limit on the Commission's impact assessment – the priority should be for a thorough assessment that prioritises patients, not necessarily speed.

This resolution comes in the context of the COP29 which will be held in Azerbaijan in November. It focuses on human rights abuses in Azerbaijan, which in the past have increased when the country has hosted international events. A number of ECHR rulings have found Azerbaijan to be in abuse of human rights, with over 320 ECHR judgements pending. The resolution calls for better media freedoms, the release of political prisoners, electoral transparency, and protections for civil society in Azerbaijan. It calls on the EU to suspend its gas trade with Azerbaijan and place sanctions on individuals responsible for human rights abuses. Given its overall message in support of protections for human rights and civil space, I supported this resolution. However, I do not agree with the paragraph that called for greater cooperation between Armenia and EU in security and defence, calling on Member States to consider supplying military support for Armenia.

I voted against all amendments to water down the Deforestation Regulation, and the overall proposal to delay its application by 12 months. The delay is a politically motivated move designed to close the deal on the Mercosur Agreement - which will exacerbate the deforestation that the Deforestation Regulation seeks to prevent. At the first opportunity, the new Commission took an axe to our environmental legislation, and the EPP was quick to jump on board, siding with the far right yet again. The Amazon is reaching tipping point: we cannot afford to wait another year without taking action on deforestation.I have heard the concerns of Irish farmers about the Deforestation Regulation. Ireland should be classed as a low-risk country, meaning farmers will have minimal obligations: they will have to provide information that they already provide to avail of CAP payments, and coordinates that can be found on any online map. Any increase in feed prices can be compensated by the EU’s urgency funding for agriculture - there is good precedent for this. But the answer is not to dismantle the Deforestation Regulation, particularly not in order to pass the Mercosur deal, which will be very detrimental to Irish farmers.

I supported this technical report dealing with the digitalisation of VAT exemptions in very limited circumstances.

Sinn Féin abstained again on this report because we find the balance between tackling fraud and encouraging investment is not maintained and that the measures will not be sufficient to tackle fraud. Additionally, the measures approach an imposition on tax sovereignty that we are not comfortable with.

The EIB has been a source of funding for many companies and has a role to play into the future to allow the EU to reach targets such as climate targets. However, banking deregulation to allow greater fearing rations and recent policy changes to allow the EIB to lend to weapon manufacturers mean that I decided to abstain on this motion.

I voted in favour of this resolution, which lays out the EU’s position on the COP29 global climate negotiations. It was important for the European Parliament to send a strong signal at the start of COP, clearly calling for ambitious agreement on climate finance. The resolution also stressed the work needed in the EU, by all sectors, to reduce carbon emissions. There was some language in the resolution that sought to place responsibility on emerging economies rather than the EU, but it is important to remember that Europe also has an historic responsibility to be a leader in climate mitigation and in providing international climate finance. Some attempts by the EPP to weaken the language here were unfortunately successful, but thankfully none of the many climate-denying amendments received a majority. As a result, I was happy to support the resolution.

I am disappointed that there is no reference to the social and economic impact of sanctions (particularly in the context of the cost of living crisis across the EU), nor any suggestion of possible mitigation measures to ease the burden on ordinary people. I am also keenly aware of the double standards of the EU and the failure introduce any sanctions on Israel.However, the resolution does place an important spotlight on maritime and environmental standards and the risks caused by Russian circumvention of sanctions. For this reason I voted in favour.

I supported this and 7 other similar objections related to the authorisation and re-authorisation of several GMO maize and cotton varieties. The Commission has (re-)authorised the sale of these varieties imported into the EU. In the past few years, the European Parliament has regularly objected to these authorisation decisions by the Commission, given the associated environmental risk. These GMO plants are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, which encourage more liberal spraying of pesticides. This is harmful to biodiversity but also to the health of farm workers in other countries. In addition, the plants produce B-toxins, a type of built-in insecticide, which has damaging biodiversity impacts and may also be dangerous for human health. Some of the GMOs also have features that contribute to anti-microbial resistance. For these reasons, I voted to object to the authorisation decisions.

I supported this and 7 other similar objections related to the authorisation and re-authorisation of several GMO maize and cotton varieties. The Commission has (re-)authorised the sale of these varieties imported into the EU. In the past few years, the European Parliament has regularly objected to these authorisation decisions by the Commission, given the associated environmental risk. These GMO plants are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, which encourage more liberal spraying of pesticides. This is harmful to biodiversity but also to the health of farm workers in other countries. In addition, the plants produce B-toxins, a type of built-in insecticide, which has damaging biodiversity impacts and may also be dangerous for human health. Some of the GMOs also have features that contribute to anti-microbial resistance. For these reasons, I voted to object to the authorisation decisions.

I supported this and 7 other similar objections related to the authorisation and re-authorisation of several GMO maize and cotton varieties. The Commission has (re-)authorised the sale of these varieties imported into the EU. In the past few years, the European Parliament has regularly objected to these authorisation decisions by the Commission, given the associated environmental risk. These GMO plants are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, which encourage more liberal spraying of pesticides. This is harmful to biodiversity but also to the health of farm workers in other countries. In addition, the plants produce B-toxins, a type of built-in insecticide, which has damaging biodiversity impacts and may also be dangerous for human health. Some of the GMOs also have features that contribute to anti-microbial resistance. For these reasons, I voted to object to the authorisation decisions.

I supported this and 7 other similar objections related to the authorisation and re-authorisation of several GMO maize and cotton varieties. The Commission has (re-)authorised the sale of these varieties imported into the EU. In the past few years, the European Parliament has regularly objected to these authorisation decisions by the Commission, given the associated environmental risk. These GMO plants are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, which encourage more liberal spraying of pesticides. This is harmful to biodiversity but also to the health of farm workers in other countries. In addition, the plants produce B-toxins, a type of built-in insecticide, which has damaging biodiversity impacts and may also be dangerous for human health. Some of the GMOs also have features that contribute to anti-microbial resistance. For these reasons, I voted to object to the authorisation decisions.

I supported this and 7 other similar objections related to the authorisation and re-authorisation of several GMO maize and cotton varieties. The Commission has (re-)authorised the sale of these varieties imported into the EU. In the past few years, the European Parliament has regularly objected to these authorisation decisions by the Commission, given the associated environmental risk. These GMO plants are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, which encourage more liberal spraying of pesticides. This is harmful to biodiversity but also to the health of farm workers in other countries. In addition, the plants produce B-toxins, a type of built-in insecticide, which has damaging biodiversity impacts and may also be dangerous for human health. Some of the GMOs also have features that contribute to anti-microbial resistance. For these reasons, I voted to object to the authorisation decisions.

I supported this and 7 other similar objections related to the authorisation and re-authorisation of several GMO maize and cotton varieties. The Commission has (re-)authorised the sale of these varieties imported into the EU. In the past few years, the European Parliament has regularly objected to these authorisation decisions by the Commission, given the associated environmental risk. These GMO plants are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, which encourage more liberal spraying of pesticides. This is harmful to biodiversity but also to the health of farm workers in other countries. In addition, the plants produce B-toxins, a type of built-in insecticide, which has damaging biodiversity impacts and may also be dangerous for human health. Some of the GMOs also have features that contribute to anti-microbial resistance. For these reasons, I voted to object to the authorisation decisions.

I supported this and 7 other similar objections related to the authorisation and re-authorisation of several GMO maize and cotton varieties. The Commission has (re-)authorised the sale of these varieties imported into the EU. In the past few years, the European Parliament has regularly objected to these authorisation decisions by the Commission, given the associated environmental risk. These GMO plants are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, which encourage more liberal spraying of pesticides. This is harmful to biodiversity but also to the health of farm workers in other countries. In addition, the plants produce B-toxins, a type of built-in insecticide, which has damaging biodiversity impacts and may also be dangerous for human health. Some of the GMOs also have features that contribute to anti-microbial resistance. For these reasons, I voted to object to the authorisation decisions.

I supported this and 7 other similar objections related to the authorisation and re-authorisation of several GMO maize and cotton varieties. The Commission has (re-)authorised the sale of these varieties imported into the EU. In the past few years, the European Parliament has regularly objected to these authorisation decisions by the Commission, given the associated environmental risk. These GMO plants are resistant to pesticides like glyphosate, which encourage more liberal spraying of pesticides. This is harmful to biodiversity but also to the health of farm workers in other countries. In addition, the plants produce B-toxins, a type of built-in insecticide, which has damaging biodiversity impacts and may also be dangerous for human health. Some of the GMOs also have features that contribute to anti-microbial resistance. For these reasons, I voted to object to the authorisation decisions.

As Ireland is outside the Schengen area I abstained.

This objection concerned measures to reduce the number of dolphins and other cetaceans killed when they are caught in fishing nets in the Bay of Biscay. Thousands of dolphins are killed every year. Existing legislation requires EU Member States to take measures to reduce accidental catches of dolphins, and France and Spain have already faced infringement proceedings and legal challenges for failing to do so. In response, the governments of France, Spain, Portugal and Belgium reached an agreement to implement one-month fishing closures in the Bay for boats larger than 8 metres, as recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. This delegated act is based on that intergovernmental agreement. As the delegated act does not impact Irish fishers, aims to assist Member States in reaching their existing obligations under EU law, and will improve protections for marine wildlife, I did not support the objection against it.

I voted for the Lupo report from BUDG on activating the Solidarity Fund as it releases funds for Germany and Italy following floods earlier this year.

I voted in favour on this technical budget file that reflects financial changes. However, I do not support calls for increased own resources funding for the EU.

I voted against this budget deal. Although it is not a significantly larger budget and I welcome some of the increases in funding for instance in Horizon, there are other areas of reprioritisation that I do not support, in particular, a large cut to farm sustainability funding, and increased funding for border management and militarisation. Furthermore, the 50-50 repayment split for the Next Generation EU is vague and calls for the Parliament to re-programme spending to repay the borrowing. For these reasons, I could not support the joint text.

I abstained on this resolution because the content regarding electoral fraud does not match the OSCE's report from election monitors on the ground in Georgia for the election. The resolution also contains worrying provisions around Euro-Atlantic foreign policy integration and as a representative of a neutral country, I am further concerned that enlargement policy is moving away from focusing on fundamental values required for EU membership towards requiring alignment with the foreign policy of certain European countries.

I welcome the reiteration of our condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.However, I cannot support an escalation of the conflict, which is sought in this resolution.Therefore, I abstained.

I welcome the proposal for a Council recommendation on extending national smoking bans to cover e-cigarettes. I do note that the scope of these bans, including what public spaces to include, remains a national prerogative.The initial text of this resolution was largely positive. It confirmed the Parliament’s support for decisive measures to tackle smoking and the huge health risks it poses, to both smokers and non-smokers.However, a number of amendments were tabled by the far-right groups in Parliament and, with the support of the EPP group, they were passed. These amendments questioned established scientific advice around smoking by calling for further impact assessments and parroted industry arguments that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking. However, the WHO states that there is no proven benefit of e-cigarettes for those who want to quit smoking, and that there is even evidence they could lead to increased smoking levels, particularly among younger people.With these amendments approved, the resolution became toothless and unscientific and so I could no longer support it. I am absolutely in favour of action to reduce smoking and improve people's health and I believe that our laws around tobacco need to cover e-cigarettes as well.