5 Written explanations of Mick WALLACE

. ‒ Titanium dioxide is used in many products and processes, mainly as a white colorant in paints, plastics, paper, toothpaste, pharmaceuticals, and even in some food.The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer says that titanium dioxide is a ‘possible carcinogen for humans’. The French Government, backed by the European Chemicals Agency, considers titanium dioxide to be a ‘suspected carcinogenic’ when inhaled. A Commission delegated act wants to classify the substance as a ‘carcinogen category 2’ by inhalation, meaning it needs to be labelled as such.The ECR group is objecting to this delegated act.The classification of titanium dioxide by the EU as a ‘suspected carcinogen’ would not lead to a ban, or even to restrictions on the chemical or its use. It would simply mean that products containing it need to be clearly labelled as potentially carcinogenic, to provide information to workers and consumers.ECR claim the science is unclear. That is nonsense. The only other people who are objecting to this are industry lobbyists.

. ‒ 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, which is 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 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

This vote has been presented as merely a technical modification of an existing agreement.But this is actually a very serious issue. It is about giving consent to a new and dangerous international trade treaty in the context of the World Trade Organisation.Even though this treaty was negotiated under the umbrella of the WTO, the agreement does not have a multilateral mandate. Less than half of WTO members agreed to it. Almost all of the African group and a number of Latin American and Asian countries completely opposed the agreement.Therefore, the agreement breaks the basic rule of the WTO of only pursuing negotiations on new issues when there is consensus among all members. It sets a dangerous precedent and exacerbates the power asymmetries that exist in the WTO.Governments will have to open national lawmaking to influence by foreign corporations and other governments. Governments will lose discretion over which service providers they want to authorise.We need to put decent jobs, social rights, public services and protections, and ecological sustainability at the heart of multilateral trade rules.

The idea that we should exempt new oil and gas infrastructure from the ‘do no significant harm’ principle to secure energy security is absolutely staggering. Some 70% of global LNG supply is already under long-term contract. There will be very little extra coming online before 2025. So the EU will only be able to import more by drawing supply away from other markets, at sky-high prices.One committee amendment proposes that a maximum amount for this spending should be established by the Commission following a needs-based assessment. But the amendment also references a previous Commission estimate of EUR 10 billion that would be required by 2030 for the desired level of gas infrastructure, including LNG import terminals and pipelines, and to connect underutilised LNG import terminals and the EU network.Is this really what we want to do with the proposed exemption to the ‘do no significant harm’ principle? Spend EUR 10 billion facilitating the import of filthy fracked gas from other rogue states like the US and Qatar?