14 Written explanations of Lukas SIEPER

We are facing the very real and urgent possibility of climate catastrophe. We from the Party of Progress recognise that tackling this crisis requires bold, immediate action. This is why we strongly support the Deforestation Regulation, and believe that we cannot delay its provisions demanding businesses monitor their supply chains for both environmental and human rights violations. These measures are crucial, not only for protecting our planet but also for safeguarding the dignity and rights of vulnerable communities affected by deforestation.With this in mind, I chose to vote against both the proposal to delay the application of the regulation and the additional amendments aimed at loosening EU restrictions and obligations. I fully acknowledge that companies will need time and resources to adapt to these changes. However, time is precisely what we do not have. Every moment we wait is a step closer to irreversible environmental damage. This is why I voted against the proposal to delay the Deforestation Regulation: the task before us is monumental, and we must begin without hesitation.

We are facing the very real and urgent possibility of climate catastrophe. We from the Party of Progress recognise that tackling this crisis requires bold, immediate action. This is why we strongly support the Deforestation Regulation, and believe that we cannot delay its provisions demanding businesses monitor their supply chains for both environmental and human rights violations. These measures are crucial, not only for protecting our planet but also for safeguarding the dignity and rights of vulnerable communities affected by deforestation.With this in mind, I chose to vote against both the proposal to delay the application of the regulation and the additional amendments aimed at loosening EU restrictions and obligations. I fully acknowledge that companies will need time and resources to adapt to these changes. However, time is precisely what we do not have. Every moment we wait is a step closer to irreversible environmental damage. This is why I voted against the proposal to delay the Deforestation Regulation: the task before us is monumental, and we must begin without hesitation.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

Today I chose to vote against the Commission’s proposal to authorise the placement of GMOs in EU markets, instead supporting the objections raised by my colleagues. I believe that the Commission’s draft is indeed inconsistent with EU Regulation 1829/2003, which requires us to ensure in all measures a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests.While the EFSA has approved their safety, there is much we do not know about GMOs regarding their long-term environmental and health risks, and this decision will inevitably hurt smaller European businesses and farmers. We have measures in place to protect our citizens and our businesses for a reason. These same measures should be applied fairly and equally to all our trade partners. As such, I have decided to follow the precautionary principle, prioritising fairness and environmental concerns, by voting in favour of these objections.

We are in a time of democratic crisis, both at home and abroad. Georgia’s recent parliamentary elections raised concerns about alleged electoral fraud and fairness, and as such, I chose to support the JMR put forward by my colleagues. In doing so, I voted in favour of democracy–by reaffirming EU values and supporting sanctions on officials responsible for democratic backsliding, violations of electoral rules, misuse of state institutions. I voted in favour of gender equality, keeping in mind the diminishing political representation of women, and of fairness and accountability, by choosing to apply EU standards to all our partners fairly, and to review Georgia’s visa-free status. We cannot compromise on our respect for fundamental rights, and I believe my votes today reflected that commitment.

My votes today reaffirm my unwavering solidarity with Ukraine and all that it entails: continued political, financial, and military support, as well as strengthened sanctions against Russia and freezing of key assets. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is a challenge to our democratic values and institutions, so today this Chamber has let it be known that the European Union does not respond to aggression or tyrants, and we certainly will not allow nuclear intimidation to become a legitimate tool of diplomacy.While peace is the ultimate goal in Ukraine, there are some non-negotiable conditions on which we will not compromise: territorial integrity and sovereignty, Russian accountability and reparations, and respect for international law. These are European values and they are Ukrainian values. We must protect them.

Promoting smoke- and aerosol-free environments is an important step in furthering public health and the EU Beating Cancer Plan. Cigarettes, as well as new emerging products like e-cigarettes or HTPs, have been proven to be incredibly damaging for both the consumer and for bystanders nearby. Keeping key public areas free from smoking will protect both smokers and non-smokers, and in particular vulnerable groups (children and youth, pregnant people, the elderly, and people with existing health conditions).More concrete action is required to meet the targets of our deeply important Beating Cancer Plan, which tackles one of the leading current challenges to public health. With this in mind, I supported the Commission’s recommendation and the initial JMR. When this failed, I chose pragmatism: I supported several standard MRs from my colleagues and their political groups. Despite the outcome today, we must still keep fighting to protect public health and I am deeply committed to this project.