Activities of Kathleen FUNCHION

P10_CRE-PROV(2024)09-19(4-0102-0000)

P10_CRE-PROV(2024)10-10(4-0108-0000)

P10_CRE-PROV(2024)10-21(1-0204-0000)

P10_CRE-PROV(2024)10-22(2-0375-0000)

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.

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.

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 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.

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 was 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 fundamental values required for EU membership towards requiring alignment with the foreign policy of certain European countries.

While incredibly concerned about democratic backsliding in Georgia, I abstained on this resolution as there was 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 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 Match-Smatch supermarket chain in Wallonia.

I voted in favour of the Parliaments decision not to grant discharges 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 ad, 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 neutrrality 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.

E-001623/2024

E-001795/2024

E-001930/2024

P-001999/2024

E-001998/2024

E-002117/2024

E-002154/2024

E-002167/2024

E-002166/2024

E-002165/2024

E-002164/2024

E-002246/2024

E-002418/2024