10 Amendments of Dominique BILDE related to 2018/2046(BUD)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with disappointment that the 2019 draft budget for Erasmus+ does not go beyond the programmed figures under the MFF; calls for at least the remaining top-up funding for the programme under the MFF revision (around 26 million EUR) to be allocated in 2019; reiterates its support for a tripling of Erasmus+ funding in the next MFF, provided that the content of the Erasmus+ programme and the distribution of its budget in its main branches is acceptable;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. expresses concern about the direction that the Erasmus+ programme has been taking since the Paris Declaration of 2015, which focuses on the objectives related to civic, social and intercultural competences, with particular attention given to projects including refugees and asylum seekers, according to the June 2018 study by the Committee on Culture and Education of Parliament’s Directorate-General for Internal Policies; considers that this direction goes against the original objectives of the Erasmus+ programme, which were in line with those of the Europe 2020 programme and focused on training (particularly in foreign languages), the employability of young Europeans and the competitiveness of European education systems;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. stresses that the objectives of certain Erasmus+ programme branches, particularly Key Action 2 on cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices, should be clarified with a view to making it clear which projects can be supported under its aegis and to limiting red tape so that it is not crippling for small organisations seeking to apply to take part in projects;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. stresses that the new budget allocations for Erasmus+ should go towards improving mobility for socially disadvantaged students, for example, those from rural areas, particularly through the student loan guarantee mechanism;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the value of Creative Europe in supporting the EU’s audiovisual and cultural sectors; is pleased to notes that the new programme proposal makes provision for supporting media pluralism and freedom and media literacy under the cross-sectoral strand; asks, in the meantime, for the budget line on digital content and audiovisual and other media industries (09 02 05) to be reinforced to boost efforts to tackle fake news through enhanced media literacy work;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges the Commission to conduct a full-scale review – to be provided to Parliament – of all activities under the ‘multimedia actions’ line to ensure that they deliver on their core aims and that the next MFF strikes the right funding balance across actions; calls for extra funding in 2019 to secure the work of Euranet Plus for the remainder of the MFF; reiterates that the network’s current ‘hand-to- mouth’ existence is unsustainable, necessitating a long-term solution in the next MFF;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. EmphasisesHas doubts about the value of Europe for Citizens in enhancing citizens’ understanding of the EU and fostering a sense of citizenship; insists that the planned cuts to the progr, a programme which promotes the EU among Member State citizens, relying on a biased narrative of the history of Europe, particularly in its ‘commemoration’ work, as demonstrated by Council Regulation No 390/2014 establishing that programme, and on a presentation which follows the samme to fund the revamped European Citizens’ Inidirection of the diverse identiative be reversed; deplores the factes of the peoples of Europe; notes that the legislative proposal for the new European Citizens’ Initiative failed to detail thewill have a budgetary impact on Europe for Citizens, thus depriving the legislator of essential informa and that the Citizens’ Initiative may be a means of democratic expression for citizens wanting to make their voices heard at the EU institutions;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that the mid-term evaluation of the programme (Deloitte and Coffey, 2017) brought to light some shortcomings in Europe for Citizens, particularly in its second branch, on democratic engagement and civic participation, given that ‘civic participation’ is a vague term and some projects supported under that branch have not demonstrated their added value;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses, in particular, that Europe for Citizens cannot have the purpose or effect of interfering in the Member States’ domestic affairs, particularly their migration policies, under the guise of aid to vulnerable groups, and is concerned about the recommendations in the most recent study by the Directorate-General for Internal Policies (May 2018) in this regard;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that culture- and education- related projects are supported across a range of Union programmes and instruments, notably the ESI Funds, EFSI and Horizon 2020; urges the Commission to improve cross-programme synergies to deliver effective spending.; stresses, however, that synergies between the European Social Fund and the Erasmus+ programme cannot have the purpose or effect of hijacking the original Erasmus+ objectives for the sake of projects on inclusion or combating radicalisation, particularly in sports, whose effectiveness has not been proven;