DWARSe amendments and motions

What?

At the GroenLinks congress 16 February, DWARS is submitting 7 proposed amendments and 2 motions. We will defend our proposals and then the congress will vote. You can read our proposals in the conference newspaper, and below you can read our rebuttal to the party leadership's response. Our motions will only appear in the daily newspaper, but you can already read them below.

We would like extra speaking time and will be collecting speaker vouchers at the conference for that purpose. You can hand these in to a DWARSe volunteer and you can sign up as a DWARSe volunteer by emailing to willem@dwars.org. See you on 16 February!

Where?

You will find our motion on the loan system on this page and our motion on gender registration here.
The amendment proposals can be found below... ⤵️

Don't feel like reading?

Wondering why we support two amendment proposals from another organisation? Read the explanation on our opinions on the GroenLinks amendments here.

Quota

Original text - 14 EMANCIPATION AT THE TOP EU institutions ensure proportional representation of women and minorities in top European positions.

Proposal 7 DWARS - MEN'S QUOTA - Replace entire paragraph with: EU institutions shall ensure, through binding rules including quotas, proportional representation of men, women and minorities in top European positions.

Comment - (A better gender ratio has been on the agenda for years, but change has been too slow. If we really want better representation of women and minorities at the top, we should put a cap on men).

Opinion - Party leadership: Adoption

CO2 price

Original text - 7 MINIMUM PRICE A minimum price will be introduced in the emissions trading system. If allowances to be auctioned fall below this minimum price, they will be cancelled.

Proposal 9 DWARS - MINIMUM PRICE CO2 - Between ...in the emissions trading system. (...) If to be auctioned... Add This minimum amount is based on the cost of removing the same amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, so that at least adaptation and mitigation costs can be met with it.

Comment - To discourage CO2 emissions, we need to put a price on them. This price is not out of the blue, but based on actual (future) costs. If mitigation or adaptation costs turn out to be not great, the price can still be artificially increased.

Opinion - Party leadership: do not adopt. We opt for a minimum price that, like the rest of the measures in this paragraph, is aimed at achieving targets set in Paris. The price should be based on its effect on preventing CO2 emissions, not on some other criterion. Moreover, this text is not clear: What exactly is meant by "removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" is not clear. This can be done with many different techniques that are often currently under development that we are far from positive about (such as CCS). By basing the price of CO2 emissions on unproven, and potentially problematic, technologies to get CO2 out of the air, we unintentionally give them a lot of legitimacy. Moreover, it is unclear whether this gives us a CO2 price that is best suited to achieving our goals.

Response DWARS: Of course we have to set everything to meet the Paris targets, but after we have met Paris our goal does not stop. So we need to be able to explain the price of CO2 alongside the Paris targets. Emissions of CO2 have real, future, costs and THAT is why emissions should cost money.

Train network

Original text - 1 EUROPEAN TRAIN CONNECTIONS The EU encourages good cross-border public transport, especially by train. The distance within which trains are a good means of transport should be increased. For medium distances, a fast network between metropolises is created. For long distances, the night train makes a comeback and the European network of night trains is further expanded. Barriers to international travel will be removed through better cooperation between national train providers. Connections between border regions are improved. Only where necessary will new connections be built in the network.

Proposal 13 DWARS - EU RAILWAY - Between 'in particular by train.' (...) 'The distance within which' add 'An agency shall take responsibility for establishing a European train network.'

Clarification - The original text talks about a fast train network between different cities, but it does not say who is responsible for this or how it should be created. DWARS would like one institution to take the initiative in this: an agency (semi-governmental organisation), similar to the NS in the Netherlands. That way there is a central organisation with a mandate to create the European network and there is no need to
endless consultations between carriers from different countries. Not every track needs to be replaced if it is already there, but there will be European trains).

Opinion - Party leadership: Do not adopt. On the contrary, we have chosen in the programme to keep the number of new agencies to a minimum. We want better coordination between national railway companies quickly, not a new organisation on top of it.

Response DWARS: We want better coordination by a new organisation.

Genetic modification 

Original text - 8 GENETIC MODIFICATION The EU is committed to an agriculture free of transgenic modification. Cisgenetically modified crops are strictly controlled. The EU supports GM-free production chains. The labelling requirement for already authorised gene food is extended to products from animals fed with gene feed. Suppliers of GM products become fully liable for (environmental) damage, e.g. 'contamination' by other farmers' crops.

Proposal 15 DWARS GMOS - Replace entire text with '8. [Genetic modification] Genetically modified crops offer opportunities for sustainable, nature-inclusive, efficient and low-risk agriculture. However, crops must be tested for safety for humans and the environment. The concentration of power in large biotech companies will be countered by reviewing the regulation of patents. The labelling requirement for already authorised GM crops will be extended to products from animals fed on these crops.

Comment - Dangers to sustainable agriculture are toxic pesticides, monocultures, too much/little (artificial) manure, climate change and monopolies. Non GMOs. Every product, GMO or not, should be tested against health requirements and risks to environment. There is scientific consensus that GMOs pose no particular danger to human health. Rather, we regulate patents and ban poisons.

Opinion - Party leadership: Do not adopt. With GMOs, a distinction must be made between transgenetic modification (the insertion of genes foreign to species) and accelerating cross-breeding of crops within species (such as cisgenesis), as the election manifesto does. Transgenetic modification leads to modifications in crops that would never occur naturally. This carries great risks. The election programme therefore applies the precautionary principle. In addition, transgenetic modification has only led to monocultures combined with intensive use of pesticides (plants are modified to be resistant to pesticides). It also leads to even more concentration of power with the big agro-technology companies instead of empowering farmers. Accelerating cross-breeding of crops within species (such as cisgenesis) might start contributing to more sustainable agriculture. The election manifesto therefore keeps the door open for this technique. However, it requires strict conditions and rigorous scrutiny. The proposed amendment, on the other hand, lumps all techniques together without
some distinction.

Response DWARS: The distinction between trans- and cisgenesis does not determine the risks posed by the new crop. We want to fight monocultures, the big argotechnology companies, but without killing techonogical development.

Chargers

Original text - 7 CHARGERS A uniform, mandatory European standard is needed for chargers for smartphones, tablets and laptops, so that a new charger is not needed for every new product.

Proposal 17 DWARS CHARGERS - After the entire text, add: "and fewer chargers are produced and thrown away."

Clarification - Raw materials are an important reason for wanting to implement a uniform standard, ease of use is important but not the only reason we want it.

Opinion - Party leadership: Do not adopt. There are several benefits including resource use. Unlike the amendment, the original text is not limited to any of the benefits.

Response DWARS: This amendment proposal will not be put to a vote and we will not make a protest against it because it is around far-reaching proposal.

Sex workers 

Proposal 18 DWARS SEXWORKERS - Add to the programme: 8. [Accessible care for sex workers] Sex workers should be able to carry out their work safely and healthily. The EU promotes initiatives that empower sex workers and develops new policies in good consultation with sex workers themselves, with health and proper access to care being paramount.

Comment - There is nothing about sex workers in the programme, although they often face discriminatory and exclusionary practices. Given sex work is banned in many member states, there are few rights we can stand up for, but we should at least stand for access to care.

Opinion - Party leadership: Adopt.

European army

Original text - 13 SPECIALISATION ARMIES Far-reaching cooperation and specialisation will increase the efficiency and deployability of EU countries' armies. Specialisation of armies of EU member states is possible through intensive and more integrated regional cooperation. This will lead to further cost savings and innovation. NATO should not be an obstacle to European military integration. Member states remain free to determine how
high their contribution to NATO.

Proposal - 29 DWARS - EU ARMY After entire text, add: "The creation of an efficient and deployable European army is the long-term goal."

Comment - Maintaining national armies is not sustainable in the long term, and by organising defence at the European level, we join forces. Foreign and security policy must in the long run be organised at European level. A Europe with common external borders must be able to defend itself as one in times of conflict and take strong joint action in crisis in other regions.

Opinion - Party leadership: Do not adopt. We are in favour of intensive military cooperation between countries within the European Union but the formation of a single European army goes too far for us. We want nation states and especially national parliaments to retain ultimate control over the deployment of military forces. In matters of war and peace, life and death, the greatest possible democratic legitimacy must be assured. If adopted, continue with Amendment 31.

Response DWARS - The current Dutch army is already unable to perform its basic function: protecting Dutch territory. Let us no longer aspire to this either, and act jointly for our shared border (mainly at the Meditarean Sea to accommodate refugees) and abroad. A shared army also means that there should be greater mandate to intervene abroad in case of crisis. That means less likely to