4 Written explanations of Thomas BAJADA

I voted in favour of the objection regarding the modification of the maximum residue levels for carbendazim, thiophanate-methyl and cyproconazole, because products imported from non-EU countries must meet the same standards as those produced within the EU. This is crucial for safeguarding public health and safety, both in Europe and in the countries of origin, and for protecting our farmers from unfair competition.These substances undermine our efforts to ensure fair competition globally and within the internal market. As S&D, we also objected to this measure in the ENVI Committee to uphold the EU's health and environmental standards. Our farmers are justifiably concerned about unfair competition from imports where these substances are still allowed. Therefore, we must ensure that substances banned in the EU for their harmful effects on health, biodiversity or the climate are not indirectly supported through imports from countries that continue to permit their use.

The world has been witnessing appalling atrocities committed against Ukrainian civilians by the Russian army and allied militias throughout the past thousand days.From this perspective, I condemn any form of military aggression, especially when it indiscriminately targets civilian populations.On the other hand, one gets the impression that the players in the conflict are ignoring all possible means of a peaceful resolution. I strongly believe that the EU, as well as all Western States, should strive towards peace and diplomacy, thereby refraining from any acts that could potentially lead to escalation.Moreover, as a representative of a population that enshrines neutrality in its Constitution, I find the resolution’s call for an obligation on all EU Member States to commit to militarily supporting Ukraine with no less than 0.25 % of their GDP to be highly problematic. Such an obligation would create constitutional problems for Malta and any Member State with a similar approach to foreign affairs. The Maltese people have always upheld global diplomacy as the best means of conflict resolution, above all other acts of armed war.Therefore, while solidly agreeing with some important points within the resolution, I was obliged to vote against certain amendments and on the resolution as a whole.

In my view, the decision to upgrade the Security and Defence Subcommittee (SEDE) to a fully-fledged committee is deeply concerning. This move risks overlapping with the existing mandate of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs, which already addresses internal security issues. More importantly, it signals a shift towards a European Union increasingly defined as a defence union. Such a transformation overlooks the constitutional implications for neutral Member States, like Malta, which joined an EU based on its founding principles as a union of peace, economic cooperation, and its four freedoms: not as a defence union.Additionally, the decision to split health policy from the Committee on Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety (ENVI) undermines the inherent connection between these areas. This fragmentation weakens the ability of MEPs working on environment and food safety to fully consider the health impacts of their policies, diminishing the coherence of efforts to protect EU citizens.

Ivvutajt favur din ir-Riżoluzzjoni għax nemmen illi d-drittijiet tan-nisa, speċjalment fejn jidħol il-ħarsien tas-saħħa u l-edukazzjoni, huma pilastru essenzjali biex tiġi mogħtija opportunità ugwali lil kull mara, irrispettivament mill-oriġini tagħha. L-edukazzjoni u s-saħħa huma s-sinsla ta' kull soċjetà moderna. Globalment, dawn id-drittijiet bażiċi għadhom mhux garantiti. Għandha tingħata prijorità sabiex il-mara tkun tista' tgħix ħajja ugwalment denja.B’referenza għas-suġġett tal-abort bħala dritt legali mad-dinja kollha: irridu nagħrfu li, f’diversi pajjiżi, inkluż f’Malta, dan jibqa' suġġett ferm kontroversjali u, sfortunatament, ippolarizzat. Minħabba nuqqas ta’ forma strutturata għal diskussjoni nazzjonali f’Malta, l-opinjonijiet fuq iż-żewġt naħħat m’għandhomx lok adegwat għal diskussjoni serja u bbażata fuq data xjentifika.Konsultazzjoni pubblika, serja u trasparenti, hija essenzjali biex il-poplu jkollu l-opportunità li jesprimi fehmtu b'mod oġġettiv. Kwalunkwe diskussjoni trid tkun immexxija minn evidenza xjentifika, mhux minn retorika politika. Irridu niddistingwu bejn deċiżjonijiet imsejsa fuq pożizzjonijiet personali, u dawk li verament jirriflettu l-interessi ta' soċjetà b'saħħitha u inklussiva.Dan huwa suġġett li jitlob riflessjoni profonda, bilanċjata u apolitiċizzata, sabiex verament tiġi mmaturata x-xewqa tal-poplu Malti.Finalment, id-drittijiet fundamentali tal-bniedem, inklużi dawk tan-nisa, għandhom jibqgħu prijorità, anke meta nindirizzaw suġġetti kontroversjali. Bħala komunità, għandna nersqu lejn dawn it-temi b’approċċ serju, fattwali u kostruttiv, u bi spazju adegwat għall-vuċi tal-poplu Malti kollu.