Alternattiva Demokratika Chairperson and MEP candidate Arnold Cassola has said that the priorities of AD and the Greens are those which enhance and improve the quality of life of all. He presented an internet based ‘vote tracker,’ which shows how MEPs and political groups voted on important issues: http://greens-efa-service.org/votetracker/.

Arnold Cassola added, “talk is cheap, it’s votes that count. Voters can use the vote tracker to find out how MEPs voted on key issues for the Greens (economic, social and environmental policy, democracy and civil liberties among others). Once you have chosen the issue, you can choose to see how a whole political group voted or how MEPs from the same party/group in your country voted.”

AD candidate for MEP Yvonne Ebejer Arqueros said, “AD is and has always been consistent unlike others who talk about certain issues but then balk when it comes to action. I will just mention one simple example of the difference between rhetoric and action.”

“On May the 6th, the conservative EPP-ED group (supported by ALDE) in the European Parliament successfully postponed a vote on the Estrela report, which relates to maternity and paternity leave, as well as improved protection against workplace discrimination for working mothers. The report was previously adopted by Parliament’s women’s rights and gender equality committee.”

“For Alternattiva Demokratika the harmonisation of a respectable minimum maternity leave period throughout the EU and for Maltese and Gozitan mothers in line with recommendations by the ILO and WHO is a very important issue. It is a practical way to put rhetoric into practice.”

“The Estrela report recommends 24 weeks of maternity leave. Maternity leave in Malta is 14 weeks, one of the lowest periods in the EU. Contrary to perceptions, an increase in the maternity leave period together with measures to help SMEs will increase and encourage women to take up employment. Our government, once again, is one of the countries in the EU opposing such a positive proposal. Another important measure which is still on the backburner in Malta is the provision of childcare facilities. I hope that voters will be aware of where the political groups truly stand on family issues when they go to the polls on the 6th of June.”

Examples:

Environment and public health
Limiting pollution from big industry

The EU has legislation in place since 1996 aimed at limiting pollution from the largest industrial installations. This includes limit values for atmospheric pollutants that cause acid rain and smog. As part of a revision of the legislation, the European Commission proposed updating pollution limits for large combustion plants and merging industry specific laws into one instrument. The European Parliament voted on the legislative proposal in March 2009. A shocking last minute amendment by the EPP group sought to exclude most of the manufacturing industry (including heavy polluters like the oil, steel and chemical industries) from the scope of the air pollutant limit values set in the legislation. The amendment conflicts with the aim of the legislation as well as a European Court of Justice ruling, yet a majority of MEPs voted in favour of it!

PN MEPs: Wanted to exclude major polluting industries from pollution limits under EU legislation

Environment and public health
Regulating hazardous chemicals

The European Commission proposed legislation to regulate the production and use of chemicals in the EU. The aim of the legislation, which was to include provisions for registering and authorisation of substances, was to give much greater protection to people from hazardous chemicals. The European Parliament voted its first reading position on the legislation in November 2005. A compromise between the EPP and PES groups, supported by Liberals, led to the parliament’s position being considerably weakened at the last minute. The result being that many substances would only have to provide basic information, with weaker requirements for chemicals produced in higher volumes. Ultimately, the compromise reduced costs for industry at the considerable expense of public and animal health and the environment.

PN MEPs: Supported weaker rules to regulate hazardous chemicals

Transparency and individual rights
Disclosing unethical behaviour of lobbyists

The European Commission proposed a ‘European Transparency Initiative’, with a view to making the activities of lobbyists to the EU institutions more transparent. A key part of the initiative was the setting up of a register for lobbyists and an accompanying ‘code of conduct’. Unfortunately, this register and code of conduct are voluntary, so lobbyists are not obliged to partake. The European Parliament adopted its report on the initiative in May 2008. In the interests of ensuring full transparency, the Greens/EFA group proposed an amendment aimed at ensuring that any unethical behaviour by lobbyists would be made public. Regrettably, this amendment was defeated by a majority of MEPs.

PN MEPs: Opposed making unethical behaviour by lobbyists public

Nuclear no solution
Nuclear public funding is only used for safety research

Nuclear power is not a solution for climate change. The nuclear industry is in global decline and any attempts to reverse this decline would be both overly costly and would not be realised in time to contribute to the urgently-needed greenhouse gas reductions. This is not to mention the massive risks associated with nuclear power and the unresolved question of how to safely deal with dangerous radioactive waste. Using public funding for research into this outdated and dangerous technology diverts much needed funding for R&D in safe and sustainable energy sources that will provide for our energy future, like renewables. In 2006, the European Parliament voted on an EU programme for funding research into nuclear energy. The Greens tabled an amendment to try and ensure that public funds would only be used for research into nuclear safety, believing the industry itself should pay for any R&D into its outdated technology. The amendment was defeated.

PL MEPs: No opinion whether public funds for nuclear research should only be used for nuclear safety PN MEPs: Did not want the use of public funds for nuclear research to be limited to research into nuclear safety

Permalink: AD launches new internet based vote tracker