Activities of Luigi MORGANO related to 2017/2044(BUD)
Plenary speeches (2)
General budget of the European Union for 2018 - all sections (debate) IT
General budget of the European Union for 2018 - all sections (debate) IT
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018
Amendments (12)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deeply regrets that the draft budget does not include any of the additional 50 million EUR earmarked for Erasmus+ in the MFF revision for the period 2018- 2020; calls for a proportionate tranche of that money to be made available in 2018 sothe full amount to be made available in 2018 and distributed between the budget lines of Erasmus+ so as to bring them into line with the amounts established in the financial programming figures, to ensure that Erasmus+ can fully deliver as a strategic investment in Europe’s young people;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underscores that common European challenges need a common European response; stresses, in this respect, the need to support large-scale innovation projects in the field of education, training and youth carried out by European Civil Society networks; calls, once again, for allocating part of the overall Erasmus+ funding of KA2 'Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices' to centralised actions; notes, furthermore, the need to increase the operational support to European networks under KA3 ‘Support for policy reform’ in order to maximise the promotion and dissemination of the opportunities offered by Erasmus+;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls that the Youth Guarantee scheme and the Youth Employment Initiative are key tools to address the persistent problem of high levels of youth unemployment and calls for their continued improvement, as well as a substantial budget increase; points out that policies supporting demand and investments, growth-enhancing structural reforms and coordination in social policies are needed to support quality transitions of young people into the labour market in a sustainable way;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Expresses concern that funding for the Solidarity Corps draws heavily on Erasmus+, Europe for Citizens, Employment and Social Innovation funds, as well as other programmes; considers that greater clarity is required, particularly on the link between the new Corps and the EVS, and on the distinction between the volunteering and occupational strands, so as to ensure there will be no substitution of potential quality jobs with unpaid volunteering; welcomes the fact that 18.4 million EUR set aside for the Corps in 2018 is fresh money; insists that this money must not come from the Erasmus+ top-up under the MFF revision;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Underlines the crucial importance of the budget line on "Coordination and surveillance of, and communication on, the economic and monetary union, including the euro" as a technical and communication means for better coordination of economic policies, including in the context of the European Semester, for its contribution to Treaty- based surveillance obligations and critical data production, and for its support actions for financial assistance, thus contributing to financial stability within and outside the Union;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the chronic under- funding of both the Culture sub- programme under Creative Europe and the Europe for Citizens programme; calls for more funds for both in 2018the Europe for Citizens programme; deplores the 740 000 EUR reduction in the latter's 2018 budget vis-à-vis the financial programming figure; recalls that this represents around 3% of the EfC budget and will impact its already low project success rates;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Urges Member States to increase the Creative Europe budget to match the expectations of European citizens and applicants, as well as the ambitions of the respective sub-programmes; expresses concern that particularly the Culture sub- programme is severely underfinanced, and consequently struggles to achieve satisfactory success rates; highlights that the MEDIA sub-programme and the Guarantee Facility would also benefit, in terms of improved success rates, from a stable and consistent budget allocation;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Calls on Member States and the EIB to fully use the potential of EFSI to support the cultural and creative sector, and thereby drive growth, by allocating a greater share of EFSI funding to cultural and creative industries; urges, furthermore, the Commission and the EIB to promote the interaction between the Cultural and Creative Sector Guarantee Facility and EFSI in order to provide fit-for-purpose loans for cultural and creative industries;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underscores the value of pilot projects and preparatory actions in shaping future EU policy initiatives; points to the success of the New Narrative for Europe PA, which has effectively fostered debate and fresh thinking among young people on the EU's challenges; recalls forthat the initiative to be continued through the Youth strand of Erasmus+.continuation of Preparatory Actions is best ensured through the establishment of a legal base and the provision of dedicated funds;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that in order to address the chronically low success rates of some EU programmes that are caused by underfunding and to provide for a counter-cyclical function of the EU budget, a system of genuine and consistent own resources must be put in place for the post-2020 MFF;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Highlights the importance of creating the best conditions for ensuring that citizens can understand and participate in the functioning of the Union, its policies and processes; emphasises, in that respect, the need for the European Union to improve its communication policy;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65 a (new)
Paragraph 65 a (new)
65 a. Recalls the 2013 Fox-Häfner report, which estimated the costs of the geographic dispersion of the Parliament to be between EUR 156 million and EUR 204 million and equivalent to 10 % of the Parliament's budget; notes the finding that 78 % of all missions by Parliament statutory staff arise as a direct result of the Parliament's geographic dispersion; emphasises that the report also estimates the environmental impact of the geographic dispersion to be between 11,000 to 19,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions; reiterates the negative public perception caused by this dispersion and calls therefore for a roadmap to a single seat and a reduction in the relevant budget lines;