Nikola BARTŮŠEK

Developing a new EU anti-poverty strategy

I voted against the EMPL on developing a new EU anti-poverty strategy because, while combating poverty is a shared objective, this report goes beyond EU competences and promotes an overly centralised, redistributive approach at Union level. The text calls for an EU directive on adequate minimum income, expanded redistributive mechanisms, new Commission task forces, and substantial ring-fenced EU funding, including at least €20 billion for the Child Guarantee. It also repeatedly frames poverty as rooted in “structural injustice” and calls for “a more equitable distribution of wealth”. In my view, social policy, taxation and minimum income schemes fall primarily within the competence of Member States, in line with subsidiarity. I supported the two alternative motions for resolutions (AMR 1 and AMR 2) because they offered a more balanced approach. They focus on employment, growth, competitiveness and national responsibility rather than creating new binding EU obligations and permanent funding commitments. Fighting poverty should mean empowering people through work, skills and economic opportunity — not expanding EU-level bureaucracy and fiscal centralisation. A targeted, subsidiarity-respecting strategy is more effective and more consistent with the Treaties.

World Cancer Day

I voted in favour of the resolution marking World Cancer Day because cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in Europe, and coordinated action at EU level can make a tangible difference for patients and their families. World Cancer Day is an opportunity to reaffirm support for prevention, early detection, equal access to treatment and research. While health policy is primarily a national competence, the EU plays an important complementary role through funding programmes, cross-border research cooperation, data sharing and support for best practices among Member States. Cancer does not stop at national borders. Strengthening cooperation in screening programmes, improving access to innovative therapies and reducing inequalities between regions are legitimate and necessary objectives. Supporting this resolution sends a clear message that fighting cancer is a shared European priority. This vote was not about expanding EU competences, but about reinforcing cooperation, supporting scientific progress and ensuring that patients — regardless of where they live — benefit from advances in medicine. Investing in prevention, research and patient support is both a humanitarian responsibility and a sound long-term investment in public health and economic resilience.

Resolution on the brutal repression against protesters in Iran

I voted in favour of this resolution because it clearly and firmly condemns the brutal repression carried out by the Iranian regime against its own people. The violent crackdown on protesters and the systematic violations of fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be ignored and deserve a strong response from the European Parliament. The resolution strikes an appropriate balance by defending the Iranian people’s right to protest and to decide their own political future, while rejecting both internal repression and external military escalation. It avoids ideological framing and focuses on accountability of the regime and its security forces, rather than collective punishment of the population. Importantly, the text remains credible and responsible. It does not weaken pressure on those responsible for abuses, nor does it endorse interventionist approaches that could further destabilise the region or harm civilians. By supporting this resolution, I reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to human rights, freedom of expression and peaceful protest, and to standing with those who risk their safety to demand dignity and basic freedoms.

The 28th Regime: a new legal framework for innovative companies

The status quo is no longer acceptable. European start-ups and scale-ups are suffocating under 27 divergent legal systems, high administrative costs and slow cross-border expansion, while competitors in the US and Asia scale rapidly. The 28th regime, if kept strictly optional for companies and carefully limited in scope, offers a pragmatic tool to unlock growth, attract investment and keep innovative businesses in Europe instead of exporting them abroad. My support is therefore conditional and strategic: to push the Commission toward a genuinely pro-business, optional and sovereignty-respecting framework, while drawing clear red lines against tax harmonisation by stealth, social dumping and regulatory centralisation. Voting in favour of creatin the 28th regime gives European companies a much-needed boost to compete globally.

Just transition directive in the world of work: ensuring the creation of jobs and revitalising local economies

I voted against this report because it uses the concept of a “just transition” to justify further centralisation, new EU obligations on companies and an expansion of EU competences, without addressing the real causes of Europe’s industrial decline. The report treats the Green Deal’s transformation of labour markets as inevitable, while ignoring the damage already done to industrial regions. It seeks to pave the way for a new binding directive under Article 153 TFEU, despite clear risks of competence overreach into industrial policy and territorial cohesion, which remain primarily national responsibilities. The proposed framework would increase bureaucracy through new EU-level supervision, permanent structures and additional regulatory requirements, particularly affecting SMEs. At the same time, it promotes the expansion of EU funding instruments without credible guarantees of effectiveness or proper absorption. Rather than restoring competitiveness, the report risks legitimising industrial decline, replacing stable industrial jobs with lower-quality employment and strengthening Brussels’ role as an economic planner. It relies on unrealistic assumptions that more regulation, structures and EU money can compensate for flawed industrial and energy policies. For these reasons, and in defence of national sovereignty, competitiveness and realistic industrial policy, I voted against.

Safeguarding and promoting financial stability amid economic uncertainties

I voted in favour of this report because it tackles a real and pressing challenge: safeguarding financial stability in a period of economic uncertainty, geopolitical tension and increasing market complexity. The resolution correctly recognises that financial stability is essential for growth, investment and the protection of taxpayers. It identifies concrete risks such as inflationary pressures, energy and trade shocks, vulnerabilities in real-estate markets, cyber threats and the growing role of non-bank financial intermediaries. Addressing these risks early is preferable to reacting after a crisis has already occurred. I also support the emphasis on stronger supervision, better data, stress-testing and closer coordination between EU and international authorities. Many financial risks are cross-border by nature and cannot be effectively managed by Member States acting alone. Although the text is not perfect, it contains important balancing elements, including respect for the ECB’s price-stability mandate and a cautious approach to the implementation of Basel III that takes EU banking specificities into account. Supporting the report also reflects a constructive and credible approach to legislative cooperation where pragmatic compromises are needed to deliver stable and responsible outcomes. For these reasons, I voted in favour.

Humanitarian aid in a time of polycrisis – reaffirming our principles for a more effective and ambitious response to humanitarian crises

I voted against this report because it departs from the core purpose of humanitarian aid and turns it into a vehicle for political and ideological positioning. Humanitarian assistance must remain neutral, impartial and focused solely on helping people in need. Instead, this report repeatedly politicises humanitarian action, notably through explicit geopolitical criticism, including references to the United States and Israel, which have no place in a text that should be strictly humanitarian in nature. Such an approach risks undermining the credibility, neutrality and effectiveness of EU humanitarian aid on the ground. The report also shows serious substantive shortcomings. It fails to provide a balanced and realistic assessment of major humanitarian crises, including Gaza, and treats sensitive issues in a selective and ideologically driven manner. At the same time, it neglects crucial operational challenges such as combating corruption, diversifying the donor base, and strengthening cooperation with local humanitarian actors — all of which are essential for effective aid delivery. By transforming humanitarian policy into a forum for geopolitical confrontation, the report weakens the EU’s ability to act as a trusted and principled humanitarian actor. For these reasons, and in defence of neutral, needs-based and effective humanitarian assistance, I voted against the report.

Reform of the European Electoral Act – hurdles to ratification and implementation in the Member States

I voted against this report because it goes well beyond its original and legitimate purpose. What was meant to examine the technical reasons why Spain has not yet ratified the 2018 Reform of the European Electoral Act was transformed into a political attempt to further “Europeanise” national elections and erode Member State sovereignty. Electoral law is a core national competence. Article 223 TFEU deliberately establishes a strict triple lock — Parliament’s initiative, unanimity in the Council, and approval in line with national constitutional requirements — precisely to protect national discretion over whether, when, and how electoral reforms take place. This safeguard cannot be bypassed through indirect harmonisation or political pressure. While greater transparency and accessibility in elections are legitimate objectives, the report promotes uniformisation from Brussels in areas that clearly fall under exclusive national responsibility, such as electoral calendars, candidate requirements, ballot design, constituency structures, voting and counting procedures, and electoral thresholds. This approach undermines subsidiarity and proportionality. The issue addressed in the report should be resolved at national level, not through EU-level pressure. For these reasons, and in defence of national sovereignty and real subsidiarity, I voted against the report.

Resolution on the murder of Mehdi Kessaci: urgent need for ambitious European action against drug trafficking

I voted in favour of this resolution because it clearly recognises drug trafficking as a major and growing threat to public security, democracy and fundamental freedoms in the European Union. The murder of Mehdi Kessaci is a tragic illustration of the extreme violence and intimidation used by organised criminal networks. The resolution highlights the sharp escalation of drug-related violence, including targeted killings, the spread of firearms, and the ability of criminal organisations to infiltrate the legal economy and corrupt democratic systems. These are cross-border phenomena that no Member State can tackle effectively on its own. By calling for stronger European cooperation in policing, judicial coordination and the fight against money laundering, the resolution acknowledges the need for an EU-level response to transnational crime. It also succeeds in putting this issue firmly on the political agenda at European level, which is essential given the scale of the problem and the growing impact on local communities. While the text could have been more explicit about the role of law enforcement and border protection, supporting it sends a clear signal that the EU must act decisively against organised crime and narco-violence. For these reasons, I voted in favour

Protection of minors online

I abstained because the report contains several points I strongly agree with, but also elements that I cannot support – particularly on EU-level age verification and its link to the EU Digital Identity Wallet. On the one hand, the report addresses very real risks that minors face online. I supported the calls for stronger market surveillance of dangerous products, better protection against addictive design features, and safeguards ensuring that the fight against child sexual abuse cannot be used as a pretext for scanning private communications. I also welcomed the recognition that cultural differences across Member States matter and that parental responsibility should remain central. However, I could not endorse the push for harmonised EU age thresholds and EU-driven technological solutions for age verification. The report opens the door to mechanisms tied to the EU Digital Identity Wallet, and I have serious concerns about privacy, data exposure and the creation of a centralised EU-controlled identification system for accessing everyday online platforms. I believe Member States should retain flexibility, and age assurance must not undermine anonymity or fundamental rights. Because the report mixes positive child-protection measures with problematic EU-level intrusion into digital identity, I decided to abstain.

Access to finance for SMEs and scale-ups

I voted in favour because this is our own Patriots report, and it directly reflects our priorities: supporting SMEs, reducing bureaucracy and pushing back against excessive Green Deal obligations. The text recognises, for the first time in ECON, that the Green Deal has become a major source of regulatory and administrative costs for businesses. This is fully in line with our long-standing position that EU climate legislation has become an obstacle to competitiveness and growth. Our report focuses on practical measures: cutting red tape, improving access to private capital, strengthening venture capital, reducing cross-border barriers, and ensuring that Member States keep control over their own financing models. It rejects one-size-fits-all EU rules and firmly defends subsidiarity and national sovereignty. These principles are central to the Patriots’ approach. The alternative motion tabled by S&D, Greens, and The Left would replace our report with a more ideological, regulatory-heavy text. For that reason, we voted against their amendment and in favour of our own resolution. In short, I supported a report that prioritises economic growth, private investment and SME competitiveness – while rejecting the bureaucratic, centralised and Green Deal–driven alternative.

Resolution on protection of EU consumers against the practices of certain e-commerce platforms: the case of child-like sex dolls, weapons and other illegal products and materials

I voted in favour because the resolution directly tackles a serious problem: dangerous, illegal, or sexualised products – including child-like sex dolls – being sold freely on platforms such as Shein, Temu, AliExpress and others. These platforms have been repeatedly caught selling non-compliant products that threaten children’s safety, violate EU rules or openly enable criminal behaviour. With billions of parcels entering the EU every year, controls are overwhelmed and platforms based outside Europe exploit loopholes and weak enforcement. Our priority is simple: protect European consumers, protect children, and strengthen Member States’ powers against irresponsible platforms. The text supported by the EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens contains no ideological red lines and includes measures we strongly favour: stricter monitoring, stronger customs controls, ending VAT and duty exemptions on cheap parcels, the possibility to suspend platforms selling illegal products and requiring greater cooperation with Europol. I also supported our own Patriots resolution, which goes even further by demanding tougher sanctions, higher customs tariffs, full platform liability, and stronger online protection for minors. I voted against the Left’s text because it inserted ideological elements on CS3D and migrant workers that have nothing to do with consumer safety. In short: my vote supports tough action against illegal platforms and better protection for EU citizens.

Ensuring faster registration and uptake of biological control agents

I voted in favour of this report because it makes it much easier and faster for farmers to access biological control products – natural, low-risk alternatives that help protect crops from pests. Today, getting these products approved in the EU takes around nine years, compared to only three years in the United States or Brazil. This slow process hurts European farmers and especially small companies that develop innovative biocontrol solutions. The report pushes for simpler, faster procedures without weakening safety checks. A key reason to support the text is that it takes a balanced approach: biocontrol products are not meant to replace conventional pesticides, but to complement them. Farmers should have more tools available – not fewer – and the report makes clear that the use of biocontrol must remain voluntary. It also promotes longer authorisation periods for low-risk products, automatic renewals in some cases, and mutual recognition between regions, avoiding pointless repeated approvals in every Member State. Overall, the report strengthens innovation, reduces unnecessary bureaucracy, and gives farmers more safe and affordable options to protect their crops. It supports productivity, competitiveness, and environmental responsibility at the same time –this is why I voted in favour.

Institutional aspects of the Report on the future of European Competitiveness (Draghi Report)

I voted against the Draghi report because it fundamentally exceeds the institutional competences of the European Parliament and shifts the debate away from its proper constitutional and institutional focus. Instead of analysing institutional structures, the report moves into broad political, economic and foreign-policy territory, which is inappropriate for an AFCO report and risks blurring the separation of roles between EU institutions. A central reason for opposition is the report’s proposal to abolish unanimity in key areas. Unanimity is a core safeguard of Member State sovereignty, particularly on sensitive issues where national governments must retain full control. Removing this safeguard would weaken national democracies, disrupt the balance of power within the EU and push the Union toward deeper political centralisation without democratic legitimacy. The report also encourages further politicisation of the EU, turning the economic union into a political and geopolitical union of values – an approach that risks conflict, given the deep cultural and strategic differences among Member States. The EU should instead concentrate on areas that genuinely unite Europeans, such as internal trade and reindustrialisation, neither of which require Treaty change. For these reasons, the direction of the report threatens institutional stability and the rule-of-law balance. Therefore, I voted against it.

Impact of artificial intelligence on the financial sector

I voted against this report on the impact of artificial intelligence in the financial sector because, although it raises valid points about risks, it ultimately pushes for too much regulation. The report fails to keep the rules balanced and innovation friendly. Instead of supporting progress and competitiveness, the final text leans heavily toward stricter rules and more bureaucracy. For example, it suggests expanding 'high-risk' classifications to insurance, even though experts warned this would make insurance more expensive for ordinary people. It also criticises the current balance between national and EU financial supervisors, even though that balance helps encourage competition and new ideas. On top of that, some amendments added by the left focus on ideological issues – such as environmental impact statements for every AI system – that add extra burdens without offering real benefits. The final text does not support innovation, raises costs for consumers and adds unnecessary regulation – which is why I voted against it.

Gender Equality Strategy 2025

I voted against the Gender Equality Strategy 2025 because the report promotes an ideological and intrusive vision of gender policy that goes far beyond the legitimate goal of equality between women and men. Instead of defending equality before the law, it imposes a radical agenda built around gender ideology, intersectionality and supranational control over matters that should remain the exclusive competence of Member States, such as education, family policy and bioethics. The text also promotes the creation of binding EU-level mechanisms to monitor so-called 'gender mainstreaming'. These proposals threaten national sovereignty and undermine the principle of subsidiarity. Our amendments reaffirmed a more balanced and respectful approach to equality: one based on the dignity of the person, biological reality, and the protection of women against real forms of violence, exploitation and insecurity – without ideological excess. True equality should protect women, families and children, rather than serve as a tool for social engineering. For these reasons, I voted against the report and in favour of our amendments defending subsidiarity, freedom and respect for national values.

Resolution on the UN Climate Change Conference 2025 in Belém, Brazil (COP30)

I took this position because the text once again reflects the ideological excesses of the Green Deal, confusing climate ambition with dogmatic environmentalism. Instead of promoting innovation, technological neutrality and energy sovereignty, the resolution focuses on ever-stricter regulations, massive financial transfers to third countries and unrealistic goals such as tripling renewables and accelerating the phase-out of combustion engines. I believe Europe needs a pragmatic and balanced climate strategy – one that protects our competitiveness, energy security and industrial base, while supporting technologies like nuclear power, CCS, biofuels and e-fuels. This resolution ignores those priorities and undermines Member States’ right to define their own energy mix. It also proposes new environmental obligations for defence policy and calls to transform the European Investment Bank into a 'green' institution – measures that are ideologically driven and economically harmful. By voting against, I wanted to make clear that I support a realistic, innovation-based transition rather than a punitive and de-growth model. Europe must lead through technology, not ideology, and climate policy must remain compatible with sovereignty, jobs and competitiveness.

A new legislative framework for products that is fit for the digital and sustainable transition

I abstained on the vote regarding the new legislative framework for products fit for the digital and sustainable transition because, although the report contains some positive elements, it remains overly ambitious and raises concerns about excessive regulatory burdens and unclear implementation. The new legislative framework revision seeks to modernise EU product rules to promote circularity, reparability and sustainability, introducing measures such as a Digital Product Passport for all goods, including second-hand products. This digital system would improve consumer information and market surveillance, aligning with broader EU goals of climate neutrality and sustainable consumption. The report also calls for fairer rules for refurbishers and repairers, VAT reductions for second-hand goods and stronger responsibility for non-EU sellers—steps that are commendable in principle. However, despite some improvements secured during negotiations, the text remains too far-reaching, risking additional administrative and financial burdens on businesses, especially SMEs, and leaving many practical aspects of implementation undefined. Proposals such as advertising bans for fast fashion and the potential phasing-out of the CE marking add further uncertainty. Given this mixed outcome – some progress toward a modern, sustainable framework but persistent concerns about overregulation and feasibility – the most balanced and responsible position was to abstain.

Resolution on the Second World Summit for Social Development

I voted against the European Parliament resolution on the Second World Summit for Social Development. While the summit itself – organised by the UN – aims to promote social progress and inclusion, the accompanying European Parliament text goes far beyond its mandate and turns into a politicised endorsement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda and a new 'European social deal for the future'. The resolution calls for net‑zero emissions by 2050, new EU‑level social spending and even preferential treatment for specific groups such as migrants and LGBTIQ+ communities in housing and welfare policies. It also promotes further funding for trade unions and a binding EU framework for minimum income, even though wage and social policy are not EU competences. This approach represents ideological overreach rather than a pragmatic vision for Europe’s workers and families. Instead of focusing on job creation, competitiveness and social cohesion, the text advances a centralised, politically driven agenda disconnected from real economic realities. For these reasons, I voted against the resolution – to defend subsidiarity, fiscal responsibility, and national control over social and labour policies.

Implementation report on the Recovery and Resilience Facility

I voted against the 2024 report on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) because the Facility suffers from fundamental structural and accountability flaws. The RRF was originally intended as a one-off emergency tool, but the report appeared to endorse it as a model for future instruments. I object to a lack of transparency and objective criteria in the Commission’s assessment of milestones, which seem influenced by political considerations. Additionally, the projected economic benefits of the RRF have been repeatedly revised downwards, with little evidence it has provided reforms or significantly impacted employment and growth. Concerns were also raised about the low absorption of funds, particularly loans, and the complexity of administrative procedures, which hindered access in several Member States. Further joint borrowing initiatives, like those enabled under the RRF, could pose a long-term burden on taxpayers, especially in the absence of a credible repayment strategy. The report also called for expanding EU borrowing and the European Parliament's role. Without clear mechanisms for fraud detection, ex-post evaluation and depoliticised governance, I could not support the report.

The Commission’s 2024 Rule of Law report

I voted against the 2024 Rule of Law report because I oppose several aspects that were seen as infringing on national sovereignty and overstepping EU competences. While the report contained acceptable elements – such as supporting judicial independence and anti-corruption efforts – it also included many controversial provisions that I could not support. These included: support for the rule of law conditionality mechanism, which could be used to withhold EU funds from Member States; attempts to regulate media, social media and online speech, raising concerns about free expression; and calls to bypass national governments in disbursing EU funds, seen as undermining national institutions. Many of these issues fall within national jurisdiction, not EU competence. My vote against reflects a defence of national sovereignty and resistance to perceived ideological overreach by EU institutions.

Amendments to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure concerning the declaration of input (Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure)

I supported the amendment to Article 8 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure regarding the disclosure of external input. This change requires rapporteurs to indicate when their reports are influenced by interest groups or representatives of non-EU governments, helping to strengthen transparency in our legislative work. I believe it’s important that citizens are informed about the sources shaping our decisions, without placing excessive bureaucratic demands on MEPs. The amendment applies solely to internal parliamentary procedures, respects the sovereignty of Member States and avoids overreach into national matters. For me, this is a step towards more transparent and accountable law-making.

Strengthening rural areas in the EU through cohesion policy

I voted in favour of the report on 'Strengthening rural areas in the EU through cohesion policy' because it presents a realistic, balanced strategy to support structurally disadvantaged rural regions without ideological excess. The report highlights key challenges – such as depopulation, lack of infrastructure, economic fragility and limited access to essential services – and proposes actionable solutions, like expanding broadband, promoting youth entrepreneurship, and supporting rural women and family farming. Importantly, 10 amendments supported by my political group were included, addressing youth employment, digital access, support for the disabled and realistic ecological targets. The report also ensures funding eligibility for the outermost regions and small rural businesses.

Guidelines for the 2026 budget - Section III

I voted against the draft report on the 2026 EU budget guidelines because it fails to reflect the priorities and concerns of millions of European citizens and instead pushes a left-liberal, ideologically driven agenda. The report overemphasises issues like the Green Deal, gender policies, and migration funding, while completely neglecting essential areas such as border protection, economic competitiveness, and respect for Member State sovereignty. It supports the continued use of EU funds for programmes and NGOs that often promote a centralised, ideological narrative – funded by taxpayers but used to pressure Member States politically. Despite the serious concerns we raised – including the misuse of funds, failures of EU migration policy, the economic harm of the Green Deal, and the politicisation of the rule of law – none of our amendments were accepted or even allowed to be voted on. This exclusion makes it clear that there was no intention to include alternative views or ensure real debate. The EU budget should reflect balance, transparency, and real solutions – not serve as a tool for pushing one-sided political goals. For these reasons, I could not support the report and voted against it.

Implementation of the common foreign and security policy – annual report 2024

I voted against the 2024 CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) annual report because it fundamentally reflects a centralised, ideological, and unbalanced vision of EU foreign policy that fails to respect Member State sovereignty and adaptability to current global realities. None of the amendments proposed by our group were accepted – amendments that were essential to ensuring a Europe of Nations, prioritising bilateral diplomacy, and preserving unanimity in foreign policy decisions. Instead, the report promotes further centralisation through the European External Action Service (EEAS) and qualified majority voting, undermining the independence of Member States. While we acknowledge the report includes some agreeable positions (on Ukraine, Israel, and Latin American dictatorships), it is overshadowed by a series of left-leaning, unrealistic, and ideologically driven positions – including unjustified criticism of Hungary and Israel, blind support for EU enlargement without safeguards, and endorsement of gender policies and the ICC that do not align with our priorities. Furthermore, the report lacks a strategic response to shifting global dynamics and repeats the outdated approach of previous years. For these reasons – principled, political, and strategic – I voted against this report. It does not reflect the foreign and security policy Europe truly needs today.

Implementation of the common security and defence policy – annual report 2024

I voted against the report because it contains several unacceptable proposals that undermine national sovereignty and strategic balance. It suggests removing the unanimity rule for decisions on the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), which goes against the spirit of the EU Treaties and weakens Member States’ control over foreign policy. It also calls for each country to commit at least 0.25 % of GDP in financial support to Ukraine, imposing a rigid obligation without considering national differences.

The European Social Fund Plus post-2027

I voted against the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) post-2027 report because it demands a budget increase without proving past efficiency. Instead of focusing on employment and training, it prioritises the green transition and redistributes funds towards migrants under the guise of anti-discrimination. It also seeks to centralise social policy at EU level, undermining Member States' authority. As the author of the PfE-ECR joint alternative motion for a resolution, I proposed amendments to ensure ESF+ serves its true purpose: focusing on employment and training rather than ideological spending; prioritising families and national citizens in social aid allocation; preventing ESF+ from influencing immigration policies or enabling uncontrolled migration; opposing centralisation of social policies at EU level; ensuring efficiency and accountability in fund distribution; excluding NGOs as beneficiaries to direct aid to individuals. The draft report shifts power from Member States to Brussels, funds EU-level trade unions and diverts ESF+ from its core mission. Instead, I support our PfE-ECR resolution, which upholds national sovereignty, fiscal responsibility and efficiency in social funding.

Resolution on the need for actions to address the continued oppression and fake elections in Belarus

Voting in favour of this resolution is crucial to address the continued oppression and violation of democratic principles in Belarus. The resolution highlights the regime's systematic attacks on fundamental freedoms, including the repression of trade union leaders, the manipulation of migrants to destabilise the European Union, and the suppression of independent media. Moreover, the resolution reaffirmed support for the Belarusian people's right to political and economic independence and condemned the Lukashenko regime’s alignment with Russia in the ongoing war in Ukraine. By voting in favour, I stand in solidarity with the people of Belarus in their struggle for freedom and against hybrid threats and safeguarding their values against external destabilising forces.

Decision on setting up a special committee on the European Democracy Shield, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office

I voted against the establishment of a special European Democracy Shield committee because the fight against hybrid attacks and disinformation is already effectively addressed by existing committees such as LIBE, AFET, and JURI. These committees possess the expertise and mandate to tackle these critical issues, making the creation of a new committee redundant. Moreover, establishing a new committee, even on a temporary basis of 12 months, would lead to additional expenses for European taxpayers. At a time when fiscal responsibility is paramount, it is essential to prioritise efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts within the European Parliament. This decision aligns with the broader goal of maintaining a streamlined and effective Parliament. Instead of creating new structures, the existing committees should be empowered to fully utilise their mandates and resources to address the challenges of hybrid attacks and disinformation. Strengthening coordination and optimising the use of current capacities is a more cost-effective and practical solution. For these reasons, I believe the proposal for a special European Democracy Shield committee was unnecessary and fiscally imprudent, and I therefore voted against it.

Decision on setting up a special committee on the Housing Crisis in the European Union, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office

I voted against the establishment of a parliamentary committee to address housing because it oversteps the competencies assigned to the European Union under the European Treaties. While the housing crisis is a pressing issue for many Member States, housing markets across the EU vary significantly, requiring tailored, localised solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach at EU level. This is a clear case where the subsidiarity principle should apply, ensuring that decisions are made as closely as possible to the citizens they affect. Member States are better positioned to address their unique housing challenges, and creating an EU-level committee risks unnecessary interference and inefficiency. Moreover, assigning housing to a parliamentary committee contradicts the foundational principles of EU governance and risks diverting resources away from areas where the EU has clear competence. For these reasons, I opposed the proposal.

Activities of the European Ombudsman – annual report 2023

I voted in favour of this report, as it underscores the significant contributions of the European Ombudsman in 2023 toward enhancing the quality and transparency of EU administration. The report highlights her efforts to improve processes, particularly in relation to the awarding of contracts by the European Commission, ensuring accountability and fairness. By addressing administrative shortcomings and fostering openness, the Ombudsman’s work strengthens public trust in EU institutions. This aligns with the broader objective of promoting good governance and maintaining high standards of integrity in public administration. Supporting this report reflects my commitment to advancing transparency and accountability across EU operations.