443 Amendments of Bernd KÖLMEL
Amendment 11 #
2019/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights Parliament's role in building European political awareness and promoting Union values;
Amendment 20 #
2019/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Expects Parliament’s 2020 budget to be realistic and accurate regarding the matching of needs and their costs, to avoid over-budgeting insofar as possible;
Amendment 25 #
2019/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. WelcomeRegrets the inauguration of the Europa Experience centres, i.e. exhibition spaces, reproducing the successful concept of the Brussels Parlamentarium on a smaller scale; observehighlights the need to spend our citizens' taxes wisely; considers that if the Parliament does so then it might find a warmer response from the public; rejects that for 2020 the installation of five new Europa Experience centres is planned in Liaison Offices;
Amendment 31 #
2019/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. WelcomeRejects the creation of a series of mobile installations, which would tour Member States to bring the Union closer to citizens;
Amendment 41 #
2019/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Reiterates its call for a transparent decision-making process in the field of buildings policy based on early information, having due regard to Article 266 of the Financial Regulation; asks for a renegotiation of the current EU Institutions’ rent contracts with lower cost;
Amendment 47 #
2019/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Asks for further details on preparatory technical works including the relocation of functionalities, such as for those situated in the PHS building, to other buildings; considers that refurbishing or a total rebuild of the PHS building is hard to explain to EU taxpayers; calls in this regard to find a solution toward a single seat for the European Parliament in order to not waste more taxpayers' money;
Amendment 80 #
2019/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Requests an examination of the voluntary Members´ Pension Fund by the European Court of Auditors, while ensuring full transparency and urgently establish a clear plan in order to avoid that any additional cost is in charge of EU citizens;
Amendment 105 #
2019/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34 a. Notes that the proposed expenditure relating to political parties amounts to EUR 42 million and the proposed expenditure relating to political foundations amounts to EUR 21 million, totalling EUR 63 million;
Amendment 56 #
2019/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes, with reference to its resolution of 25 October 2018 on the use of Facebook users’ data by Cambridge Analytica and the impact on data protection, that the fight against disinformation and any other type of foreign interference is a priority to ensure fair and democratic elections, in particular in the year of the European elections; requests additional financial resources to invest in tools such as the recent What the EU does for me initiative to inform citizens on the Union’s work and highlight the efforts undertaken to promote peace, democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech;
Amendment 68 #
2019/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. StressNotes that the fight against youth unemployment requires substantial additional financial effortmeasures to create opportunities for education, training and employment; underlinesuggests, in this respect, the positivcontext, to examine the impact of the Youth Employment Initiative, supporting approximately 1.7 million young people until the end of 2017, thanks also to additional appropriationin particular how many new jobs that Parliament secured for this programme in the EU budget over the yearsve been created;
Amendment 81 #
2019/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls the need for solidarity in the area of miBelieves that the European Union needs a plan for "Integration", with a focus on effective integration of migrants and refugees in the Member States, as well as fair and mutual beneficial partnerships with countries in needhich shows both the integration tasks as well as the solution and the financing, and that immigration and asylum/refugee policies are strictly separate; stresses that, in doing so, the application of existing law must again take precedence;
Amendment 93 #
2019/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. StressNotes that the 2020 budget must can contribute to tackling environmental challenges and climate change; recalls the Union’s pledge to make the transition to a low-carbon circular economy, but regrets that the Union might fall short of its climate goals; requests increasedat all efforts must be made to ensure that the main contributors of global CO2 emissions comply with the Paris Agreement, otherwise European efforts would have very little impact on the global climate; requests financial resources for LIFE and other programmes to support projects with European added value contributing to a clean energy transition and resource efficiency, as well as nature conservation, with a focus on biodiversity, habitats and endangered species;
Amendment 102 #
2019/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Expects the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union in March 2019 not to have a direct impact on the 2020 budget, as the United Kingdom will contribute to, and participate in, the implementation of the budget; urges the Commission nonetheless to assess and prepare for all possible scenarios to ensure sound financial management of the Union budget; believes that the maintenance of the overall spending level at the expense of taxpayers in the remaining EU Member States is not acceptable, and that instead the EU budget needs to be subject to a major reform; believes that in the modernised budget more attention needs to be paid to the benefits that can be more easily achieved by mutual cooperation among European countries, such as border protection, and that, by consistent adherence to the subsidiarity principle and increased efficiency, considerable savings can be accomplished without more contributions required from Member States;
Amendment 109 #
2019/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 15 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 1
1. Regrets that the procedure for the appointment of the new Secretary-General of the European Commission on 21 February 2018 was conducted in a manner which aroused widespread irritation and disapproval in public opinion, among Members of the European Parliament and within the European civil service; notes that the result of this procedure constitutes a reputational riskhas damaged the reputation and integrity of not only for the European Commission but for all the European Union institutions;
Amendment 38 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 6
6. Takes note that the new Secretary- General was transferred in the interest of the service under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and that the position was not published because the post was not considered vacant; hence no official could apply since the procedure was organised through a reassignment with post rather than as a transfer in the strict sense with proper publication of the vacant post; stresses that such a procedure for the post of Secretary-General is unacceptable, and against the spirit of implementing the rules for the appointment of EU officials, who are servants of the citizens of the European Union;
Amendment 73 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Stresses that there have been clear and continued failings by the European Commission in the communication of the processes and procedures for the appointment of the Secretary-General of the Commission to both the public and the press; in this regard notes that the European Commission published its response to the Budgetary Control Committee’s questions at 03h00 on Sunday the 25th March 2018; stresses that in the interest of transparency and informing the broadest possible audience on a matter of public interest, such a working practice is unacceptable;
Amendment 74 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Notes that throughout the European Parliament’s investigation into the appointment of the Secretary-General of the European Commission, neither the Commission President or the Secretary- General of the Commission have appeared before the Members of the European Parliament, notes that this is against the spirit of inter-institutional cooperation and the spirit of transparency and openness; stresses that the debates within the European Parliament are intended to give the public and the press the opportunity to scrutinise the work of the EU institutions and hold them to account;
Amendment 85 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Expresses serious concerns over the impartiality and objectivity of the President of the European Commission, given that the President of the Commission has publically threatened to resign if the appointment of the newly appointed Secretary-General is not honoured;
Amendment 122 #
2018/2624(RSP)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Notes that when Mr. Selmayr was appointed, the rules were applied in such a way that only he could succeed; concludes therefore, that this seems very likely to be a case of favouritism; considers that the procedure must be re- opened, with the term of opening being extended by an additional month to give candidates from the individual Member States an opportunity to apply for the role;
Amendment 6 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that the Union continues to face numerous challenges and is convinced that, especially ahead of the UK withdrawal from the Union and the 2019 European elections, Union citizens expect the necessary financial resources to be deployed from the Union budget, in order to allow the Union to effectively respond to the abovementioned challenges and improve the day-to-day life of its citizenssavings are necessary; Based on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, the EU's second-largest net contributor (in absolute numbers) will leave. The maintenance of the overall spending level at the expense of taxpayers in the remaining EU Member States is not acceptable. Instead, the EU budget needs to be subject to a major reform. In the modernized budget, more attention needs to be paid to the benefits that can be more easily achieved by mutual cooperation;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that Europe's citizens expect the Union to strain every sinew to ensure economic growth and foster job creation, security and protection of its borders ; recalls that meeting those expectations requires investments in research and innovation, education, infrastructure, SMEs and employment, particularly among the young people of Europe, and that any failure in that regard will foster disillusionment with the European ideal; expresses wonderment that the Council yet again proposes cuts to the very programmes that are designed to make the Union economy more competitive and innovative; stresses moreover that many of these programmes, for example Horizon 2020, are heavily oversubscribed, which constitutes a poor use resources and means that many excellent projects do not receive funding; highlights also the fact that programmes such as Erasmus +, Horizon 2020 and the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) provide a vivid demonstration of the advantages of working together across the Union and help create a feeling of European belonging; decides therefore to reinforce considerably Erasmus + and to strengthen programmes that contribute to growth and job creation, including Horizon 2020, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and COSME;
Amendment 11 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that Europe's citizens expect the Union to strain every sinew to ensure economic growth and foster job creation; recalls that meeting those expectations requires investments in research and innovation, education, infrastructure, SMEs and employment, particularly among the young people of Europe, and that any failure in that regard will foster disillusionment with the European ideal; expresses wonderment that the Council yet again proposes cuts to the very programmes that are designed to make the Union economy more competitive and innovative; stresses moreover that many of these programmes, for example Horizon 2020, are heavily oversubscribed, which constitutes a poor use resources and means that many excellent projects do not receive funding; highlights also the fact that programmes such as Erasmus +, Horizon 2020 and the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) provide a vivid demonstration of the advantages of working together across the Union and help create a feeling of European belonging; decides therefore to reinforce considerably Erasmus + and to strengthen programmes that contribute to growth and job creation, including Horizon 2020, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and COSME;
Amendment 17 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. HighlightNotes that youth unemployment remains unacceptably high in certain Member States and that the situation of young people in NEET (not in education, employment or training) situations and the long-term unemployed is particularly worrying; stresses that young people are the most at risk of poverty and social and economic exclusion; decides therefore to reinforce the Ybelieves that Member States have the primary role in dealing with youth Eunemployment Initiative (YEI) beyond the level proposed by the Commission; stresses that such reinforcement should in no way be seen as a frontloading of the YEI allocation endorsed in the context of the MFF mid-term revisionand that such measures are best delivered at national level; believes that a one-size-fits all EU blueprint cannot hope to meet the variety and intricacies of the challenges faced by all Member States;
Amendment 23 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that cohesion policy plays a primary role in the development and growth of the Union; emphasises Parliament’s commitment to ensuring adequate appropriations for those programmes that represent one of the core policies of the Union; in this context it is important to mention that the EU Cohesion policy must not be an end in itself; based on this goal the programmes within the EU Cohesion policy have to be monitored and assessed regularly; in case the measurable objectives of programmes are not reached, an adaptation of the programmes or even a new definition of objectives has to be taken into consideration; in addition it has to assess how effective an extensive private sector promotion and especially direct payments to private actors are in the context of EU Cohesion policy;such policies potentially are creating distortions of competition; instead, priorities have to be set on public investments in order to ensure equal competition for all;
Amendment 29 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. RegretNotes that, under current projections, only 19,3 % of the Union budget 2014 – 2020 would be devoted to climate- related measures, failing thus to reach the target of 20 %; understands that this is largely due to delays in cohesion policy and the rural development programmes; urges Member States, who manage them, to speed up their implementation with a focus on climate- related spending in order to offset the lower allocations made during the first years of the MFF; calls on the Commission to develop an action plan within programmes having massive potential to contribute to reaching the climate-related spending target;
Amendment 34 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that Heading 3 has been largely mobilized in the recent years to address the migratory and refugee crisis and that such actions should continue for as long as needed; calls on the Commission to actively monitor the adequacy of allocations under Heading 3 and make full use of all available instruments to respond in a timely manner to any unforeseen event that might require additional funding in the area of migration; decides to reinforce the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund to fully cover the needs of the Union in the field of migration, notably to support Members States in improving integration measures and practices for migrants; notes, once again, that the Heading 3 ceiling is inadequate to provide appropriate funding to the internal dimension of those priorities, as well as to other priority programmes, for example in the field of culture; considers that willingness of local authorities to do more than planned in their National Programme under shared management, to support the Union Resettlement Programme, should be further supported through the direct management strand of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF);
Amendment 50 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. RejectNotes Council’s unjustified EUR 794 million cuts to subheading 1a, which represent just over half of the overall Council cuts in commitments in MFF headings; notes that such cuts run counter to Council’s stated political priorities; is concerned moreovnotes further that they could hamper implementation of programmes that play a vital role in the creation of jobs and growth, which could have a negative impact on the economic recovery under way in impact on the Union;
Amendment 52 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that Erasmus+ remains a highly valued and hugely popular programme promoting youth learning mobility, as demonstrated by the volume of applications received, which exceeds the funding available, and notes also that it helps foster a strong sense of European identity; deeply regret; Notes that the 2019 draft budget for Erasmus+ falls well below Parliament’s expectations, failing to go beyond the programmed figures under the current MFF; considers it therefore essential to reinforce the education and training and youth strands of Erasmus +, as a corollary to the strengthening of the Youth Employment Initiative under subheading 1b;
Amendment 62 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Recalls that youth unemployment rates remain unacceptably high in the Union; emphasises that, in order to address this issue, it is of importance to ensure proper funding of the Youth Guarantee schemes through YEI and the European Social Fund (ESF); welcomes the agreement on the needBelieves that Member States have the primary role in dealing with youth unemployment and that such measures are best delivered at national level. Recognise that the causes of youth unemployment, social exclusion and poverty differs across the EU, and can include underlying structural problems in the labour market and social security systems. Believes that a one-size-fits all EU blueprint cannot hope to meet the variety and intricacies of the challenges faced by all Member States. Regrets therefore the agreement to provide fresh funding for YEI, and the inclusion of the corresponding appropriations in the DB 2019; By considers nevertheless that, given the challenges and risks posed by youth unemployment, YEI should benefit from increased appropriations and therefore decides to bring YEI to EUR 580 million in commitments in 2019; considers that this increase is in addition to the amount for YEI currently programmed for the 2014-2020 period;stent adherence to the subsidiarity principle and increased efficiency, considerable savings can be accomplished without more contributions required from Member States.
Amendment 70 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls that the Commission’s proposal to increase appropriations to finance the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) needs is largely due to a significantly lower amount of assigned revenue being expected to be available in 2019; Highlights the importance of reduction of the EAGF. In principle, funding programmes must be designed to initiate a development, resolve or mitigate problems and thus lead to a lasting improvement of the situation. They should therefore set an impetus, but they should not constitute a permanent subsidy. Stresses that since subsidies which have already begun raise expectations among the recipients of payments, each subsidy must be limited in time. In addition, the objectives of agricultural policy are to be regularly examined for their effectiveness and to promote innovation in the agricultural sector;
Amendment 71 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes the Council’s cuts of EUR 310 million in commitment appropriations (-0,52 % compared to DB 2019) and EUR - 328,13 million in payment appropriations (-0,57 % compared to DB 2019), but considers that the Commission’s Amending Letter should remain the basis for any reliable revision of EAGF appropriations and restores the DB levels accordingly, pending an examination of that Amending Letter in conciliation;
Amendment 87 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Points out the essential role played by the Union agencies in the area of justice and home affairs in enhancing cooperation between Member States to address the concerns of Union citizens; decides to increase budgetary appropriations and staffing of European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL), European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), eu- LISA, European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust) and for the new European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO);
Amendment 90 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Regrets Council’s arbitrary cuts of more than EUR 35 million in commitment appropriations to numerous programmes in the areas of culture, citizenship, justice and public health, despite these programmes’ excellent implementation rates and already insufficient levels of financing that leave many high-quality projects unfunded; restores all lines at least to the level of the draft budget while proposing additional increases to relevant lines;
Amendment 92 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. StressesQuestions strongly the value of Creative Europe; in supporting the Union’s audio- visual and cultural sectors and insists that funding levels should match the ambitions of the programme; calls for an increase in committee appropriations for the MEDIA and the Culture sub-programmes, inter alia to tackle low application success t is an illusion to hope that the national identity could gradually be replaced by a European identity; the coexistence of several identities charactes; also increases appropriations for multimedia actions and for strengtheningrizes the European Union. "More Europe" is not the solution; rejects therefore the financial capacity of SMEs in the European cultural and creative sectorcrease for the MEDIA and the Culture sub-programmes;
Amendment 116 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Recalls the importance for the Union focusing on competitiveness for growth and jobs; considers, in this context, that additional appropriation and staff are needed for the European GNSS Agency (GSA) and the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER); welcomerejects the creation of the European Labour Authority (ELA); restores the substantial Council’s cuts in the appropriations for the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs),while putting parts of their appropriations into reserve pending progress on the ESAs’ review;
Amendment 118 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. In the context of the challenges the Union is still facing in terms of security, and bearing in mind the necessity for a coordinated European response, decides to reinforce the appropriations for the EUROPOL, CEPOL, EUROJUST, EPPO, and the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA);
Amendment 19 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. CommendNotes the role of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in reducing the investment gap in the EU; the data available so far do not prove that more investments actually occur with the EFSI than without it. It is doubtful whether this can be measured at all.; reiterates its longstanding position that any new initiatives within the MFF must be financed by new appropriations and not to the detriment of the existing programmeredeployments; reiterates also that the cuts made to Horizon 2020 and CEF to finance the extension of EFSI should be reversed in the 2019 budget;
Amendment 27 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes the commitment to a renewed EU defence agenda, namely through the agreement on the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP), as a first stage of the European Defence Fund; believes that this shared commitment will contribute to achieving economies of scale and greater coordination among Member States ana planning process would have to be in place before a joint armaments fund, and the work should be clearly distributed. Stresses that the establishment of a common armaments fund and the provision of financing without a clear concept may lead businesses, allowing the EU to retain its strategic autonomy and become a genuine world player to spend without meaning. It merely serves the purpose of creating a common European army in a “Centralized European State";
Amendment 66 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes with concern the ongoing discussions on the financing of the European Solidarity Corps (ESC), which confirm Parliament’s fear that new initiatives may again come at the expense of existing well-performing programmes; calls on the Council to show a more constructive approach, and accept that a greater part of this initiative should be financed through fresh appropriations; stresses that already today, young people in Europe expressed their solidarity in various projects, including the European Voluntary Service. It raises the question of whether the European Union is actually taking action against the high rate of youth unemployment in some countries, or whether this proposal will result in misleading reductions to this rate;
Amendment 74 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 90 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Takes note of the proposed revision of the legal base of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, which, once adopted, is expected to have a major budgetary impact in the last two years of the current MFF, with EUR 256.9 million to be borne by Heading 3 alone; insists that it is only logical that this significant upgrading of a key Union policy should be financed through new and additional means; warns against the use of redeployments, which are clearly at the expense of other valuable, well- functioning policies and programmeby the use of redeployments;
Amendment 91 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. ReconfirmNotes Parliament’s strong support for Union programmes in the areas of culture, fundamental rights and citizenship; welcomes the proposedQuestions strongly the increase for the Creative Europe Programme; insists, furthermore, on sufficient funding for the Europe for Citizens programme and the European Citizens’ Ini and areas of culture; Believes it is an illusion to hope that the national identity could gradually be replaced by a European identity. The coexistence of several identiatives, particularly in the run-up to the European elec characterizes the Western states. "More Europe" is not the solutions;
Amendment 118 #
2018/2024(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. WelcomeRejects the creation of two new EU bodies to be considered as decentralised agencies, respectively the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Labour Authority (ELA); notes that appropriations corresponding to the ELA have been put into reserve pending the finalisation of the legislative procedure; notes that the EPPO has its seat in Luxembourg, and asks it to submit to the two branches of the budgetary authority all information on its buildings policy pursuant to the Financial Regulation; considers that new agencies have to be created by allocating fresh resources and new posts, while avoiding any kind of redeployment unless it is clearly demonstrated that certain activities are entirely transferred from the Commission or other existing bodies to the new agencies; recallredeployments; notes the provisions laid down in the Common Approach for newly created decentralised agencies;
Amendment 14 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the share of Parliament’s budget in 2019 should be maintained under 20 % of heading V and that the overall amount below EUR 2 billion; notes that the level of estimates for 2019 corresponds to 18,79%, which is lower than that achieved in 2018 (18,85 %) and the lowest part of heading V in more than fifteen years;
Amendment 43 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Amendment 44 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14 b. Reiterates its long-standing view that European political parties should be financed via contributions from either national political parties or other 'own funding', rather than the Parliament's budget;
Amendment 59 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Calls for more information on the project to renovate the Paul-Henri Spaak (PHS) building, which is pending a decision of Parliament's Bureau; notes that the 2019 estimates nevertheless contain EUR 1,58 million in appropriations for studies and for removals of concerned services into other premises; urges the Bureau and the Secretary-General to inform the Committee on Budgets on all subsequent steps and provide a clear breakdown of costs as soon as possible;
Amendment 73 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls the principle of the independence of the mandate; underlines that it is the responsibility of elected Members to use the expenditures for parliamentary activities and that it is possible for Members who wish to do so to publish their spending record of the GEA on their personal webpages; stresses the fact that the lump sum is widely used and recognised as the useful tool inin light of the forthcoming decision of the Bureau, reiterates the appeal for greater transparency regarding the GEA, building on cases of best practice from national delegations in Parliament and Member States; reiterates that improved efficiency and transparency of the GEA does not mean to infringe upon the privacy and should not require additional staff in Parliament's administration or additional cost;
Amendment 89 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers, it appropriate to have an adequate increase inn line with paragraph 39 of the adopted 2018 estimates resolution1a, that the proposed amount for budget line 422 ‘Expenditure related to parliamentary assistance’, in particular taking into account the higher workload as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, the growing number of trilogues, the increasing number of temporary and special committees, reaching a historical threshold of 25 standing and temporary committees, and the coincidence of the end of legislature with the complex package of legislative MFF proposals;s adequate and should not be increased beyond the indexation of salaries; __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0114
Amendment 96 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Notes that, while political groups have been exempted from these annual staff reduction measures since 20141a, the conciliation agreement on the 2017 budget included an increase of 76 posts for political groups, fully compensated by a decrease in posts from the establishment plan of Parliament's Secretariat; __________________ 1aTexts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0437; Texts adopted, P8_TA(2014)0036; Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0376; Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0411; Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0114.
Amendment 97 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28 b. Notes that, according the ECA's rapid case review1b, the number of temporary posts for political groups actually increased from 1,015 in the 2012 establishment plan to 1,135 in the 2017 establishment plan; __________________ 1bEuropean Court of Auditors, "Rapid case review on the implementation of the 5% reduction of staff posts".
Amendment 98 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 c (new)
Paragraph 28 c (new)
28 c. Considers that should similar reduction measures be proposed in the future, political groups ought to reconsider this exemption;
Amendment 114 #
2018/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34 a. Recalls that according to the ECA, the costs of the geographic dispersion of Parliament amount to EUR 114 million per year; emphasises the environmental impact of this dispersion is estimated to be between 11,000 to 19,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions; underlines the negative public perception caused by this dispersion and the unnecessary constraint it places upon Parliament's budget; therefore, reiterates its position in calling for a roadmap to a single seat;
Amendment 6 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas following the December 2017 agreement to launch its second phase of negotiations, the Brexit process should not have a direct impact on the 2019 budget; whereas Brexit, set for March 2019, would nevertheless impact on the positions of different actors;is a chance to start a much-needed budget reform that should have a direct impact on the 2019 budget.
Amendment 13 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas years of austerity policies have reinforced the mistrust of citizens towards the EU;there is a critical need to create more inclusive spaces for discussion and debate, and find ways to bring policymakers closer to the everyday experiences of European citizens—from majorities and minorities alike. Create avenues for sharing the concerns and perspectives that have too easily overlooked, we can begin to build understanding between the policy elite and the grassroots. Having these difficult discussions is the first step to rebuilding the trust Europe needs to face the future.
Amendment 29 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the slow recovery from the consequences of the financial, economic and social crisis has fallen short of influencing positively the day-to-day lives of EU citizens, while social inequalities keep on growing; EU citizenship rights needs to be translated into concrete added-value for European citizens. A clearer focus of resources and attention on a number of selected domains helps the European Union to act faster.
Amendment 30 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that, contrary to populist narrative, EU citizens expect the Union to do more, and to protect them from the consequences of global competition, climate chanLong-term cooperation and partnership between the Member States lies in a sustainably financed EU budget and international security threats; believes that in order to fulfil these expectations, the EU must, an efficient EU budgetary policy in keeping within the remit of its competences, perform better, so as to narrow the gap in living standards between EU citizens, to prepareprinciple of subsidiarity. Spending should be concentrated on the future challenges rather than on an annual update of the status quo. Prioritisation on the Ecuropean economy and EU citizens to face up to the challenge of digitalisation, to manage migration flows, and to put an end to various kinds of discrimination, such as discrimination against women or LGBTI people, while fully adhering to the EU 2020 strategy and UN Sustainable Development Goals;rent and future needs of the EU, such as the migrant and refugee crisis, the threat of terrorism, and geopolitical tensions. Support measures should generally aim to provide an incentive for the starting phase of a project. Permanent financing and deadweight effects should be avoided.
Amendment 44 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the 2019 EU budget must primarily answer to the challenges of the EU youth is facing;migrant and refugee crisis, the threat of terrorism, and geopolitical tensions.
Amendment 57 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the fact that, at the strong request of Parliament, the result of the conciliation on the 2018 EU budget was to increase the originally proposed specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) by EUR 116.7 million of fresh appropriations, bringing its total amount to EUR 350 million in 2018; expects the 2019 budget to demonstrate great ambition to fight youth unemployment;Believes that Member States have the primary role in dealing with youth unemployment and that such measures are best delivered at national level. Recognise that the causes of youth unemployment, social exclusion and poverty differs across the EU, and can include underlying structural problems in the labour market and social security systems. Believes that a one-size-fits all EU blueprint cannot hope to meet the variety and intricacies of the challenges faced by all Member States.
Amendment 64 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that, in the light of the celebration of its 30th anniversary, Erasmus+ remains the leading programme to foster youth mobility and inculcate key European values in young people, together with the EU’s culture programmes; b. Believes that the 2019 Erasmus+ budget should be sufficient to answer positively to all eligible demands;. However concepts such as European culture and cultural identity in Europe are purely purposive claims, which are not covered by reality. Culture is either national or worldwide. It may be that a European culture is indeed emerging, but it will only be the result of an all-European consciousness and not its presupposition.
Amendment 90 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the Member States’Rejects the recent cCommitment to a renewed EU defence agenda, which seeks to enhance both hard and soft power, and considers it to be in lssion initiative to launch the European Defence Industrial Development Programme, as a first stage of the European Defence Fund; while there are areas ine withich the concerns of citizens, in the light of rising global instabiEU can act together in the international arena, foreign and defence politcy that is exacerbated by new types of threats; supports the recent Commission initiative to launch the European Defence Industrial Development Programme, as a first stage of the European Defence Fund;should remain the competence of Member States and should be driven by consensus between governments, and not by any EU institution. Foreign affairs and defence should remain firmly under national control in order to safeguard vital national interests.
Amendment 127 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that gender-related discrimination, notably on the labour market, is not only incompatible with the values of the EU, but also constitutes a serious impediment to economic growth; expects the 2019 budRather than rules, regulations and sanctions companies should be encouraget to support investment in helping to secure better acmake the workplace as flexible and family-friendly as possible. The European Union must lead by example and facilitate exchange of useful practicess to the labour market for women, for instance through infrastructure which supports the reconciliation of private and professional lives;among the Member States and not seek to impose complex targets on Member States when their own institutions lack the capacity to reach these targets.
Amendment 131 #
2017/2286(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Reiterates its concern aboutNotes the delays to the implementation of the cohesion policy, and expects this important expression of the EU’s territorial solidarity to get up to speed; believes that sufficient le. In this context it is important to mention that the EU Cohesion policy must not be an end in itself. The programmes within the EU Cohesion policy have to be monitored and assessed regularly. In case the measurable objectivels of payment and appropriations for commitments should be provided in order for implementation to proceed smoothly; rogrammes are not reached, an adaptation of the programmes or even a new definition of objectives has to be taken into consideration. In addition it has to be assessed how effective an extensive private sector promotion and especially direct payments to private actors are in the context of EU Cohesion policy. Such policies are potentially creating distortions of competition. Instead, priorities have to beset on public investments in order to ensure equal competition for all.
Amendment 1 #
2017/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that EU budgets must provide an incentive for sustainable growth and structural investments and reforms, but also solutions and synergies as regards national budgets; believes, thereforeBelieves that the key to long-term cooperation and partnership between the Member States lies in a sustainably financed EU budget and an efficient EU budgetary policy in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity; notes, that the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) shcould serve as a guideline for Member States and for the preparation of national and EU budgets, particularly in the context of the preparation of the post-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF);
Amendment 5 #
2017/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes, in this regard, that there should be greater synergies between national and EU budgets; points outNotes that the Commission, given its involvement in the European Semester as well as in the preparation and execution of the EU budget, has a key role to play in this respect;
Amendment 7 #
2017/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges the Commission to propose ambitious reforms of the governance of the euro area, includingbut rejects the introduction of a specific budget; welcomesintroducing the eurozone budget would require Member States to give up control over large tracts of domestic spending; takes note of the proposal for a budgetary capacity for the euro area financed by own resources, set out in the final report and recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources of December 2016, entitled ‘Future Financing of the EU’;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls its supportrejection for the creation of a euro area fiscal capacity in order to cope with macroeconomic shocks and increase the competitiveness and stability of Member States’ economies, as stated in its resolution of 16 February 2017 on budgetary capacity for the euro area1 ; considers that the funding should come from Member States’ contributions, as part of the transfer of competences, and from own resources such as the financial transaction taxSovereignty on the one hand needs accountability for all actions on the other hand. Every Member States is responsible for their own debts. Launching a budget for the euro area would result in a Transfer Union; _________________ 1 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0050.
Amendment 17 #
2017/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesIs deeply concerned about the announcement by President Juncker concerning the proposal to transform the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) into a European Monetary Fund to be integrated into the EU framework; urges the Commission to adopt proposals to fully integrate all intergovernmental tools related to the euro into the EU framework, and is convinced that all reforms to further integrate the governance of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) into the EU framework must be reflected in the post- 2020 MFF.In a monetary union that responds to the deficit rules of the Maastricht Treaty, permanent bailouts would not be required. Stresses therefore the fiscal responsibility of the members of the monetary union. Urges the need to strengthen the liability principle, apply the Maastricht rules and return to the market economy in public finance;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2226(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. A European Monetary Fund with new major stabilization instruments could be misused for massive transfers to over- indebted Member States.Nor is it desirable at all to push back the role of the International Monetary Fund in Europe.The influence of international financiers on the crisis countries in the Eurozone was very healing, otherwise there would have been more bad compromises and rule softening;
Amendment 4 #
2017/2217(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Deplores again that amounts recovered from the under-implementation of Union programmes and from fines under the Union’s competition policy are destined to reduce Member States’ GNI contributions instead of being used for the funding of Union priorities; hHighlights that DAB 6/2017 generates a reflow of GNI contributions of EUR 9 829,6 to Member States on top of the reflow of EUR 6 405 million already approved in Amending Budget 2/2017; draws attention to the fact that the disagreement between the two arms of the budgetary authority as regards spending of the 2018 Union budget, after Parliament’s reading and at the beginning of the conciliation period, amounts to merely EUR 3 619,8 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 2 182,4 million in payment appropriations;
Amendment 1 #
2017/2121(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that while the budgetary appropriations adopted under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) for 2016 amounted to EUR 326.8 million in commitments and EUR 298.1 million in payments, the proportion of transfers from the CFSP chapter reached an unprecedented EUR 124.4 million in commitments and EUR 69 million in payments in 2016, which means that in fact no proper plan for the chapter had been drawn up;
Amendment 2 #
2017/2121(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that CFSP appropriations represented 3.6 % of the Heading 4 commitments in 2016 and 0.2 % of the whole EU budget; regrets that the size and under-implementation of and systematic transfers from the CFSP chapter reveal a persistent lack of ambition for the EU to act as a global playershow that a plan should be drawn up before budget appropriations are allocated;
Amendment 5 #
2017/2121(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates its call for the full utilisation of the Treaty tools for raising funds under the CFSP and the common security and defence policy (CSDP), namely Permanent Structured Cooperation and the start-up fund for the initial phase of the missions; reiterates the need for synergies in order to improve cost efficiency; calls on the Member States to review and broaden substantially the Athena financing mechanism and to take full advantage of the cooperative projects proposed by the European Defence Agency, provided that they generate added value for Europe;
Amendment 6 #
2017/2121(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to fully reflect the growing security challenges in its proposal for the next multiannual financial framework; considers that both the size and the flexibility of the CFSP budget must match, inter alia, EU citizens’ expectations on the EU’s role as a security provider, and the likely challenges and opportunities for the EU’s standing as a strategic actor following Brexit; insists on the need for a global vision for EU policy and instruments in the field of security, including fruitful coordination with the proposed European Defence Fund;
Amendment 1 #
2017/2109(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas this mobilisation represents the biggest ever mobilisation of the EUSF,; recalls that the EUSF was not set up to cover all damage caused by natural catastrophes; notes that, in principle, it is designed to limit non- insurable public damages and does not cover private losses;
Amendment 2 #
2017/2109(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the urgent need to release financial assistance through the EUSF to the regions affected by the natural disasters; notes that creating synergies between all available Union instruments is of paramount importance, ensuring that resources are used effectively for reconstruction activities and all other necessary actions;
Amendment 3 #
2017/2109(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Rejects the frontloading from the annual amount available in 2018 to cover the difference of EUR 293 971 080, since this would create a precedent that could become the standard for other cases and funds could be missing in the event of new incidents; considers that, in return, Italy should be given the opportunity to apply for the EUSF in 2018 - in case there is still need for funds, it will be encouraged to apply in 2018 for the remaining part of the mobilisation;
Amendment 5 #
2017/2109(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Notes that the EUSF should also be aimed at whether the local administrations are working professionally, to create added value for Union citizens and in line with Union rules;
Amendment 3 #
2017/2061(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 5 #
2017/2061(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Observes that the adoption of Draft amending budget No 2/2017 will reduce the share of GNI contributions from Member States to the Union budget in 2017 by EUR 6 405 million; once more, urges Member States to use the opportunity of such a reflow to honour their pledges in relation to the refugee crisis and to match the Union contribution to Union trust funds and to the new European Fund for Sustainable Development1; ____________________ 1Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Fund for Sustainable Development and establishing the EFSD Guarantee and the EFSD Guarantee Fund (COM(2016) 586 final).
Amendment 10 #
2017/2061(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. DeplorNotes in the context of this Draft amending budget that the Council has not yet approved the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF); reminds the Council that Parliament has undertaken all necessary steps to ensure a swift adoption of the MFF revision; asksnotes the request from the British government to lift its blockadepostpone the approval onf the vote in the Council as soon as possibleDraft amending budget in the Council, in line with the UK’s long-standing practice ahead of national elections; hopes that the reflow of financial resources to Member States will ease the upcoming negotiations on the settlement of financial obligations between the UK and the Union; considers however, that Parliament’s desire to also reuse any surplus to deal with the financing needs of the Union may be contradictory to this belief;
Amendment 12 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls that the report of the High Level Group on Own Resources (HLGOR) focuses on what can be reformed under the current institutional setup, taking into account that fiscal competences remain at the national level, and within the overall constraint of budget neutrality so that the reforms of own resources envisaged do not create additional tax burdens on EU citizens; urges the Commission therefore not to increase the overall fiscal burden for the EU taxpayer through its proposals to revise the Own Resources Decision;
Amendment 47 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Supports the proposal made by the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for the creation of a specific line dedicated to the euro area within the EU budget, included in his ‘state of the union’ speech to the European Parliament and further developed in the Commission communication of 6 December 2017 on new budgetary instruments for a stable euro area within the Union framework;11recalls that European fiscal governance does not release Member States from their national responsibilities and cannot substitute for needed structural reforms; notes that new budgetary instruments could involve protracted net transfers and trigger pervasive problems of moral hazard; believes that with fiscal policy responsibility remaining with the Member States, a credible no-bailout clause lies at the heart of every solution; _________________ 11 COM(2017)0822
Amendment 54 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Favours the establishment of a transparent, simpler and fairer system, building on elements of the current system where they have proved effective; considers that the reform of the system of own resources should be based on a series of guiding principles; recalls that tax neutrality is one of the agreed principles for a reform of own resources;
Amendment 69 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Recognizes that the costs and benefits of Union membership cannot be measured solely in budgetary terms; acknowledges the possible existence of budgetary imbalances and the need to correct them for Member States sustaining a budgetary burden which is excessive in relation to their relative prosperity; calls for a simplification of the current rebate system;
Amendment 70 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23 b. Believes that the creation of a basket of new own resources with the gradual introduction of some additional resources combined with the suppression of all rebates and corrections would render the system of own resources opaque and would fuel the budgetary logic of ‘fair return' due to the unequal spread of the financial burden per citizen;
Amendment 80 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges that the GNI-based contribution provides a reliable and, stable and fair source of revenue for the EU budget, and benefits from very strong support from a large majority of Member States; believes, therefore, that it should be preserved as a balancing and residual resource for the EU budget, which would put an end to the budgetary logic of ‘fair return’; stresses the need, in this context, to ensure tha that the term genuine own resource is used to frame the debate in favour of new own resources and against the GNI-based contribution is classified in the same manner in all national budgets, namely as revenue attributed to the EU and not as expenditure of national government; recalls that the report of the HLGOR is not unanimous in its view that the majority of EU expenditure should be financed by own resources other than GNI resources;
Amendment 84 #
2017/2053(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that the report of the High Level Group on Own Resources (HLGOR) proposes the following criteria to identify potential new own resources: equity/fairness; efficiency; sufficiency and stability; transparency and simplicity; democratic accountability and budgetary discipline; focus on European added value; subsidiarity principle and fiscal sovereignty of Member States; and limiting political transaction costs; recalls that the report assumes the overall constraint of budget neutrality so that the reforms of own resources envisaged do not create an additional tax burden on EU citizens;
Amendment 52 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Agrees with the President of the European Commission's assertion that the Union's objectives should be agreed first, and only subsequently should the provision of the financial means for these political ambitions be determined;
Amendment 54 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Notes, in this regard, that the Commission is currently undertaking a comprehensive spending review within its Directorates-General; believes that the results of this spending review should be made available to all institutions and stakeholders, in order to better inform the discussion on the Union's objectives;
Amendment 55 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Considers that the discussion on the Union's objectives must be all- encompassing, and include all existing policy areas within its scope; believes it is imperative that these discussions should avoid ring-fencing spending in any particular policy area;
Amendment 56 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Believes that the proposal for the next MFF, including all individual policies, programmes and instruments, must be based on both objective need and be properly costed, in order for the proposal to have credibility and legitimacy with EU citizens;
Amendment 91 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls, therefore, for continuous support for for an open and frank discussion on all existing policies, in particular the long-standing EU policies enshrined in the Treaties, namely the common agricultural and fisheries policies, and the cohesion policy; rejects any attemptnotes with interest proposals to renationalise these policies, as this would neither reduce the financial burden on taxpayers and consumers, nor achieve better results, but would instead hamper growth and the function in a limited fashion, in recognition Member States may be better placed to deliver the objectives of these programmes; believes that securing the same level of funding ofor the single market while widenEU-27 for these policies ing the disparities between territories and economic sectors; intends to secure the same level of funding for the EU-27 for these policies in the next programming period whilenext programming period is dependent on evidence of their European added value, and considers that possible reductions of the envelopes for the two largest spending programmes in the next MFF could be an opportunity to further improvinge their added value and simplifying the procedures associated with them;
Amendment 140 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reaffirms the principle that additional political priorities should be coupled with additional financial means, whether they emerge at the time of adoption of a new MFF or in the course of its implementation, and underlines that the financing of new needs should not undermine existing policies and programm; conversely, reaffirms the principle that policies and programmes that are no longer considered political priorities should be coupled with a proportionate reduction of financial resources; expects, furthermore, that sufficient flexibility provisions will be put in place in order to accommodate unforeseen circumstances that may arise in the course of the MFF;
Amendment 145 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that a stronger and a more ambiwhere clear solutiouns Europe can only be achieved if it is provided with reinforced financial means;are found in order to tackle new challs, inenges, such as the lhight of the above-mentioned challenges and prioritie political priorities of migration and security and the Euro crisis, and taking into account the UK’s withdrawal from the Union, for a significant increase of the Union’s budget; estimates the required MFF expenditure ceilings at 1.3 % of the GNI of the EU-27, notwithstanding the range of instruments to be counted over and above the ceilings could be possible; nevertheless, if such expenditure cannot be justified via clear solutions, then the Union's budget should remain around 1% of the GNI of the EU- 27;
Amendment 152 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 163 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Considers that in addition to the aforementioned budgetary principles, the following principles must guide budgetary decision-making on all policies or programmes: – compliance with the principle of subsidiarity; – the ability to measure performance; – clear and demonstrable European added value;
Amendment 203 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Approves the overall architecture of the MFF special instruments, notably the Flexibility Instrument, the Emergency Aid Reserve, the EU Solidarity Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), and points to their extensive mobilisation under the current MFF; calls for improvements to be made to their financial envelopes and operating provisions;
Amendment 214 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
Amendment 247 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Agrees that the search for European added value should be the main focus guiding the EU institutions when making decisions on expenditure in the next MFF; urges the Commission to establish a common, easily understandable, definition of European added value, one of the primary characteristics being whether an action performed at the EU level produces better results compared to the national level;
Amendment 293 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Emphasises that the EU budget has at its disposal a wide range of instruments that finance the European projectactivities at the EU-level and that can be regrouped in two categories: grants and financial instruments in form of guarantees, loans, risk-sharing or equity; points also to the European Fund for Strategic Investment, the aim of which is to mobilise private capital across the EU in support of projects in key areas for the EU economy thatbelieves that such instruments should complement limited public funds;
Amendment 310 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Calls on the Commission to simplify and harmonise the rules governing the use of financial instruments in the next MFF in order to maximise their efficient application; considers the option of a single fund that would integrate financial instruments at EU level that are centrally managed under such programmes as the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Horizon 2020, COSME, and the Creative Europe and the Employment and Social Innovation programme (EaSI) on the one hand and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) on the other, a proposal to be discussed further; is of the opinion that such an umbrella solution should provide for a clear structure for the choice of different types of financial instruments for different policy areas and types of actions; underlines, however, that such a fund could never integrate financial instruments managed by Member States under cohesion policy;
Amendment 319 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
65. Believes, therefore, that the current presentation of the headings requires some improvements, but is against any unjustified radical changes; proposes, as a result, the following structure for the MFF post-2020; Heading 1: A stronger and sustainable economySecurity in Europe Including programmes and instruments supporting: under direct management: - research and innovation - industry, entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized- asylum and migration - security and counter-terrorism - crisis response and stability transport, digitalisation, enterprises - large-infrastructure projects - - adaptation - - - supporting investments in Europe (possible umbrella gy environment and climate change agriculture and rural development maritime affairs and fisheries horizontal (financial) instrument at EU level, incl. EFSI) Heading 2: Stronger cohesion and solidarity ins Heading 2: A competitive and innovative Europe Including programmes and instruments supporting: - economic, social and territorial cohesion (under shareresearch and innovation - industry, entrepreneurship and smanagement): investments in innovation, digitalisation, reindustrialisation, SMEs, transport, climate change adaptation employment, social affairs and social inclusion - education and life-long learning - culture, citizenship and communication - - justice and consumers - national administrations Heading 3: Stronger responsibility in the world Including programmes and instruments supporting: - international cooperation and development - neighbourhood - - - - external relations facilities Heading 4: Security, peacell and medium-sized enterprises - large-infrastructure projects - transport, digitalisation, energy - trade health and food safety asylum, migration and integration, support to and coordination with Heading 3: Reform of the Eurozone for sustainability and economic growth Including programmes and instruments supporting: - Eurozone stabilisation mechanism - Programme to support Member States in a negotiated exit from the Euro enlargement humanitarian aid trade contribution to EU trust funds and Heading 4: A cohesive society and a stability for allrong rural landscape in Europe Including programmes and instruments supporting: - security - crisis ronomic, social and territorial cohespionse and stability - common foreign and security policy - Heading 5: An efficient administration at the service of Europeans - financing EU staff - financing the buildings and equipment of EU institu - agriculture and rural development - maritime affairs and fisheries defence Heading 5: Global Europe - humanitarian aid - international cooperation and development - contribution to EU trust funds Heading 6: Administrations
Amendment 371 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
Amendment 434 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. Affirms that the common agricultural policy ishas been fundamental for food security and autonomy, the preservation of rural populations, sustainable development and the provision of high-quality and affordable food products for Europeans; points out that food requirements have increased, as has the need to develop environmentally friendly farming practices and the need to tackle climate change; underlinesconsiders however that themany CAP is one of the most integrated policies and is mainly financed at EU level and, therefore, replaces national spendingactions can be better performed at the national level and questions their European added value;
Amendment 438 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Expects the global amount of direct payments to be kept intact under the next MFF, as they generate clear EU added value and strengthen the single market by avoiding distortions of competition between Member States; opposes any renationalisation and any national co-financing in that respect; stresses the need to increase funding in line with responses to the various cyclical crises in sensitive sectors, to create new instruments that can mitigate price volatility and to increase funding for Programmes of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI); concludes, therefore, that the CAP budget in the next MFF should be at least maintained at its current level for the EU-27overall envelope of the CAP to be reduced by up to 30% of its current level in the next MFF; welcomes attempts to renationalise and co-finance the CAP where no added value can be demonstrated;
Amendment 482 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Stresses that cohesion policy post- 2020 should remain the main investment policy of the European Union covering all EU regions while concentrating the majority of the resources on the most vulnerable ones; believes that, beyond the goal of reducing the disparities between levels of development and enhancing convergence as enshrined in the Treaty, it should focus on the achievement of the broad EU political objectives and proposes, therefore, that under the next MFF, the three cohesion policy funds – the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund – should concentrate mainly on providing support for innovation, digitalisation, reindustrialisation, SMEs, transport, climate change adaptation, employment and social inclusion; calls, moreover, for a reinforced territorial cooperation component and an urban dimension for the policybe time-limited, relevant, sustainable and effective;
Amendment 498 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
82. Considers maintainingthat in light of the new challenges facing the Union, the financing of cohesion policy post-2020 for the EU-27 at least at the level of the 2014- 2020 budget to be of the utmost importanceshould be reduced, but that decreases should be exclusively targeted at those regions currently classified as 'more developed regions'; stresses that GDP should remain one of the parameters for the allocation of cohesion policy funds, but believes that it should be complemented by an additional set of social, environmental and demographic indicators to better take into account new types of inequalities between EU regions; supports, in addition, the continuation under the new programming period of the elements that rendered cohesion policy more modern and performance-oriented under the current MFF;
Amendment 519 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82 a (new)
Paragraph 82 a (new)
82a. Considers that the performance reserve should become a more result- oriented instrument as identified in ECA Special Report 15/20171a in the next MFF, in order to ensure there are measurable indicators for each programme and project, with a clear relationship between costs and expected results; __________________ 1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR17_15/SR_PARTNERSHIP_E N.pdf
Amendment 582 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
Paragraph 86
86. Expects that in the post-2020 period, the European Union will move from crisis-management mode to a permanent, European policy in the field of asylum and migration; stresses that the actions in this field should be covered by a dedicated instrument, i.e. the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund; emphasises that the future fund, as well as the relevant Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies, must be equipped with an adequate level of funding for the whole of the next MFF to address the comprehensive challenges in this area, and Frontex in particular should be strengthened; believes such funding should be complemented by a strict and efficient border control according to the Schengen Acquis and further relevant Union legislation; believes, furthermore, that the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) should furthermore be complemented by additional components tackling this issue under other policies, in particular by the cohesion funds and the instruments financing external actions, as no single tool could hope to address the magnitude and complexity of needs in this field; recognises, moreover, the importance of cultural, educational and sports programmes in integrating refugees and migrants into European society;
Amendment 628 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 90 a (new)
Paragraph 90 a (new)
90a. Considers that the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) should be conditional on measurable improvements in the fields of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and press freedom; notes the outcome of the 2018 budgetary procedure, in which funding for Turkey through the IPA II was both reduced and placed into a reserve; believes this is an example of positive inducement to be applied to other pre- accession countries in the next MFF, should they also fall below standards expected by the Union;
Amendment 656 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. Believes that the next MFF must support the establishment of a European Defence Unionpromotion of research and common procurement between the Member States in the field of defence; awaits, following the Commission’s announcements in this area, the relevant legislative proposals, including a dedicated EU defence research programme and an industrial development programme complemented by Member States’ investment in collaborative equipment; recalls that increased defence cooperation, the pooling of research and equipment and the elimination of duplications could lead to considerable efficiency gains, often estimated at around EUR 26 billion per year;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the decision of the Commission to already include in the draft budget the results of the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020; is convinced that while the formal adoption is still blocked in the Council, the proposal of the Commission sends a strong signal about the importance of this MFF revision, and the need for increased flexibility in the EU budget that could enable the Union to effectively respond to new emergencies and finance its political priorities; underlines that the European Parliament acted swiftly to grant its consent to the revised MFF Regulation, and expects that the Council will finalise without any further delay the adoption of the MFF revision, following the UK elections on 8 June 2017;
Amendment 32 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 46 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 58 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 74 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomNotes the fact that the draft budget 2018 includes an additional allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), responding thus to Parliament’s previous calls for the continuation of the programme; notes, in parallel, the proposal for draft amending budget 3/2017 that integrates the provision of EUR 500 million in commitments for YEI, as agreed upon by Parliament and the Council in the 2017 budgetary conciliation; is convinced that while the proposed amounts alone will not be sufficient to tackle youth unemployment, YEI will continue to contribute to the Union’s priority objective of growth and jobs; underlines that YEI can be further improved and become more efficient;
Amendment 121 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that the draft budget 2018 leaves very limited margins or no margin under the MFF ceilings throughout Headings 1a, 1b, 3, 4 and 5; considersregrets that this ais a logical consequence of the significant new initiatives taken since 2014 ( (EFSI, migration-related proposals, and lately defence research and the European Solidarity Corps), which have been squeezed within the MFF ceilings agreed in 2013; recalls that the MFF, in particular, once its revision is finalised by the Council, provides for flexibility provisions which, albeit limited, should be used to their fullest in order to maintain the level of ambition of successful programmes and tackle the new challenges; expresses Parliament’s intention to further mobilise such flexibility provisions as part of the amending process;
Amendment 143 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Takes note of the Commission’s proposal to set up a European Solidarity Corps (ESC); notes, however, with concern that, despite Parliament’s warnStresses that already today, young people in Europe expressed their solidarity in various projects, includings, the legislative proposal adopted on 30 May 2017 envisages that three fourths of the ESC budget would be financed by redeployments from existing programmes, and mainly from Erasmus+ (EUR 197.7 million); is concerned by the risk that this situation would pose to those EU programmes;European Voluntary Service, which had celebrated its 20th anniversary this year. It raises the question of whether the European Union is actually taking action against the high rate of youth unemployment in some countries, or whether this proposal will result in misleading reductions to this rate.
Amendment 147 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. WelcomNotes the proposed scaling-up of the preparatory action on defence research and the presentation by the Commission of a legislative proposal for a defence industry development programme; recalls its earlier position that new initiatives in this area should be financed by additionalBelieves that a planning process would have to be in place before a joint armaments fund, and the work should be clearly distributed. Stresses that the establishment of a common armaments funds and not be detrimental to existing programmes;the provision of financing without a clear concept may lead us to spend without meaning. It merely serves the purpose of creating a common European army in a “Centralized European State".
Amendment 160 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. WelcomNotes the Commission’s proposal to fund the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative and notes the proposed mobilisation of EUR 233.3 million from the global margin for commitments; recalls that any increase in Stresses that this initiative exclusively supports young people who are not in education, employment or training. It supports the provision of apprenticeships, traineeships, job placements and further dediucated allocation for YEI should be matched with the corresponding amounts from the European Social Fund (ESF);ion leading to a qualification. Instead, a training reform should be pursued under the "Dual Education System" in all European countries.
Amendment 162 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that the Commission has left a EUR 713.5 million margin under the ceilings of Heading 2; points to the fact that increased voHighlights the importance of reduction of the EAGF. In principle, funding programs must be designed to initiate a development, resolve or mitigate problems and thus lead to a lastility of agricultural markets, as was the case with the dairy sector crisis in the past, might envisage recourse to this margin; calls ng improvement of the situation. They should therefore set an impetus, but they should not constitute a permanent subsidy. Stresses that since subsidies which have already begun raise expectations among the recipients of payments, each subsidy must be limited in time. In addition, the Commission to ensure that the margin left under the ceilings is sufficient to address any crises that mayobjectives of agricultural policy are to be regularly examined for their effectiveness and to promote innovation in the agrise;cultural sector.
Amendment 187 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. RecallNotes Parliament’s consistently strong support for culture and media programmes; welcomes the proposedQuestions strongly the increases for of the Creative Europe Programme compared with the 2017 budget, including for the European Year ofor Cultural Heritage under ‘Multimedia actions’; furthermore, insists on sufficient funding for the programme ‘Europe for Citizens’; appreciates, finally,. Believes it is an illusion to hope that the national identity could gradually be replaced by a European identity. The coexistence of several identities characterizes the Western states. "More Europe" is not the solution. Note the increases in commitment appropriations for the Food and Feed programme, the Health programme and the Consumer programme compared with the 2017 budget;
Amendment 199 #
2017/2043(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Notes the increased support for political reforms for Turkey (IPA II); expects howeCalls on the reduction of contributions to Turkey. The development in Turkey provers the same logic to apply to the Western Balkans which are in urgent need of financial support for reforms;at EU aid is shown to be completely ineffective and that Turkey is developing into an authoritarian regime instead of a democracy according to European standards.
Amendment 1 #
2017/2039(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas 16 million NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) have entered Youth Guarantee schemes, and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has provided direct support to over 1.6 million young people in the EU; notes that an unacceptably high 16.7% in the EU28 and 18.9% in the euro area of young people are still unemployed
Amendment 7 #
2017/2039(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. RecognisNotes that EU budget investments through the YEI have achieved an impact and have accelerated the expansion of the labour market for young people;d a slow impact on the labour market for young people; Still high youth unemployment is recorded in Greece (43.3% in August 2017), Spain (38.7%) and Italy (35.1%).
Amendment 10 #
2017/2039(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. ConsidHighlights howevers, that the overall YEI budget falls short of the actual demand and the resources needed to ensure that the programme reaches its targets; calls, therefore, for a significant increase in the YEI allocation under the next MFFlonger- term solutions will not be achieved by increased budgetary means alone, but may also require a significant reorientation of existing EU budget allocations. Considers the European Youth Initiative (YEI) to be a complementary measure to national schemes tackling youth unemployment; nevertheless believes that creating a competitive and vibrant economic environment offers the best means of reducing levels of youth unemployment;
Amendment 23 #
2017/2039(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls, moreover, on the Commission to redesign the current evaluation mechanism by focusing on outcome criteria and performance audits with a clear implementation strategy.
Amendment 3 #
Amendment 56 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Reiterates its call for thematic concentration when setting priorities for the EU budget 2018, following a similar call in the most recent European Parliament report on the discharge (regarding budget year 2014); acknowledges that the new challenges and crises require also setting negative priorities, thus enabling effective delivery on key issues as well as a more modest development of the EU-budget;
Amendment 103 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the important role and potentialAcknowledges the role of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in reducing the investment gap in Europe, and recognises the positive results achieved so far; welcomes also. Calls on the Commission to report with an objective impact assessment on the actual effects of the fund in a transparent manner. Acknowledges the Commission´s proposal for extending the EFSI until 2020, which will serveconsiders there is room to further improve its functioning, especially as regards the additionality principle and the geographical balance;
Amendment 124 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 146 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Strongly supportAcknowledges regional policy as one of the main investment instruments of the EU budget that enables economic, social and territorial cohesion; underlines that this policy generates growth and jobs in all Member States; is concerned, however, about the unacceptable delays in implementation of operational programmes at EU level; calls on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate in order to ensure that the designation of managing and certifying authorities is concluded and implementation accelerates;
Amendment 153 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recognises the importance of the European agricultural sector in maintaining food security in the European Union; expresses its full support to the farmers affected by the Russian embargo or the dairy sector crisis; calls on the Commission therefore to continue to support farmers across Europe in coping with unexpected market volatility;
Amendment 163 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is convinced that, under the current circumstances, where the ceiling in Heading 3 is too low, the EU budget has maximised its impact in dealing with the effects of the migratory and refugee crisis; points out, however, that as a precondition for further budget increases there has to be adopted a clear strategy for tackling the migratory and refugee crisis including clear, measurable and comprehensible objectives; on this basis, a sustainable solution must be found to this issue, as it has been shown by the repeated mobilisation of special instruments, such as the flexibility instrument, that the EU budget was not initially designed to address crises of such magnitude;
Amendment 191 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Strongly supports initiatives in the field of defence research with the aim of encouraging better cooperation between Member States; recalls that, while respecting provisions enshrined in the Treaties, strengthened cooperation in the field of defence is neededan option in order to meet the security challenges that the EU is facing, which are generated by prolonged instability in the EU neighbourhood and uncertainty regarding the commitment of certain EU partners towards NATO objectives;
Amendment 208 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Reaffirms its conviction that in order to tackle the root causes of the migratory and refugee crisis, the EU needs to step up its role through investments in the countries of origin of the refugees and migrants; calls therefore on the Commission to design a real roadmap to tackle the migration crises in an effective way; notes that investments in infrastructure, housing, education, medical services and support for SMEs are part of the solution to tackle the root causes of migration; welcomes thereforeacknowledges the External Investment Plan ascould be a coherent and coordinated framework to promote investments in Africa and the Neighbourhood countries;
Amendment 223 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Underlines that one of the conditions for preserving stability and prosperity in the EU is a stable EU Neighbourhood; calls on the Commission therefore to ensure that priority is given to investments in the EU Neighbourhood in order to support efforts to tackle the main issues that this area is facing: the migration and refugee crisis in the Southern Neighbourhood and Russian aggression in the Eastern Neighbourhood; reiterates that supporting countries which are implementing association agreements with the EU is key to facilitating political and economic reforms; but stresses that this support should only take place as long as these countries meet the eligibility criteria;
Amendment 235 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Reiterates its previous calls for providing the EU budget with an adequate level of payment appropriations in order to allow it to fulfil its main purpose as an investment budget; stresses that the main aim of the budget should be to become efficient, targeted and sustainable; is convinced that this role cannot be fulfilled if the EU does not deliver on its commitments, thus endangering its credibility;
Amendment 245 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Reiterates its longstanding position that the payments and commitments of special instruments (the Flexibility Instrument, the EU Solidarity Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the Emergency Aid Reserve) must be counted over and abovewithin the scope of the MFF payment ceiling, as is the case for commitments; underlines, in the context of the MFF mid- term revision, the progress achieved on the issue of budgeting the payments of the MFF special instruments with the revision of the 2014 Contingency Margin decision, even if this matter was not unequivocally resolved;
Amendment 259 #
2016/2323(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Underlines that predictability and long-term sustainability of the EU budget is a prerequisite for a strong and stable European Union; draws attention to the fact that the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU will provide an opportunity to address the long-standing issues which have preventedreform the EU budget from reaching its real potential, especially as regards the revenue side of the budget; reaffirms its position in favour of an in- depth reform of EU own resources, and welcomes in this respect the presentation of the final report of the High-Level Group on Own Resources (HLGOR); invites all involved parties to draw the appropriate conclusions from this report and analyse the feasibility of implementing the recommendations of the HLGOR that would help make; stresses that real and clear identified added value for the citizens has to be created in order to justify the expenditure of the EU budget more stable and predictable; welcomes the conclusion of the HLGOR regarding the ‘juste retour’ approach, which should end, as it has been shown by the report that all Member States benefit from the EU budget, irrespective of their ‘net-balance’; stresses that a lot of Member States are struggling to keep up with the commitments to the EU budget and to increase the fiscal burden on EU taxpayers;
Amendment 3 #
2016/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Considers that the lower than anticipated implementation of the 2007- 2013 and 2014-2020 programmes last year, and delays in designating national authorities, to be the main drivers of scepticism towards the ESIFs;
Amendment 8 #
2016/2304(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes however, that the perception of European Structural and Investment Funds will not be improved by information and communication activities alone, but by quantifiable and tangible added value generated by these funds;
Amendment 2 #
2016/2257(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. NotApproves the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2016;
Amendment 3 #
2016/2257(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 2 #
2016/2256(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 4 #
2016/2256(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 5 #
2016/2256(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolutionCouncil position on Draft amending budget No 4/2016;
Amendment 7 #
2016/2256(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 1 #
2016/2242(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Youth Guarantee, as an investment in young people, is an example of budgeting driven by results; notes, however, findings from the European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 3/2015, which found no real figures for the cost of implementing the Youth Guarantee in each Member State, nor any robust estimation of costs for specific measures;
Amendment 3 #
2016/2242(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) have helped to significantly reduce the youth unemployment rate in the EU; notes that an unacceptably high 17.2% of young people in the EU28 are still unemployed1a; _________________ 1aAs of March 2017: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/29 95521/8002525/3-02052017-AP- EN.pdf/94b69232-83a9-4011-8c85- 1d4311215619
Amendment 8 #
2016/2242(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the current level of funding, both from the EU budget and fromis set to be increased over the Mrember States, is insufficient to cover the needs involvedainder of the multiannual financial framework via an increased allocation in the mid-term review;
Amendment 14 #
2016/2242(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Highlights that the Youth Employment Initiative is already due to receive an additional EUR 1.2 billion from the EU budget over 2017-2020 as part of the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework, EUR 500 million of which is proposed in 2017 via Draft Amending Budget 3/2017;
Amendment 1 #
2016/2233(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission proposal presented as a part of the MFF mid-term review/revision package;
Amendment 2 #
2016/2233(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the exclusion of the remaining amount of EUR 350 million from the offsetting confirms Parliament’s long standing position that payment appropriations fodoes not establish a general and over-arching rule in relation to the treatment of payments for other special instruments; agre counted over and above the MFF ceilingses with the Council statement annexed to the MFF amending regulation in this regard;
Amendment 3 #
2016/2233(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomAcknowledges the Council agreement in principle to the annexed decision which is in line with the interpretation of the Parliament;
Amendment 4 #
2016/2233(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. ApprovesTakes note of the decision annexed to this resolution;
Amendment 900 #
2016/2114(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 15 – paragraph 1
Rule 15 – paragraph 1
The President, Vice-Presidents and Quaestors shall be elected by secret ballot, in accordance with Rule 182. Nominations shall be with consent. They may only be made by a political group or by at least 40 Members. However, if the number of nominations does not exceed the number of seats to be filled, the candidates may be elected by acclamation. Members shall be permitted to serve a maximum of two terms in the office of President pursuant to Rule 19(1), regardless of whether they are served consecutively or not.
Amendment 1072 #
2016/2114(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 136
Rule 136
Amendment 1 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 9 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the large investment gap in Europe, which the Commission estimates at a minimum of EUR 200-300 billion a year; , highlights in particular, against this backdrop, the market needs in Europe for high-risk financing, for instance in the fields of R&D, energy and ICT; is concerned by the fact that the most recent data on national accounts do not indicate any surge in investment since the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) was launched, leading to risks of continued subdued growth and continuing high, although generally falling, unemployment rates; stresses that closing this investment gap is key to reviving growth, fighting unemployment and attaining long-term EU policy objectives; further stresses that the macroeconomic data on growth and investment levels in the EU-28 and EU-17 countries should be assessed by taking into account ongoing disparities between the various EU’s countries and regions;
Amendment 9 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Strongly supports the ambition of the Commission to overcome the investment gap and strengthen the incentives in the private sector to invest in and boost the sustainable growth of the European economies; for this reason, however, firmly opposes the activities of the EFSI that undermine these goals and are not a solution but rather part of the problem;1a __________________ 1a As of July 2016, the EFSI approvals ensured 37% of its original goal of €315 billion in the new investments (289 approved transactions in total). Some say the existence of these investments is a success of its own, as they would not have existed without the fund. This statement is a mistake that indicates lack of economic understanding.
Amendment 10 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Amendment 11 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Reminds that in principle, there are little differences between the EFSI and standard European funds; believes that the main difference is in the extent of support - while standard European funds finance most of the costs of the supported projects, the EFSI provides a loan for the part of the project; thus, EFSI can support more projects for less taxpayers' money but only in the cost of dead-weight loss, shifting of resources and moral hazard;
Amendment 12 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Acknowledges the dead-weight loss; reminds that EFSI supported financing of Normandy Dairy Production Facility and Polish milk powder factory while there is a general excess capacity in the diary production; reminds also that the same applies for the EFSI support of the wind farms while there are excess capacities for the electricity production in Europe; believes that EFSI must stop financing ordinary projects which deforms standard market competition; 1c __________________ 1cThe EIB declares that the EFSI “remains focused on the specific objective of addressing the market failure in risk- taking, which hinders the investment in Europe. In doing so, the EFSI will also increase the volume of high risk projects supported by the EIB Group.” The EFSI also finances a Slovak PPP project; a construction of approximately 27 km of the D4 motorway around Bratislava, which is to connect to the R7 expressway (outside the scope of EIB financing). Paradoxically, while the contribution to the transport capacity of the D4 remains controversial, the more necessary R7 will not receive an EFSI funding. Moreover, there is no reason to assume this D4 PPP project would not find sufficient funding without a help from the EFSI.
Amendment 13 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 20 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 28 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that EFSI was launched to help mobilising, resolve difficulties and remove obstacles to financing as well as to implement strategic, transformative and productive investments that provide a high level of added value to the economy, the environment and society and to encourage private investment in all regions of the EU;
Amendment 32 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Urges that moral hazard shall not be overlooked; stresses that even partial loses of the investments supported by EFSI can cause 100% loss of the European taxpayers money due to high level of leverage the EFSI uses; stresses also that taxpayers unwillingly bear the risks of the failed investments;
Amendment 34 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 40 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that profitability of projects cannot be counted simply by looking at the cash flows; stresses that, in addition to adjustments for lost income from alternative use of the resources (e.g. what would happen if the resources were never taken from the hands of the taxpayers), the investment risk calculation must be considered as well; believes that, since risk is what seems to be one the main reasons for the lack of private investments in the EU, its inclusion can throw many EFSI projects into red numbers;4a __________________ 4a The profitability of the investments approved by the EFSI should not be compared to the situation where no other investments are made by the private sector. Instead, the profitability of the EFSI should be compared to an alternative scenario in which the public sector eliminates the investment uncertainty it created and which caused the investment gap in the first place: deficit public spending; failure of the regulatory role of the banking system; and bureaucratic, regulatory and tax burden it forced on private investors. These are the key issues that have not yet been addressed.
Amendment 41 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 43 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls the role of Parliament as foreseen in the regulation, in particular in relation to the monitoring of EFSI implementation; acknowledges, however, that even though it is too early to finalise a comprehensive assessment of the functioning of EFSI and its impact on the EU economy, the general direction and trends of the Fund are becoming increasingly clear; but is of the opinion that a preliminary evaluation is crucial in order to identify possible areas of improvement for EFSI 2.0 and thereafter;
Amendment 45 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Acknowledges that the most important effect of EFSI activities is shifting of resources as every euro the EFSI lends for the investments it supports is a euro that was taken from the hands of a private lender; stresses that, if a private entrepreneur makes an investment that EFSI is willing to support, he will not realize an investment that he could otherwise accomplish without the help from EFSI;5a __________________ 5aEvery investment inevitably carries a level of risk and therefore investing is a natural role for the private sector. When people invest their own capital, they carefully consider potential profits and losses of their investments as well as the credibility of the borrower. Risks (and thus both profits and losses) stay in private hands. If the EFSI applies high standards set by professional investors from the private sector, there will be no reason for its existence, as its role will already be fulfilled by the private sector. The very existence of the EFSI is therefore problematic: the EFSI uses public resources to incite investments that are too risky for private lenders to take, while the private sector and taxpayers bear the risks of failing EFSI investments.
Amendment 47 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 52 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Underlines that the EFSI shifts the capital from the market-driven projects where they would be most effective to the projects driven by the EFSI bureaucrats where they are less effective; underlines that economy as a whole therefore loses;6a __________________ 6aThe EFSI is an entity that does not solve the causes of the investment gap, but rather shifts the risks that private lenders are not willing to take to all European taxpayers. The resources of the Public sector are solely those it has obtained in taxes from the Private sector. Every public euro used for the activities of the EFSI is therefore missed in the private sector, which makes the situation for the future of private investments even worse.
Amendment 53 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Acknowledges that EFSI enables avoiding fiscal rules; stresses that national contributions to EFSI are considered one-off measures, respectively a "relevant factor" in terms of assessing the deficit; as a result, stresses that several countries struggling with fiscal problems including the ones with public debt exceeding 60% GDP cap rule or 3% GDP deficit rule pledged billions of euros in contributions on EFSI projects;
Amendment 57 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 63 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recommends to reject the Commission proposal to extend the EFSI beyond 2018 and to stop providing any further loans from the EFSI.
Amendment 71 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that, while all projects approved under EFSI are presented as ‘special activities’, an independent evaluation has found that some projects could have been financed otherwise; further notes that as every EFSI project is first approved by the EIB board and subject to the Bank’s standard due diligence process, the EIB needs to demonstrate that EFSI projects – past and future – would not have benefitted from EIB funding if EFSI guarantee was not available;
Amendment 84 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the assessment criteria for the fulfilment of the additionality are unclear, and therefore the figures given about the amount of ‘additional private investment’ should be considered an estimate;
Amendment 103 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Believes that the fulfilment of the additionality criteria is dependent upon region specific economic conditions, as a project may be additional in one region but not in another; asks the EIB, where appropriate in cooperation with the EIF, to include an evaluation of the degree of additionality obtained at the level of each Member State in its annual report to the European Parliament and the Council;
Amendment 174 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes with concern that small projects are deterred from applying for EFSI financing based on their size; points to the significant impact that a small project might nevertheless have on a national or regional scale which has resulted in a low success rate of the EU’s geographically small countries with below-average GDP per capita; believes that EFSI should seek to encourage private investment in all regions of the EU; points to the significant impact that a small project might nevertheless have on a national or regional scale, especially since often the smaller-scale projects in these Member States are relatively large when measured as percent of GDP; believes that the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) is instrumental in advising and accompanying promoters of small-scale projects in the structuring and bundling of projects via investment platforms or framework agreements; calls on the Steering Board to look into this issue and put forward proposals to correct this situation;
Amendment 211 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Notes that on 30 June 2016, 63.4% of the IIW portfolio is concentrated in just three countries – Italy, Spain and the UK – thus exceeding the geographical concentration level of 45%; further notes that 54% of the SMEW portfolio is concentrated in three EU-15 countries: Italy, France and Germany;
Amendment 230 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that the IC experts are responsible for EFSI project selection, granting the EU guarantee and for approving operations with investment platforms and National Promotional Banks (NPBs) or institutions; recalls further that they are independent; considers that project selection is not transparent enough and that decisions have to be accounted for; stresses that the EIB should make improvements to the disclosure of information about the projects it approves under EFSI, with a proper justification of additionality and the scoreboard as well as the projects’ contribution in achieving the EFSI objectives; is concerned about documented conflicts of interest on the part of IC members;
Amendment 272 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes that by the end of 2016, all 28 countries received EFSI funding; underlines, however, that as of 30 June 2016, EU-15 had received 91% whereas EU-13 had only received 9% of EFSI support; regrets that EFSI support has mainly benefitted a limited number of countries; acknowledges however that the distribution of the total EFSI-related investment appears much less concentrated, once either the size of the economy or the population is accounted for;
Amendment 293 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Acknowledges that GDP and the number of projects approved are linked; recognises that larger Member States are able to take advantage of more developed capital markets and are therefore more likely to benefit from a market-driven instrument such as EFSI; underlines that lower EFSI support in EU- 13 may partly be attributable to other factors, such as the small size of projects, and competition from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF); observes with concern, however, the disproportionate benefit to certain countries and underlines the need to diversify geographical distribution further, especially in crucial sectors such as modernising and improving the productivity and sustainability of economies;
Amendment 322 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Recalls that the EU Guarantee Fund is predominantly funded from the EU budget, the bulk of which was taken by cutting the budget of Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility programmes; notes the trend whereby the EU money is taken from the existing programmes in favour of financing public-private partnership (PPP) investment programmes; takes account of all relevant evaluations suggesting that the current provisioning rate of the Guarantee Fund of 50% appears to be cautious and prudent in terms of covering potential losses and that the Union budget would already be shielded by an adjusted target rate of 35%; intends to examine whether proposals for a lower target rate would have repercussions on the quality and nature of the projects selected; stresses that, so far, there have been no calls as a result of defaults of EIB or EIF operations;
Amendment 369 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Calls for the communication about EFSI to be clearer; in particular about the fact that EFSI provides a guarantee and that the EIB support is a loan, not a grant; notes with concern that some project promoters, whether by mistake or design, position the EIB and EFSI support as absorption of the EU funds which could result in negative consequences, especially where the taxpayers’ money is used to co-finance the relevant projects;
Amendment 370 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 b (new)
Paragraph 48 b (new)
48b. Notes that there is little publicly disclosed information available on the approved projects; calls on the EIB to offer more detailed information about the approved projects by, among other means, publishing it on the Bank’s website so as to insure the general public is more informed;
Amendment 390 #
2016/2064(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Stresses that the existing EU programmes are still the main contributors towards the Union’s economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 18 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that the Union is currently facing a number of serious emergencies and is convinced that the necessary financial resources need to be deployed from the Union budget, in order to meet the political challenges and allow the Union to deliver answers and effectively respond to those crises as a matter of utmost urgency and priority; considers that a strong political commitment is needed to secure fresh appropthe Union must undertake a thorough re-evaluation of its prioriationes in 2017 and until the end of the programming period for this purposeorder to redeploy necessary resources to the areas of most urgent need;
Amendment 21 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that whilst Parliament has supported the Commission’s actions in the tackling of the migration and refugees crisis, it has always insisted that this challenge not take precedence over other important Union policies, for example in the field of jobs and growth; notes that the Heading 3 ceiling is vastly insufficient to provide for appropriate funding for the internal dimension of the migration and refugee crisis as well as priority programmes, such as culture programmesnd believes further consideration ought to be given to readjusting the ceilings in each heading to meet this challenge, provided that the overall spending limits agreed in 2013 are respected;
Amendment 29 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its position that requests for additional funding needed for addressing the migration and refugee crisis must have a clear implementation strategy and should not be deployed to the detriment of the Union’s existing external action, including its development policy; repeats that the setting-up of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRT), Trust Funds, and any other ad-hoc instruments cannot be financed by cuts to other existing instrumentshave been undertaken will little input from one arm of the budgetary authority; notes that the Heading 4 ceiling (Global Europe) is vastly insufficient to provide a sustainable and effective response to the current external challenges, including the migration and refugee crisis;
Amendment 39 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. RestoresNotes Parliament's restoration of all cuts proposed by the Council to the Commission’s Draft Budget (DB); fails to understand the reasoning behind the proposed cuts and contestsnotes also Council’s declared intention to recreate artificial margins in some headings such as subheading 1a (Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs) and Heading 4 (Global Europe), particularly considering that margins would in any way be too small; considers margins to be the most fiscally prudent way of creating flexibility in the budget in order to react to unforeseen circumstances or crises;
Amendment 43 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Announces that, for the purpose of adequately financing those pressing needs, and considering the very tight MFF margins in 2017, Parliament will finance theBelieves that Parliament's reinforcements above the DB by the exhaustion of all margins available and an increased recourse to the Contingency Margin, to be offset against the remaining margins of 2016 and 2017, leave very little room for manoeuvre to cope with unforeseen circumstances next year;
Amendment 50 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. SetsRegrets the proposed increase of EUR 4,13 billion above the DB in commitment appropriations, as a result of setting the overall level of appropriations for 2017 at EUR 161,8 billion and EUR 136,8 million in commitment and payment appropriations respectively;
Amendment 67 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Disapproves ofNotes the Council's proposed cuts of EUR 3 million in commitments and, more importantly, EUR 199 million in payments under subheading 1b, including on support lines; calls on the Council to explain how these cuts are compatible with its objective of providing “necessary appropriations enabling the smooth implementation of the new programmes in the fourth year of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020”; notes that the cuts in payments go further than the already significant cuts proposed by the Commission, who suggested a decrease by -23,5 % compared to the 2016 EU budget; believes however, that the lack of absorption capacity and difficulties caused by slower than expected implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes make these cuts regrettably justified;
Amendment 76 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the Commission has not proposed any commitment appropriations for the Youth Employment Initiative in 2017 as a result of its frontloading in the years 2014-2015; decidesnotes that, in line with the Regulation on the European Social Fund7 which foresees the possibility of such a continuation, to increase the Youth Employment Initiative with additional EUR 1 500 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 500 million in payment appropriations to provide an effective response to yParliament’s requests, the Commission has proposed an additional EUR 1 billion for the Youth Employment Initiative until the end of 2020 in the context of the MFF mid-term review; believes the forthcoming mid-term evaluation of the Youth uneEmployment; notes that, in line with Parliament’s requests, these new appropriations should be financed by the use of all financial means available under the current MFF Regulation and through the MFF mid-term revision; urges the Member States to do their utmost to speed up the implementation of the Initiative on the ground, for the direct benefit of young Europeans; __________________ 7Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 470). Initiative will ultimately determine the agreed level of funding; urges the Member States to do their utmost to speed up the implementation of the Initiative on the ground, for the direct benefit of young Europeans;
Amendment 95 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Underlines that Parliament continues to put the current migration challenge at the top of its agenda; welcomes the Commission’s proposal for an additional EUR 1,8 billion to tackle the migration crisis in the Union, above what had initially been programmed for 2017; notes that the big deviation of the original programming shows the need of a full revision of the current MFF; is disappointed that the Commission did not use the opportunity to adjust the ceilings accordingly, particularly of Heading 3; stresses that the Commission proposes to finance this reinforcement through the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument (for EUR 530 million, thereby fully exhausting the funding available for this year) and the Contingency Margin (for EUR 1 160 million); given the unprecedented level of funding for migration-related expenditure (totalling EUR 5,2 billion in 2017) and the proposals for applying flexibility on the table, does not request further reinforcements for migration-related policies; at the same time, will resist any attempts to reduce funding for Union actions in this field;
Amendment 101 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Reiterates, that budgetary flexibility has its limits and can only be a short-term solution; is strongly convinced that a forward-looking and brave answer in the face of a crisis that involves the entire continent and shows no signs of abating, is an upwards adjustment of the ceiling of Heading 3, provided there is an equivalent downwards adjustment across other headings, as well as a clear implementation strategy of how such additional funding would be used most effectively; insists that such an adjustment is indispensable and urgent and is disappointed that the Commission forewent the opportunity to propose it at the occasion of the MFF mid-term revision;
Amendment 109 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. WelcomesBelieves that similar levels of transparency and evaluation should apply to the Commission’s proposal, as part of the MFF mid-term revision, to establish a new European Union Crisis Reserve, to be financed from de-committed appropriations, as an additional instrument to react rapidly to crises, such as the current migrant and refugee crisis, as well as a wider set of events with serious humanitarian or security implications;
Amendment 117 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. CondemnNotes the Council’s cuts to numerous programmes in the areas of culture, the media, citizenship, fundamental rights and public health by a total of EUR 24,3 million in commitment appropriations; considers it a detrimental sign by the Council to cut culture programmes in order to free funds for the refugee and migration crisis; deplores that many of these cuts seem applied in an arbitrary manner and disregard excellent implementation rates; is of the opinion that even small cuts risk jeopardising the achievement of programme outcomes and the smooth implementation of Union actions; therefore restores all cuts to the level of the DBnecessary for the Council to free funds for the refugee and migration crisis by reassessing Union priorities in this manner;
Amendment 124 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32 b. Welcomes the creation of a new budget line to provide funding for the victims of terrorism; supports resources being made available to tackle the broad areas of need of victims, including physical treatments, psycho-social services and financial support; believes that too often the needs of innocent victims of terrorism are either forgotten, or considered secondary, when measures to tackle the terrorist threat are proposed;
Amendment 129 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that, in the light of the ongoing refugee crisis, the Union’s external action is faced with ever growing funding needs which largely exceed the current size of Heading 4; therefore, underlines that the Heading 4 ceilings are vastly insufficient to provide for appropriate funding for the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis; is disappointed that the Commission did not use the opportunity to adjust the ceilings, particularly of Heading 4 accordingly; deplores, that in order to fund new initiatives such as the FRT, the Commission chose in its DB to cut other programmes such as the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) which is against the principle that humanitarian distress must go in parallel with the development processes,; regretnotes also that appropriations for humanitarian aid and for the Mediterranean strand of the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) are below those approved in the 2016 budget, despite their obvious relevance in tackling the large number of external challenges; disapprovnotes, finally, the irresponsible cuts made by the Council, in particular on DCI and support expenditure lines;
Amendment 136 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Lends its full supportUrges caution with regard to the FRT and proposes to frontload to 2016 part of the Union budget contribution planned in 2017 due to its good implementation record and the large margins still available inhold in reserve the EUR 750 million envisaged for the Facility from the 20167 budget; calls, therefore, for reinforcing IPA II by EUR 400 million via an amending budget for 2016 and to mobilise the Contingency Margin accordingly; puts the same amount in reserve in the 2017 budget pending a comprehensive agreement , which will be released incrementally on the basis of independent UN evaluations in how the funds are being spent, and a full impact assessment from the Commission aon alternative financing for the FRT, which would alleviate the unprecedented pressure put on other external financing instrumenthe effectiveness of the scheme, the quality of the detention facilities, and the impact on fundamental rights;
Amendment 138 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes with concern that, despite their topical nature and significant size, EU Trust Funds as well as the FRT are virtually invisible in the Union budget; calls for them to be incorporated in a way that is more transparent and more respectful of the unity of the Union budget and of the prerogatives of the budgetary authority, and creates new budget lines to that end; also calls on the Commission to provide evidence that the use of financial instruments under the Trusts Funds does not result in diverting appropriations from the objectives under their initial legal bases; notes that the objective of leveraging national contributions on top of the Union budget has so far notoriously failed; highlights in that respect that, in future calls for an EU budget contribution to the Trust Funds, the Parliament will only agree to them once a comparable amount o, and that this objective will only be successful if Member States’ agree to contributions has been deliverede such funding in advance, as occurred with the FRT;
Amendment 142 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Looks forward to the Commission’s budgetary proposals to finance the new Migration Partnership Framework and the External Investment Plan; expects to have a favourable approach to mobilising further flexibility in order to endow them with fresh appropriations, but warns against undermining Parliament’s amendments;
Amendment 158 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Reiterates its disagreemensupport for the Commission's and the Council's approach to agencies' staffing, and therefore modifies a substantial number of establishment plans; underlines once more that each agency should cut 5 % of posts over 5 years as agreed in the IIA, but that in some agencies new posts that are needed to fulfil additional tasks due to new policy developments and new legislation since 2013 have to be accompanied by additional resources and may need to be counted outside the IIA staff reduction target; emphasises therefore again its opposition to the concept of a redeployment pool amongst agencies, but reaffirms its openness to free posts by means of achieving efficiency gains between agencies through increased administrative cooperation or even mergers where appropriate and through pooling certain functions with either the Commission or another agency;
Amendment 169 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Restores the DB for Reserves forConsiders the average annual use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Union Solidarity Fund does not justify a restoration of the DB for reserves in order to ease the mobilisation of these special instruments;
Amendment 170 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Voices concern over the severe decrease in payments appropriations in the 2017 Draft Budget as compared with the 2016 budget; notes that this reveals implementation delays which are not only worrying for the delivery of Union policies but also entail the risk of rebuilding a backlog of unpaid bills at the end of the current programming period, unless a satisfactory agreement is found as part of the MFF revision; regretnotes, furthermore, the Council’s cuts in payments, despiprimarily related the comfortable margins available below the ceilingso absorption and implementation difficulties in subheading 1b;
Amendment 212 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Is convinced that the Union budget, with a clear implementation strategy, can contribute to addressing effectively not only the consequences but also the root causes of the crises that the Union is currently facing; takes the view, however, that unforeseen events with a Union-wide dimension should be tackled by pooling efforts and putting additional means at Union level rather than by calling past commitments into question or reverting to the illusion of purely national solutions; stresses, therefore, that flexibility provisions are there to enable such a joint and speedy response and should be used to the full in order to make up for the tight constraints of the MFF ceilings;
Amendment 5 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the 2017 budget will have to face a context of fragile economic recovery jeopardised by the situation in emerging markets and, the difficult fiscal position in a number of Member States, and on-going geopolitical tensions;
Amendment 14 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the 2017 budget will coincide with the mid-term review and possible revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF);
Amendment 17 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Notes that the overall annual ceiling for the 2017 Budget limits commitment appropriations to EUR 154.5 billion in current prices; recalls that the purpose of the MFF is to deliver an adequate level of predictability for preparing and implementing medium and long-term investments;
Amendment 29 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that the capacity of the Union budget to tackle these crises arises principally from the use of all means available agreed upon in the MFF negotiations, and particularly the use of special instruments such as the flexibility instrument; recalls Parliament’s decisive role in shaping those instruments during the MFF negotiations; highlights, however, that if the crises continue to worsen even the full activation of the existing flexibility provisions will be insufficient to address the problem; stresses, in this context, invites the Council to reconsider its position on the question of budgeting the MFF special instruments so as to alleviate the constraints weighing on the Union budget; reiteratthe necessity of all institutions exercising budgetary restraint when drawing up their estimates of Union expenditure for the following financial year, ensuring the budget is prioritised in the areas of need and that a sufficient margin is available to respond to unforeseen circumstances; believes that the mid-term review of the MFF provides ian that connection its long-standing position that theopportunity to examine institutional differences in the calculation of payment appropriations for the special instruments (the flexibility instrument, the EU Solidarity Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the Emergency Aid Reserve) should be calculated over and above the MFF ceilings, as is the case for commitments; expects these issues to be resolved, and for a resolution to be found in the interests of budgetary stability and predictability;
Amendment 38 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. NotWelcomes the Commission’s European Economic Forecast (Autumn 2015), which indicates a modestgradual recovery; stresses, however, that this recovery remains worryingly weak andmust be built upon in order too slow for a promptensure a return to full employment to be achieved, with long-term and very long- term unemployment on the rise; notes, furthermore, the appearance of new challenges, such as the slowdown in emerging market economies and global trade, with particular pressure arising from volatility on Chinese markets, the need to tackle the refugee crisis, and persisting geopolitical tensions;
Amendment 49 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes, additionally, the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey for 2016; strongly believes that boosting investment, including a coordinated increase in public investment with a focus on the Europe 2020 targets, is a proper policy response with a view to a more balanced economic policy; believes that those two elements should be taken into consideration in the preparation of the draft budget for 2017 insofar as this should help identify priorities within an economic context; calls, consequently, for more synergies between the Union dimension of the European semester for economic policy coordination and the Union budget;
Amendment 58 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 86 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that the Union budget provides the backbone of the investment plan by making available the EUR 8 billion required in commitment and payment appropriations for the provisioning of the guarantee fund of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), out of which a total of EUR 3.38 billion has already been mobilised in the 2015 and 2016 budgets; reiterates its commitment to reinforcthe Horizon 2020 programme and the Connecting Europe Facility through the annual budgetary procedure, in order to compensate the cuts agreed during the EFSI negotiations, by mitigating any negative impact from the creation of EFSI as much as possible;
Amendment 102 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers the European Youth Initiative (YEI), in particular, to be a fundamental contribution to the Union’s priority objective for jobs and growth, and therefore reiterates its commitment to continued funding for this programme with a view to scaling it up and thereby offering a greater number of young people the prospect of effectively entering the labour market by receiving a good quality offer of employment, continued education or apprenticeship to be a complementary measure to national schemes tackling youth unemployment; nevertheless believes that creating a competitive and vibrant economic environment offers the best means of reducing levels of youth unemployment; recalls the commitment made to the YEI by the three institutions to ‘ensure appropriate funding via an Amending Budget in 2016, by making use of all available means provided for in the MFF, and primarily of the Global Margin for Commitments’; notes that the figures for implementation indicate full success in terms of absorption capacity; calls on the Commission to present its evaluation of the YEI at the latest by the end of April 2016, and at all events in time for the inclusion of a prolongation of the programme in the EU budget 2017, while also laying the groundwork for the search for a permanent source of funding for the YEI as part of the revision of the MFFevertheless, believes that the Commission's assessment on the implementation of the YEI will be vital in determining the future funding needs of the programme; calls on the Commission to present its evaluation of the YEI at the latest by the end of April 2016;
Amendment 119 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Acknowledges the mobilisation of significant budgetary means by the Union and its Member States spread over 2015 and 2016 to address the migration and refugee, crisis both internally within the Union and externally in refugees’ countries of origin; stresses, however, that substantial additional financial means are required to address this crisis, as the increase in numbers of refugees and migrants cannot be considered a temporary phenomenon; highlights however, that longer-term solutions should be sought, not only in the annual budgetary procedure, but alsowill not be achieved by increased budgetary means alone, but may also require a significant reorientation of existing EU budget allocations, which should be considered in the upcoming interim revisionreview of the MFF;
Amendment 132 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes the setting-up of the Union Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis and of the Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing the root causes of irregular migration and displacement of people in Africa; urges the Member States to stand by their pracknowledges that the contribution made by some Member States to these funds is below the Commises and contribute to these fundssion's expectations; notes however the contributions made by Member States via other humanitarian aid schemes such as the World Food Programme and UNHCR; underlines that the Member States have reconfirmed their commitment, at the informal meeting of EU Heads of State or Government held to discuss migration on 23 September 2015, the European Council of 15 October 2015, and the Valletta summit of 11-12 November 2015; stresses, however, that further financial efforts will be needed to provide humanitarian assistance along the transit routes and to manage the challenges posed by increasing numbers of refugees; reminds that the above funds were created in response to the lack of flexibility and funding in the EU budget; insists that the actions undertaken to tackle the migration and refugee problem should not come at the cost of the EU´s development policies in other areas;
Amendment 186 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that the final agreement on the MFF 2014-2020, as signed in December 2013, included a proposal for a compulsory review of the MFF 2014-2020, accompaniedArticle 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1311/2013 allows for a compulsory review of the MFF 2014-2020 by the end of 2016 at the latest, accompanied, as appropriate, by a legislative proposal for revision of the MFF by the end of 2016; stresses that the purpose of the review/revision is to provide the Union with sufficient resources to address internal and external crises; stresses that the Council should live up to the expectations raised by its own statements and decisions; underlines in this respect that the Council should take on should be to orient the budget further towards jobs, growth and competitiveness; underlines that all institutions have responsibility for ensuring the adequate financing of new tasks, either and unforeseen circumstances, by clearly identifying the policy areas which would no longer be among the Union’s priorities or by agreeing to an upward revision of the MFF ceilingsare not delivering added value;
Amendment 195 #
2016/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Reiterates its position in favour of an in-depth reform of the system of Union own resources, and gives the highest political importance toNotes the work of the High Level Group on Own Resources created as part of the MFF 2014-2020 agreement; expects the Commission and the Council to take on board the final outcome, which is expected by the end of 2016, including any new candidate for own resources; recalls that the leading idea behind the own resources reform is to make the Union budget more stable, more sustainable, and more predictable, and more autonomous, while also alleviating the burden of excessive spending from national budgets and improving transparency for the citizens;
Amendment 109 #
2016/0281(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) State development funding alone is not the solution - Much has been achieved by public development cooperation. This is not enough to address a new dimension of challenges. Instead, these funds should in future act more as drivers and promoters of private investment. In this process, sustainability and a basic principle of responsible project management must be respected.
Amendment 115 #
2016/0281(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 b (new)
Recital 4 b (new)
(4b) Africa needs African solutions - There are encouraging signs that the States of Africa have made a new start with the establishment of the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). With the AU’s Agenda 2063, reform- minded politicians have mapped out Africa's own path. Europe must take African countries at their word and develop a new dimension and quality of cooperation.
Amendment 116 #
2016/0281(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 c (new)
Recital 4 c (new)
(4c) Ownership of decisions and a pro- active approach are important drivers of development. The donor-recipient mentality that has prevailed for decades should be replaced by partnership-based, economic cooperation, which prioritises a pro-active approach and ownership of decisions. In the long term, it is primarily the private sector rather than the State that creates employment on a sufficient scale. That is why Africa needs fewer subsidies and more free and fair private investment. As an integrated financial package to finance investments, care should be taken to ensure that immediately applicable programmes are deployed in a targeted manner in order to create a favourable environment on the ground and investments are mobilised and secured in this connection. Good framework conditions are the basis for economic development.
Amendment 255 #
2016/0281(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) provide finance in favour of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises with a particular focus on private sector development; and in so doing priority must be given to strengthening existing economic structures and creating new structures where they are lacking.
Amendment 345 #
2016/0281(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the financing and investment operation covered by the EFSD Guarantee. This report shall be made public. It shall include the following measurable elements:
Amendment 367 #
2016/0281(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
In accordance with its transparency policies and general Union principles on access to documents and information, the eligible counterparts shall make publicly available on their websites information relating to all financing and investment operations covered by the EFSD Guarantee under this Regulation, relating in particular to the manner in which those operations contribute to the requirements of this Regulation. Open data across the entire cycle of contracting, from planning to implementation, are a successful solution that provides a wide range of possibilities. Open data allow a better internal analysis of the data and the possibility of lowering costs and making the awarding process more effective. They allow potential companies to analyse projects and open up new markets. They make it possible to detect and avoid corruption. Ultimately, it is about getting better outcomes for citizens: better schools and hospitals, more small businesses and more work. Where more private investment is being promoted, there must be transparency in order to develop open competition instead of promoting cronyism.
Amendment 71 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) That positive momentum should be maintained and efforts need to be continued to bring investment back to its long-term sustainable trend. The mechanisms of the Investment Plan work and should be reinforcedinvestment environment within the Union should continue to be improved by carrying out the necessary structural reforms, removing barriers to investment, completing the Single Market and the Capital markets union, actively pursuing the Commission's better regulation agenda and by reducing regulatory red tape. Also the functioning of the Investment Plan should be improved in order to continue the mobilisation of private investments in sectors important to Europe's future and where market failures or sub-optimal investment situations remain.
Amendment 76 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) On 1 June 2016 the Commission Although according to article 18 paragraph 6 and 7 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 the Commission should have submitted to the European Parliament and the Council by 5 July 2018 a report containing an independent evaluation of the application of this Regulation, and the Commission should have submitted a legislative proposal to amend this Regulation only in the event this report concluded that maintaining a scheme for supporting investment is warranted, the Commission issued a Communication entitled ‘'Europe investing again – Taking stock of the Investment Plan for Europe and next steps’' already on 1 June 2016, just one year after the entry into force of this regulation and before the publication of the independent evaluation, outlining the achievements of the Investment Plan so far and the envisaged next steps, including the premature extension of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) beyond its initial three-year period, the scaling-up of the Small and Medium- sized Enterprises (SME) Window within the existing framework and the enhancement of the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH).
Amendment 94 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The EFSI was established for an initial period of three years and with the aim of mobilising at least EUR 315 billion in investments. Given its success, tThe drive to meet this quantitative target has sometimes prevailed over the additionality of the projects selected. The Commission is therefore committed to the doubling of the EFSI, both in terms of duration and financial capacextend the investment period of EFSI and raise the level of additionality. The legal extension covers the period of the current Multiannual Financial Framework and should provide a total of at least half a trillion euro investments by 2020. In order to enhance the firepower of the EFSI even further and reach the aim of doubling the investment target,. In order to enhance the firepower of the EFSI. Member States shcould also contribute as a matter of priority.
Amendment 101 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) For the period after 2020, the Commission inteThe EFSI is meant to tackle the investment gap and is therefore by nature a temporary instrument, discussions on the extension or smooth termination of the Fund after 2020 should be based on reports submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament ands to put forwardhe Council with independent evaluations on the nesuccessary proposals to ensure that strategic investment will continue at a sustainable level of EFSI, in particular with regard to the additionality of the projects, and the wider investment situation in the EU.
Amendment 143 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) The fulfilment of the additionality criteria is dependent upon region specific economic conditions, as a project may be additional in one region but not in another. The Investment Committee, therefore should take into account region specific conditions when assessing compliance with the additionality criterion.
Amendment 183 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) It is expected that when the EU guarantee is combined with the EUR 7 500 000 000 to be provided by the EIB, the EFSI support should generate EUR 100 000 000 000 additional investment by the EIB and EIF. The amount of EUR 100 000 000 000 supported by the EFSI is expected to generate at least EUR 500 000 000 000 ofn order to remove any incentive to select investments that are not fully additional merely to make the quantitative goals, EFSI will no longer have an investment target. EFSI should lead to a high quality and innovative additional investment in the real economy by the end of 2020.
Amendment 221 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) should be enhanced and its activities should focus on needs not covered adequately under current arrangemenshould make efforts to contribute actively where possible towards sectorial and geographic diversification of the EFSI and support the EIB where needed in originating projects. It should pay particular attention to supporting the preparation of projects involving two or more Member States and projects that contribute to achieving the objectives of COP21. Notwithstanding its objective to build upon existing advisory services of the EIB and the Commission, so to act as a single technical advisory hub for project financing within the Union, the EIAH should also contribute actively to the objective of sectorial and geographical diversification of the EFSI and support the EIB where needed in originating projects. It should also actively contribute to the establishment of investment platforms and provide advice on the combination of other sources of Union funding with the EFSI.
Amendment 449 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point -a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point -a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 2015/1017
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – point a
(-a) In paragraph 3, point (a) is replaced by the following: ‘(a) the EIB shall publish a comprehensive report on the functioning of the EFSI, which shall include an evaluation of the impact of the EFSI on investment in the Union, employment creation and access to financing for SMEs and mid-cap companies; and an evaluation of the degree of additionality obtained at the level of each Member State and each region;’
Amendment 494 #
2016/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – point 2 a (new)
Annex II – point 2 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 2015/1017
Annex II – section 3 – point d a (new)
Annex II – section 3 – point d a (new)
(2 a) in Section 3, point (da) is added: ‘(d a) attention shall be paid to region specific conditions when assessing the additionality.’
Amendment 56 #
2016/0133(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.
Amendment 423 #
2016/0133(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3
Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250 000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been allocated to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications.
Amendment 4 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), in particular Article 5 thereof;
Amendment 7 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 123, 125, 126 and 140 thereof;
Amendment 8 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 b (new)
Citation 2 b (new)
– having regard to the Protocols 12 and 13 to the TEU and TFEU;
Amendment 9 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
Amendment 10 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 39 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the Member States of the Eurozone should comply with the Maastricht criteria;
Amendment 40 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas Article 5 TEU lays down the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality which apply to the exercise of Union competences;
Amendment 41 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas Article 123 TFEU prohibits the monetary financing of governments;
Amendment 42 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Recital A d (new)
Ad. whereas according to Article 125 TFEU it is illegal for a Member State to be liable for the liabilities of another Member State;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)
Recital A e (new)
Ae. whereas Protocols 12 and 13 to the TEU and TFEU lay down the so-called Maastricht criteria;
Amendment 92 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas progress has been achieved in addressing the flaws of EMU through legislation such as the Six-Pack and the Two-Pack regulations, as well as through the introduction of the European Semester and the creation of new instruments such as the ESM;
Amendment 123 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the ECJ ruled in the Pringle case that the ESM is consistent with the TFEU and opened the door to a possible integration of that mechanism into the acquis communautaire within the current limits of the Treaties;
Amendment 130 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas the ESM is not formally under parliamentary control;
Amendment 131 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)
Recital J b (new)
Jb. whereas the crisis revealed considerable democratic deficits in economic and financial policies, areas of European policy of particular significance for the citizens; whereas some Member States now see themselves subject to austerity policies which their parliaments would never have decided on their own, while other Member States see themselves forced to grant sizeable loans or guarantees in order to avoid a breakup of the euro; whereas, because of the spill over effects of national economic and fiscal policy decisions on the economies of other Euro area Member States, their national parliaments are thus effectively deprived of their budgetary autonomy;
Amendment 134 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
Jc. whereas any reform of the EMU economic governance structure should respect the will of the EU Member States that have an opt-out from having to introduce the euro currency to retain their respective currencies;
Amendment 136 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J d (new)
Recital J d (new)
Jd. whereas due consideration should be given to the mutual spill-over effects of the EMU and non-euro area members;
Amendment 137 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J e (new)
Recital J e (new)
Je. whereas Union and national policy makers and parliamentarians should continuously explain to their citizens the benefits and possible downsides of a single currency, including the costs and risks linked to a break-up of the euro area;
Amendment 139 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J f (new)
Recital J f (new)
Jf. whereas there is no wide public support for establishing a formal system of fiscal transfers within the Economic and Monetary Union;
Amendment 144 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the Werner Report in 1970 highlighted the fact that a monetary union would require all the essential features of national public budgets to be decided at Community levelseveral Member States failed to comply with the Maastricht Criteria, both regarding their annual budgets and their total indebtedness;
Amendment 145 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 161 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers, against this background, that shortcomings have existed in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) since its inception under the Maastricht Treaty with the attribution of monetary policy to the European level, while budgetary policy remains within the competencies of the Member States and is only framed by provisions on light coordination of national policies;
Amendment 182 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that EMU exposed its vulnerability in the context of the global financial and economic crisis when unsustainable imbalances, triggered by capital flows from core euro area nations to the periphery and a rising public spending ratio in some Member States, aggravated and led to a sovereign debt crisis, in which government borrowing costs dramatically increased in some Member States, jeopardising, in the absence of a proper fiscal backstop, the mere existence of the euro area;
Amendment 193 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 211 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that, where a Member State whose currency is the euro is unwilling to further surrender its budgetary sovereignty, it should be given the option of leaving the euro area without leaving the EU; invites the Commission and the Eurogroup – acting in liaison with the ECB – to assist in such a scenario the Member State concerned with practical steps to make a withdrawal from the euro area feasible and as smooth as possible;
Amendment 222 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Observes that the stabilisation of the economic cycle since the beginning of the crisis has relied almost exclusively on the ECB, and that the reduced options available for monetary policy in a context of zero lower bound rates have led the ECB to implement unconventional and legally contested loose monetary policy measures; recalls that the President of the ECB has called for integrated institutions, for a stronger and proactive fiscal policy on the euro area scale and for euro area Member States to deliver on structural reform;
Amendment 239 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. AcknowledgesTakes into account the results achieved since the crisis broke in terms of risk reduction and better coordination; points in particular to the many measures taken by the EU institutions to address the shortcomings revealed by the crisis by strengthening coordination of national fiscal policies, in particular via the adoption of the Six-Pack and the Two-Pack Regulations; welcomnotes further the fact that the EU institutions have set up frameworks for action in current and future crises, namely by creating the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM), the temporary European Financial Stabilisation Facility (EFSF) and its permanent successor, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM); underlines, however, that these mechanisms dramatically lack democratic oversight and parliamentary control, and hence ownership;
Amendment 254 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. RecallNotes the four pillars set out in the Five Presidents’ Report: completing the economic, financial and fiscal Union and strengthening democratic accountability, legitimacy and the institutional setting; emphasisnotes that this report reiterates the view set out in the Blueprint of the Commission and the Four Presidents’ Report, coordinated by then President of the European Council Mr Herman van Rompuy, that a shock absorption capacity at euro area level is needed to complement automatic stabilisers at national level, whose functioning is limited, as was shown during the crisisand calls for a shock absorption capacity at euro area level; stresses that any such mechanism, by its mere institutional set-up, risks to lack accountability and democratic legitimacy if it becomes just a new layer of governance which risks to cause moral hazard;
Amendment 273 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that in order to regain trust, the euro must deliver on its promise of stability, convergence, growth and jobs; regards a fiscal capacity as a vital element in this enterprise, which can be successful only if solidarity is closely linked to responsibility, meaning that financial support is provided on the basis of cleariterates that the Member States whose currency is the euro must comply with the Maastricht criteria;
Amendment 284 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Argues that convergence, good governance and conditionality enforced through institutions being held democratically accountable at the euro-area and national level are key, notably to preventing permanent transfers and moral hazardis not the only way forward and poses a high risk of moral hazard; emphasizes that enforcing a credible no bail-out clause would also lead to these ends without requiring a burdening coordination and enforcement effort;
Amendment 295 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that incentives for sound fiscal policymaking and for addressing structural weaknesses at national level, taking into account the aggregate euro area fiscal stance, are core elements for the functioning of the euro area; considers that a fiscal capacity should, moreover, address specific concerns for the euro area in the case of absorbing shocksare core elements for the functioning of the euro area;
Amendment 314 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 338 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that effective stabilisation of large euro area Member States or a group of closely economically intertwined countries requires sufficient resourcesa direct link between decision making and accountability;
Amendment 348 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Considers that three differente theoretical founcdations have to be fulfilled; argues, first, that in order to foster economic and social convergence within the euro area and to improve the economic competitiveness and resilience of the euro area, Member States’ structural reforms should be incentivised in good economic times; argues, secondly, that differences in the business cycles of euro area Member States stemming from structural differences create the need for an instrument to address asymmetric shocks; considers, thirdly, that symmetric shocks should be addressed so as to increase the resilience of the euro area as a wholefor macroeconomic "imbalances" and "shocks" are insufficiently specified, prone to confusing cause and effect, and too vague to shape the new economic governance structure of the EMU;
Amendment 364 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 388 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 403 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 422 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 439 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Notes that the euro currency was supposed to contribute to more unity in Europe, but instead led to more divisiveness because of tensions between creditor and debtor countries of the euro area;
Amendment 483 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses that significant progress in convergence and sustainable structural reforms is needed in order to reconcile fiscal consolidation, growth, jobs, productivity, and competitiveness and the Europeandifferent national social models so as to effectively prevent asymmetric shock; considers that financial support from the European level for the implementation of agreed structural reforms in the Member States, while keeping the responsibility for implementation at the national level, is therefore indispensable;
Amendment 492 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 505 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 521 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 1
Paragraph 26 – indent 1
Amendment 529 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 2
Paragraph 26 – indent 2
Amendment 551 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 3 – paragraph 1
Paragraph 26 – indent 3 – paragraph 1
Amendment 560 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 3 – paragraph 2
Paragraph 26 – indent 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 573 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 597 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Is convinced that increased convergence within the euro area will significantly increase the capacity of its Member States to absorb asymmetric shocks; believes, however, thatBelieves that, no matter how great the efforts regarding convergence and sustainable structural reforms, asymmetric shocks with an impact on the stability of the euro area as a whole cannot be ruled out completely, given the strong integration of the euro area Member Statesneglected preconditions for an optimal currency area; stresses, therefore, the need to have an instrument available for this emergency which provides an immediate stabilisation effectto make possible a withdrawal from the euro area without withdrawing from the EU;
Amendment 608 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 620 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Notes that proposals for a shock absorption function at euro area level reflect the dominance of macro-managing than curing structural problems; believes that, while it may be tempting at first sight to allow counter-cyclical policies via a euro area treasury for highly indebted countries that would otherwise face market pressure, this possibility would reduce the need for consolidation since the ability to conduct counter-cyclical policies is a good reason to seek for fiscal space; considers therefore that a euro area fiscal capacity would make it even harder to reach the goals of the Stability and Growth Pact as amended by the Six- Pack and the Two-Pack;
Amendment 627 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 643 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 671 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Considers that the EMF should provide the financial resources for either of these models, which could require increasing the amount of capital; points out that the fund should avoid long-term redistribution effects by ensuring Member States’ contributions are balanced over the cycle;long-term redistribution effects should be avoided by ensuring that the Member States' contributions to the EU budget are balanced over the cycle; reiterates that no Member State can be liable for the liabilities of another Member State nor for their commitments.
Amendment 681 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Warns that future symmetric shocks could destabilise the euro area as a whole since the currency area is not endowed with the instruments to cope with another crisis of the extent of the previous one; is convinced that the right instrument to deal with symmetric shocks depends on the nature of the shock; recalls that the EMF should be used as an appropriate financial resource;
Amendment 696 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Considers that in the case of symmetric shocks brought about by a lack of internal demand, monetary policy alone cannot reignite the economy, particularly in a context of zero lower bounds; is therefore convinced that public and private investment must be increased, the administrative burden reduced and a proper regulatory framework developed, with a view to stimulating potential growththat are caused by a lack of confidence must be diminished by addressing the flaws of the EMU´s economic governance structure;
Amendment 708 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 730 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Considers that instability in the financial sector could also pose severe challenges for the euro area as a whole; urgesemphasizes that the completion of the Banking Union in order to lessen these challenges; calls for the fiscal capacity to operaims at improving the confidence in the financial sector in some Member States as a fiscal backstop for the Banking Union, as agreedt the expense of the perception of the financial sector stability in othe SRMrs;
Amendment 742 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Points out that theany fiscal capacity haswould have to be of significant size in order to be able to address these euro-area-wide shocks and to finance its functions; insists thwarns against creat in order to provide sufficient financial resources, the euro area fiscal capacity, including the EMF, should be able to increase the issuance of equities via a rise in guarantees; considers that these common issued equities should have the highest credit rateg net contributor and net receiver countries out overstretching solidarity and seeding tension;
Amendment 755 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Stresses that the Community methodsubsidiarity and proportionality principles should prevail in the development of economic governance for the euro area; urges that no reinforcement of intergovernmental structures should take place in parallel with existing structures;
Amendment 766 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Calls urgently for the European Parliament and national parliaments to be given a strengthened role in the renewed economic governance framework in order to reinforce democratic accountability; calls for increased national ownership in the European Semester in order to improve compliance with the CSRsstrict enforcement of the no bail-out clause in order to reinforce democratic accountability;
Amendment 791 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that in order to provide for a genuine EMU, a euro area treasury should be created for collective decision- making, supervision and management of the budgetary capacity for the euro area; calls for the inclusion of thi to be in equilibrium, a country which considers that the costs tareasury wit outweighing the European Commission with full macroeconomic, fiscal and financial competences; calls for a vice-presidentbenefits of a membership of the Eeuropean Commission to head the treasury and simultaneously to act as president of the Eurogroup; urges full accountability of this treasury to the European Parliament area should be able to choose to leave;
Amendment 803 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
Amendment 821 #
2015/2344(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Acknowledges that the current political climate characterised by deep inequality, mistrust and uncertainty is not conducive to proper reforms to achieve and complete EMUhas been caused, among others, by pursuing the completion of the EMU regardless of economic objections; believes, therefore, that a comprehensive roadmap, including clear milestones within an agreed timetable and taking into account the political situation, should be urgently adopted with a clear commitment by euro area Heads of State and Government to achieving a genuine and complete EMU;
Amendment 14 #
2015/2285(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the European budget could relieve the strain on national budgets and bolster fiscal consolidation efforts by providing own resources as well as rationalising expenditure; firmly believes that wider ranging management of public money at EU level would make it possible to achieve economies of scale and hence cut spending, especially in the diplomatic and military fieldsrationalising expenditure;
Amendment 23 #
2015/2285(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges that the euro area have its own budget in order to counteract asymmetric shocks and reward reform efforts; believes the European Stability Mechanism to be a prototype of such a tool; cCalls for budgetary policy and monetary policy to be brought into a policy mix to boost growth and job creation.
Amendment 18 #
2015/2258(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the EU and its Member States are by far the main funders of peace operations, while CSDP operations and missions represent only a small part of all funding; regretnotes the very modest nature of CSDP interventions, especially the military ones, consisting mainly of low-profile military training missions instead of substantial European contributions to peace-keeping and peace-enforcement;
Amendment 21 #
2015/2258(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the VP/HR and the Member States to unleash the full potential ofconsider the possibilities within the Lisbon Treaty with regard to a faster and more flexible use of the CSDP missions and operations;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2258(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with concern that despite a combined yearly defence budget of some EUR 190 billion, the Member States are still unable to meet the 1999 Helsinki Headline Goals; recalls the ambitious civilian headline goals set by the EU; calls for the EU to be strengthened as an actor in defence in the context of NATO, and regrets the lack of a clear military doctrine which operationalises the tasks listed in Article 43 TEU (the expanded ‘Petersberg tasks’); strongly advocates closer defence coordination and cooperation within a NATO context between Member States and at EU level, in particular pooling and sharing of resources, capabilities and assets;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2258(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly encouragesAcknowledges the discussion with the regard to the setting up of a Shared Services Centre (SSC), together with an Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS), as a way to improve the speed of deployment, and cost-efficiency, of civilian missions; deplorrecognises that this initiative has been in a stalemate so far; notes that a mission support platform is currently being considered, but calls on the Commission and the EEAS to make further steps towards establishing a genuine SSC and that according to the Commission the setting up of the SSC is unrealistic at this point in time; notes that a mission support platform is currently being considered;
Amendment 59 #
2015/2258(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the need for adequate staffing of missions in line with the various commitments made by Member States in this respect (e.g. the Civilian Headline Goal 2010, the Multi-Annual Civilian Capability Development Plan); deplores, however, the difficulties to recruit – and keep – a sufficient number of qualified personnel for CSDP missions; requests that the benefits and problems associated with the deployment of battle groups have to be scrutinised before an informed decision can be made in regards to the extent to which the CRTs would be used and possibly expanded; encourages the widespread use of rapidly deployable Civilian Response Teams (CRTs), which would increase the rapid reaction capacity of the EU, facilitate swift build-up of missions and contribute to the effectiveness of its crisis management response;
Amendment 72 #
2015/2258(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the review of Crisis Management Procedures (CMP) agreed in 2013, as it led to improvements in the planning and launching of CSDP missions; stresses, however, that more needs to be done to overcome the persistent ‘silos’ separating different parts of the EUemphasizes that the many components of the EU's foreign policy continue to function in parallel and calls for its enhanced co-ordination and co-operation; notwithstanding Member States' competence in foreign policy machand the intergovernmental nature of EU foreign policy;
Amendment 92 #
2015/2258(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Acknowledges that military operations are financed by the Member States outside the EU budget and that their common costs are covered by the Athena mechanism; underlines that Athena is crucial to the fast deployment of those operations and is an instrument of solidarity between Member States, as well as a major incentive, notably for those lacking financial resources, to contribute to CSDP operations; regretnotes, however, that the proportion of the common costs remains very low (around 10-15 % of all costs) and that the ‘costs lie where they fall’ principle further deters Member States from taking an active part; finds that the long-term financing of military missions should be ensured with full respect to Member States' competences in accordance with the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 123 #
2015/2258(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Encourages the VP/HR to take leadership in CSDP and to play a steering role in breaking down silos byresponsibility in CSDP by better ensuring coordination between the Council, the Commission and the EEAS, and by guaranteeing coherence within the two latter bodies; suggests that EU Special Representatives could be entrusted with the mandate to improve dialogue and cooperation between the various EU players on the ground, in order to increase the coherence of the EU action and turn the multiple sources of funding from a challenge into an asset;
Amendment 2 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that Parliament's reading of the 2016 budget fully reflects the political priorities adopted by an overwhelming majority in its abovementioned resolutions of 11 March 2015 on general guidelines and of 8 July 2015 on a mandate for the trilogue; recalls that those consist in observing common treaties and agreements by all Member States, in internal and external solidarity, in particular an effective tackling of the migration and refugee crisis, as well as in boosting competitiveness through employment, enterprises and entrepreneurship (the “three Es”), while fully adhering to the need for budgetary restraint and to respect the payments plan as agreed by the Commission, Council and Parliament;
Amendment 6 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that the Union is currently facing a number of serious emergencies, notably the unprecedented migration and refugee crisis, the extent of which could not have been foreseen in the aforementioned resolution or mandate for rilogue; understands that this crisis cannot be solved by financial resources alone; is convinced nevertheless that the necessary financial resources need to be deployed in the Union budget and will probably have to be substantially increased in 2016, in order to match the political challenges and allow the Union to deliver and effectively respond to thoseis criseis, as a matter of utmost urgency and priority; considers that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and that a strong political commitment is needed to secure fresh appropto reprioriationsse and refocus the 2016 budget for this purpose is needed;
Amendment 9 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that Parliament has, from the outset, placed a particular focus on migration and refugees in the 2016 budget; recalls its earlier statements that the handling of migration flows lies at the crossroads of observing common treaties and agreements such as the Schengen Acquis and the Dublin Regulation as well as internal and external solidarity and that external financing instruments should also be mobilised, in an integrated approach, in order to address the root causes of the problems the Union is faced with;
Amendment 12 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines, however, that those amendments should be considered alongside the Commission’s Letter of Amendment 2/2016, which is expected to include, in addition to the second relocation package, the additional measures set out in the Commission communication of 23 September 2015; stresseregrets that the Parliament fully endorses thas part of the budgetary authority doese new measures and intends to defend their financing through fresh appropriations even to a higher extent than the level proposed in its own position of the 2016 budgetot have more time to examine the suitability of the Letter of Amendment 2/2016 in alleviating problems at home and abroad; nevertheless understands the considerable time pressure that the Commission is under and, in principle, supports the Commission´s suggestions as set out in that communication and intends to support financing through fresh appropriations;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Acknowledges that a lot more effort needs to be undertaken to address the shortcomings in the Union economy by boosting competitiveness, growth and jobs; emphasises the key role played by small and medium-sized enterprises in this regard; reinforces therefore the COSME programme by EUR 16,5 million; decides also to propose new commitments in 2016 for the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiativand recognises the role that the Union budget can play alongside measures taken at the Member State level and private sector financing by boosting competitiveness, growth and jobs; emphasises the key role played by small and medium-sized enterprises in this regard; recognises also the contribution of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) as a complementary measure to Member State programmes in the fight against unemployment; notes the (YEI), whose´s entire financial envelope was frontloaded in the years 2014-2015; acknowledges the significant contribution of this programme to the fight against unemployment and is determined to ensure that the necessbelieves that this political agreement should be adhered to, particularly appropriations are made available in order to prevent a funding gap in its implementation; adopts, therefore, a EUR 473,2 million increase for 2016, corresponding to the original instalment that was foreseen for the YEI on a yearly basisin light of the need to refocus the 2016 budget on areas of urgent priority, especially under Headings 3 and 4;
Amendment 18 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its conviction that the Union budget should not finance new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies and disregard political commitments already made; whil unless those programmes prove ineffectual or more effective uses of financing become available; therefore fully confirmings its political and financial support to the launching of European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI), and intends to deliver on the commitment that it made during the EFSI negotiations, namely to minimise to the maximum the impact on Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) in the frame of the annual budgetary procedure; proposes, therefore, to fully offset the cuts of thesesubsequent budgetary years, taking into account the need both two programmes - due to the provisioning of the EFSI Guarantee Fund - in 2016 (EUR 1 326 million), in order to allow them to fully accomplish the objecrespect prior political agreements and meet urgent prioritives agreed only two years ago with the adoption of their respective legal baseselsewhere in the 2016 budget;
Amendment 21 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses the importance of fully respecting the joint statement on a payment plan 2015-2016 agreed between Parliament, Council and Commission, following the shared commitment to reduce the backlog of outstanding payment claims for the 2007-2013 cohesion programmes to around EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016 and to avoid any future build-up of such an unsustainable backlog; considers, for this reason, that the frontloading of EUR 1 billion in 2016 for Greece shouldcan be financed by additional appropriations within the MFF payments' ceiling; stresses its long-standing position that payments deriving from commitments mobilised under the Flexibility Instrument are counted over and above that ceilingrequested for the 2007- 2013 cohesion policy programmes without the need to increase payment appropriations in 2016;
Amendment 24 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Restores allNotes cuts proposed by Council to the DB (EUR 563,6 million in commitments and EUR 1 421,8 million in payments); fails to understandacknowledges the reasoning behind the proposed cuts, for example those to Horizon 2020 and CEF, two programmes already affected by redeploy with respect to the political agreements to EFSI, and to development and neighbourhood policiesfinance the EFSI Guarantee Fund; considers that a revision of these cuts may be required in certain budget lines under Headings 3 and 4, especially in light of recent events; contestapproves, in any event, Council’s declared intention to target budget lines with a low execution rate or absorption capacity, as this is not substantiated by the actual implementation figures and ignores the varying implementation patterns of certain programmesa significant step towards ensuring that the Union budget provides value for money;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Concludes that, for the purpose of adequately financing these pressing needs, with migratory pressures a priority and considering the very tight MFF margins in 2016, all budget lines with low implementation rates or with little Union added value must contribute in the significant levels of redeployment needed to meet these needs and means available in the MFF Regulation in terms of flexibility, including the full mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, will need to be deployshould only be deployed when these budget lines have been exhausted; expects that the Council will share this approach and that an agreement will easily be reached in conciliation, allowing the Union to rise to the occasion and effectively respond to the challenges ahead;
Amendment 36 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. In line with its priorities for 2016, Employment, Enterprises, Entrepreneurship, and after careful assessment of their absorption capacity so far, decides to propose, in addition to the full compensation of the EFSI-related cuts forDespite the need to refocus priorities for 2016, emphasises the importance of Employment, Enterprises, Entrepreneurship in contributing to the jobs and growth objective; therefore welcomes the roll-out of EFSI in the next budgetary year, whilst acknowledging the adverse impact to Horizon 2020, and CEF, some selective increases abo budget lines in the short-term; neve rthe level of the DB for COSME, Horizon 2020, EaSI and Erasmus+ programmess wishes to see a continued emphasis on job-creating and growth- promoting budget lines in subsequent Union budgets;
Amendment 64 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Decides, in light of the current, exceptional flows of migrants and refugees to concentrate its reinforcements on strengthening the AMIF; strongly supportesses the importance of supporting refugees close to their home countries, of helping Member States to implement the Schengen Acquis and the Dublin Regulation and of facilitating asylum procedures in the EU Member States; looks in this context critically at the second EUR 780 million package on the relocation of 120 000 persons; nevertheless decides to incorporate it in its reading, and to align the first relocation package with the second one by adding EUR 20 million to finance transport costs (EUR 500 per migrant to Italy and Greece); approves an additional increase of EUR 79 million for general reinforcements of the AMIF; finally decides to reinforce the agencies with migration-related tasks for a total of EUR 26 million;
Amendment 70 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. DeplorAcknowledges that the Council deDB for 2016 under Heading 3 increases commitment appropriations by over EUR 25,100 million and payment appropriations by EUR 33,600 million compared to the DB; believes that these reductions jeopardise the proper implementation of programmes and actions under Heading 3; recalls in this context that though some of the proposed cuts may seem minor, one needs to keep in mind the relatively small size of several important and valuable programmes, making them particularly vulnerable to cuts; decides therefore to restore the level of the DB; notes that the Council decreased commitment appropriations by EUR 25,1 million and payment appropriations by EUR 33,6 million compared to the DB; believes that any reductions under Heading 3 must target programmes with poor absorption and implementation rates, and particularly those which are not related to the current migrant and refugee crisis;
Amendment 73 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Points to the fact that, of all headings,Acknowledges that Heading 4 bears the biggest cuts by the Council both in commitments (- EUR 163,4 million) and in payments (- EUR 450,4 million); notes with surpriseevertheless notes that commitments remain over EUR 300 million higher than in 2015 and payments remain over EUR 1,5 billion higher than in 2015; notes that the European Neighbourhood Instrument (notably poverty and security in the Mediterranean countries), the Development Cooperation Instrument (including the migration and asylum thematic objective) and the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (despite candidate countries hosting a considerable number of migrants and refugees or being located on major migration routes) are among the most affected; underlines that this approach is in blatant contradiction to the statements of the Council and the European Councilmay be subject to change given recent developments and the unprecedented scale onf the migration agenda, on thend refugee crisis and on cooperation with countries of origin and transit;
Amendment 83 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Considers, therefore, that any further cuts proposed by the Council wcould endanger the proper functioning of the agencies and would not allow them to fulfil the tasks they have been assigned by the legislative authority;
Amendment 117 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. IRemains convinced that the Union budget can contribute to addressing effectively not only the consequences but also the root causes of the crises that the Union is currently facshould focus on areas where the most added value can be gained from supranational action, while respecting the rights and responsibilities of Member States; calls upon all parties to deliver a budget based on Union added value and budgetary restraingt; takes the view, however, that unforeseen events with an Union- wide dimension should be tackled by pooling efforts and putting additional means at Union level rather than by calling past commitments into question or reverting to the illusion of purely national solutions; stresses, therefore, that flexibility provisions are there to enable such a joint and speedy response and should be used to the full in order to make up for the tight constraints of the MFF ceilingsrioritising areas of urgent need;
Amendment 7 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WBelcomes the fact thatieves the Commission Draft General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 reinforces those priorities and pis a welcome step towards helping Member States tackle structural challenges, especially the loss of competitiveness; Proposes to step up EU support for investment, knowledge, jobs and growth-orientated programmes, and in particular for an emblematic mobility programme such as Erasmus+; iIs satisfied that, in addition to duly expected increases throughout Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) and Heading 4 (Global Europe), the Commission is taking up the challenge of responding to new developments such as the crises in Ukraine, Syria and the Mediterranean by responding to the EU's and Member States' needs in the area of security and migration and by demonstrating strong political will in the field of external action;
Amendment 10 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Believes that Draft General Budget 2016 is a first step towards achieving real focus, budget discipline and a concrete example of how the Commission is fulfilling its commitment to be 'big on big things and small on small things';
Amendment 11 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Reminds the Commission of its Budget Review 2010 which identified 'EU added value' as one of its core principles; Insists that this principle must represent the cornerstone of all expenditures, which must also be guided by efficiency, effectiveness and value for money, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined by Article 5 TEU and anchored in Protocol 1 on the role of national parliaments in the European Union;
Amendment 17 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its concerns about the funding of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) as a key tool for the fight against youth unemployment in the Union, which is a top priority for all European decision-makers; notes that, owing to the frontloading of the YEI top-up allocation in 2014 and 2015, no new commitments are proposed in 2016; recalls that the MFF has provided for a global margin for commitments to be made available over and above the ceilings as of 2016 for policy objectives related to growth and employment, in particular youth employment; recalls that, consequently, the Regulation on the European Social Fund has provided that the resources for the YEI may be revised upwards for the years 2016 to 2020 in the framework of the budgetary procedure; calls, therstrongly believes, however, that in the interest of strong public and budget accountability, all concerns raised by the ECA in their special report No3/2015 must be taken into account before, for the Youth Employment Initiative to be continued by making use of any flexibility provision contained in the MFFurther appropriations are allocated to the Youth Employment Initiative ; stresses in this regard the importance of results based policy making;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that payment shortages, largely due to insufficient payment ceilings and under-budgeting,a shortage of authorised payment appropriations and developments in the legislative framework applicable to 2007 - 2013 cohesion programmes which amplified the build-up of unpaid bills reacheding unprecedented and unacceptable heights in 2014 andwhich remain acute in 2015; fearnotes that this continues to penalise the beneficiaries and to jeopardise the proper implementation of the new 2014-2020 MFF programmes; while supporting active management of payments by the Commission, is concerned at the postponement of calls for proposals, at the reduction of pre-financing and at late paymentse existing constraints on payment appropriations have arisen despite several mitigating measures put in place by the Commission during 2014;
Amendment 44 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines that past under-budgeting of payin the past the continuous inflation of commitment appropriations has widened the gap between commitments and payments in several programmes under Heading 1a and 1b, thereby contributing to the sharp increase in the RALs as compared to the other headings; is concernednotes that the Commission has had tointroduced a number of mitigating measures including lowering the amount of pre-financing and, more worryingly,had to postpone new calls for proposals and delay the signing of contracts; notes for instance that under Horizon 2020 the Commission estimates that ‘in a normal implementation scenario without limits on payment appropriations, by the end of 2014, around 1 billion more would have been spent'; while welcoming the Commission's efforts to keep the payments situation under control, reiterates that it will under no circumstances tolerate a slowing down of the 2014-2020 programmes being seen as a way to deal with the payment shortagstrongly supports the Commission's efforts to keep the payments situation under control, and calls for the Commission to continue to prioritise programmes that contribute to real growth, competitiveness and job creation and to identify areas within the EU budget where savings and efficiencies can be made in order to reinforce these priorities;
Amendment 47 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Highlights the fact that 44% of the proposed 2016 payment appropriations cover outstanding payment claims for previous programming periods, leaving only EUR 26.8 billion in payments for the start-up of the new 2014-2020 cohesion programmes; considers the proposed payment appropriations, therefore, to be the bare minimum needed sufficient to help phase out the end - 2015 backlog, and meet new payment claims relating this subheadingo 2007-2013 cohesion programmes expected in 2016;
Amendment 52 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. In addition to itsHighlights the Special Report from the ECA No 3/2015 and calls for a continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative, stresses that an acceleration of itsthe ECA recommendations to be fully implemented before further commitments are made with regard to the YEI; Stresses that efficient and effective implementation in the Member States has now become urgentis crucial; encourages the Member States and the Commission to take all necessary measures to put the national Youth Guarantee schemes into operation as a matter of priority; reiterates that the recently approved increase in the pre- financing rate to 30%, strongly supported by the EP, is dependent on the speedy submission of interim payment claims by the Member States within one year, which should materialise in 2016; insists that the increased YEI pre-financing should not negatively affect the implementation of other components of the European Social Fund (ESF) or result in requests for additional unexpected payment requests in future years;
Amendment 80 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Underlines the crucial role decentralised agencies play in EU policy- making and is determined to evaluate the budgetary and staffing needs of all the agencies on a case-by-case basis, in order to ensure adequate appropriations and staff for all the agencies and particularly for those that have recently been assigned new tasks or face a higher workload for political-priority-setting or other reasons; is particularly determined to provide the agencies in the area of justice and home affairs with the necessary resources to tackle the current migratory challenges; highlights once more its opposition to the redeployment pool and expects to find a solution during the budgetary procedure to stop the additional staff cuts inbelieves that decentralised agencies cannot be exempt from sound budgetary management and in this context welcomes the Commissioners commitment to review the function and relevance of a number of decentralised agencies; reiterates, furthermore, its intention to use the Interinstitutional Working Group on decentralised agencies to find common ground between the institutions on the treatment of agencies in budgetary terms, also with a view to the conciliation on the 2016 budget;
Amendment 2 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EU budget is predominantly an investment budget with a strong leverage effect and a catalyst for growth, competitiveness and jobs across the Union; whereas it facilitates the implementation of programmes and projects that would otherwise be difficult or impossible and ensures strategic investment in actions with European added value by pooling resources and allowing for economies of scale; whereas the EU budget has a tangibleproperly targeted investment at the EU level can help to boost Member State economies and have a positive impact on citizens’' lives ;
Amendment 11 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the EU budget cannot accomplish its mission if its soundness and credibility are putis currently lacking a degree of sound financial management and its credibility has been called into question; whereas it is imperative that all commitments forming part of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014- 2020 are respected in full, and that a number of problems that have accumulated over the past years, such asparticularly the situation of unpaid invoices at year-end, are resolved without any delay;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas 2016 will be the year when the new EU programmes of the MFF 2014- 2020 will be operational and in full swing, and when the MFF mid-term revisionew will be launched;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights the indisputable potential and added value of the EU budget in the creation of employment andthrough the development of enterprises and entrepreneurship across the Union; acknowledges that a wide range of EU programmes, including Horizon 2020, COSME and Erasmus+, contribute directly to the attainment of these objectives; expects that the Commission will place such growth-orientated programmes and instruments at the heart of the Draft Budget 2016, in order to ensure that they are endowed with the necessary resources;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that many Member States remain engaged in long term fiscal rebalancing and believes that Europe must continue to show not only solidarity, but budgetary responsibility and restraint in light of these ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recognises that there is an acute shortage of funds in the EU, both at member state and European Union levels and the problems this may cause in the implementation of some programmes, stresses therefore the need to attach real importance to the concept of value for money and that all programmes and expenditure should be carefully scrutinised for viability, efficiency and effectiveness;
Amendment 86 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes with concern that Europe, despite being one of the safest places in the world, is faced with new types of risks to its internal security which require ensuring closer police and judicial cooperation and coordination and at the same times closer cooperation between police and judicial authorities, while at the same time there is a need to promotinge stability and peace in conflict areas; invitescalls on the Commission, if there is a need to propose targeted reinforcements of the relevant programmes and instruments, thus demonstrating the EU’s pledge to tackle these threatso find savings from other budget lines were financing is less urgent;
Amendment 94 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for the full implementation of the joint statements on payment appropriations and on a payment plan agreed between Parliament, the Council and the Commission at the end of the 2015 budgetary procedure and considers that such action would indicate that all three institutions are serious about working towards a lasting solution to the problem of unpaid bills; recalls the commitment to hold, in the course of this year, at least three interinstitutional meetings on payments, in order to take stock of payment implementation and revised forecasts; expects the first of these meetings, in March 2015, to provide a first overview of the level of unpaid bills at the end of 2014 for the main policy areas; regrets that, as anticipated, this level reached at the end of 2014 the unprecedented amount of EUR 24.7 billion for 2007-2013 Cohesion programmes;
Amendment 99 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Reiterates its long-standing position thatgrets that Parliament and Council hold divergent interpretation of the relevant MFF provision with regard to the payments of special instruments (Flexibility Instruments, the EU Solidarity Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the Emergency Aid Reserve) should be counted over and above the MFF ceilings, as is the case for commitments; regrets that no agreement was made possible during last year’s budgetary procedure due to the Council’s interpretation of the relevant MFF provision; expects the matter to be settled with the 2015 technical adjustment of the Global Margin for Payments by the Commission;
Amendment 111 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Council, in its consideration of next year’s budget, to live up to the expectations raised byremain true to its own statements and decisions, whether they relate to the MFF, the Europe 2020 strategy or the relaunch of investment; considers that such political declarations and commitments are void unless coupled with sufficient budgetary resources to allow their implementaconcrete proposals for action;
Amendment 113 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Undertakes, within the MFF ceilings and with due consideration to the acute shortage of payments, to play its role as one arm of the budgetary authority with dedication and responsibility by promoting well-targeted increases in those budgetary areas with high absorption capacity that correspond to its political priorities and guarantee successful delivery; in this light, intends to examine, with the support of its specialised committees, the specific programmes and budget lines that can better achieve this objectivescrutinise with the support of its specialised committees, the specific programmes and budget lines that best deliver on budgetary priorities and objectives while also routing out those budget lines which do not deliver satisfactory results;
Amendment 118 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines that the 2016 budget will be crucial as it should serve as a benchmark ofor the post-electoral MFF review / revision, to be launched before the end of 2016; stresses the need to establish political priorities and identify in good time areas of proven added value of EU spending for which further investments will be deemed necessaryas investment in these areas will be targeted in the second half of the MFF 2014-2020; stresses, in this context, the importance of closely monitoring and scrutinising the implementation and performance of key EU programmes already during the current budgetary procedure;
Amendment 122 #
2015/2008(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reaffirms its position in favour of an in-depth reformview of the system of EU own resources, whose current shortcomings are causing severe impasses in budgetary negotiations; attaches, therefore; attaches, the highest political importance to the work of the High Level Group on Own Resources, under the chairmanship of Mario Monti; eagerly anticipates the results and proposals of the work of this High-Level Group that are due to be presented in an interinstitutional conference, with the participation of national parliaments, during 2016, and considered in the context of the MFF review / revision;
Amendment 42 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) BCollectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established and shoulding in their possession firearms classified in category A acquired before the date of entry into force of this Directive should be able to keep those firearms in their possession subject to authorisation by the Member State concerned and provided that those firearms have been deactivat be able to keep and acquire firearms classified in category A subject to authorisation by the Member State concerned.
Amendment 47 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 66 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 86 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Furthermore, the risk of alarm weapons and other types of blank firing weapons being converted to real firearms is high, and in some of the terrorist acts converted arms were used. It is therefore essential to address the problem of converted firearms being used in criminal offences, notably by including them in the scope of the Directive. Technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons as well as for salute and acoustic weapons should bare adopted in order to ensure that they cannot be converted into firearms.
Amendment 99 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1b
Article 1 – paragraph 1b
1b. For the purposes of this Directive, "essential component" shall mean the barrel, frame, receiver, slide or cylinder, bolt or breach block and any device designed or adapted to diminish the sound caused by firing a firearm which, being separate objects, are included in the category of the firearms on which they are or are intended to be mounted.
Amendment 101 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1e
Article 1 – paragraph 1e
1e. For the purposes of this Directive, "broker" shall mean any natural or legal person, other than a dealer whose trade or business consists wholly or partly in buying, selling or arranging the transfer within a Member State, from one Member State to another Member State or exporting to a third country or importing to a Member State from a third country fully assembled firearms, their parts and ammunition.
Amendment 112 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) It should be specified in this Directive that the activities of a dealer include not only the manufacturing but also the modification or conversion a firearm, such as the shortening of a complete firearm, and in addition the commercial modification or conversion of parts of firearms and of ammunition, and that, therefore, only authorised dealers should be permitted to engage in those activities. This Directive should not apply to reloading of ammunition for personal use or making legal modifications and conversions to a firearm for which a person has an authorization.
Amendment 113 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
2. This Directive shall not apply to the acquisition or possession of weapons and ammunition, in accordance with national law, by the armed forces, the police, the public authorities or by collectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognized as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established. Nor shall it apply to commercial transfers of weapons and ammunition of warproducts of the defence industry.
Amendment 122 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any firearm or parand any essential component placed on the market has been marked and registered in compliance with this Directive.
Amendment 130 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
For the purposes of identifying and tracing each assembled firearm, Member States shall, at the time of manufacture of each firearm or at the time of import to the Union or as soon as possible thereafter, require a unique marking including the name of the manufacturer, the country or place of manufacture, the serial number and the year of manufacture, if not already part of the serial number. This shall be without prejudice to the affixing of the manufacturer's trademark.
Amendment 131 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 152 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) BCollectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established and shoulding in their possession firearms classified in category A acquired before the date of entry into force of this Directive should be able to keep those firearms in their possession subject to authorisation by the Member State concerned and provided that those firearms have been deactivat be able to keep and acquire firearms classified in category A subject to authorisation by the Member State concerned.
Amendment 155 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) are at least 18 years of age, except in relation to the acquisition, other than through purchase, and possession of firearms for hunting and target shooting, provided that in that case persons of less than 18 years of age have parental permission, or are under parental guidance or the guidance of an adult with a valid firearms or hunting licence, or are within a licenced or otherwise approved training centre;
Amendment 170 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall provide for standard medical tests for issuing or renewing authorisations as referred to in paragraph 1 and shall withdraw authorisations if any of the conditions on the basis of which it was granted is no longer met.
Amendment 172 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
Amendment 173 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) This Directive is without prejudice to the ownership of firearms and ammunition acquired through inheritance; Member States shall restrain the possession of such firearms by owners who are not duly authorised.
Amendment 181 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take all appropriate steps to prohibit the acquisition and the possession of the firearms and ammunition classified in category A and to destroy those. In exceptional and duly reasoned cases, the competent authorities may grant authorisations for the acquisition and possession of such firearms and ammunition wheld in violation of this provision and seizedre this is not contrary to public security or public order.
Amendment 188 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Member States may authorise persons or bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established to keep in theiracquire and possession firearms classified in category A acquired before [the date of entry into force of this Directive] provided they have been deactivated in accordance with the provisions that implement Article 10(b)when this is not contrary to public security or public order.
Amendment 198 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
The acquisition of firearms and their paressential components and ammunition concerning categories A, B and C by means of distance communication, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(*), shall be authorised only with respect to dealers and brokers and shall be subject to the strict control of the Member States.
Amendment 204 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Amendment 220 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 231 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall submit every five years a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive, including a fitness check of the new provisions, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals in particular as regards the categories of firearms of Annex I and the issues related to new technologies such as 3D printing. The first report shall be submitted two years after the entry into force of this Directive."
Amendment 237 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – Category A – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – Category A – point 6
Amendment 244 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – Category A – point 7
Annex I – part II – point A – Category A – point 7
Amendment 247 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – Category A – point 8
Annex I – part II – point A – Category A – point 8
Amendment 258 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – Category C – point 5
Annex I – part II – point A – Category C – point 5
5. Alarm and signal weaponsFirearms under categories A, B and points 1 to 4 of category C, after having been converted to alarm, signal, salute and, acoustic weapons as well as replicas;, gas, paintball or airsoft, Flobert, or percussion lock weapons.
Amendment 260 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – Category C – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – Category C – point 6
Amendment 263 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Amendment 269 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point c
Amendment 279 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Furthermore, the risk of alarm weapons and other types of blank firing weapons being converted to real firearms is high, and in some of the terrorist acts converted arms were used. It is therefore essential to address the problem of converted firearms being used in criminal offences, notably by including them in the scope of the Directive. Technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons as well as for salute and acoustic weapons should be adopted in order to ensure that they cannot be converted into firearms.
Amendment 316 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1b
Article 1 – paragraph 1b
1b. For the purposes of this Directive, "essential component" shall mean the barrel, frame, receiver, slide or cylinder, bolt or breaech block and any device designed or adapted to diminish the sound caused by firing a firearm which, being separate objects, are included in the category of the firearms on which they are or are intended to be mounted.
Amendment 330 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 –paragraph 1e
Article 1 –paragraph 1e
1e. For the purposes of this Directive, "broker" shall mean any natural or legal person, other than a dealer whose trade or business consists wholly or partly in buying, selling or arranging the transfer within a Member State, from one Member State to another Member State or exporting to a third country or importing into a Member State from a third country fully assembled firearms, their parts and ammunition.
Amendment 361 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 1 – point c
Article 1 – point 1 – point c
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 1 – paragraph 1h
Article 1 – paragraph 1h
Amendment 406 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive shall not apply to the acquisition or possession of weapons and ammunition, in accordance with national law, by the armed forces, the police, the public authorities or by collectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established. Nor shall it apply to commercial transfers of weapons and ammunition of warproducts of the defence industry.
Amendment 434 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that any firearm or parand any essential component placed on the market has been marked and registered in compliance with this Directive.
Amendment 452 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
For the purposes of identifying and tracing each assembled firearm, Member States shall, at the time of manufacture of each firearm or at the time of import into the Union or as soon as possible thereafter, require a unique marking including the name of the manufacturer, the country or place of manufacture, the serial number and the year of manufacture, if not already part of the serial number. This shall be without prejudice to the affixing of the manufacturer's trademark.
Amendment 460 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 519 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 536 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The acquisition and possession of firearms shall only be permitted if, inter alia, there is good cause. Member States, whilst not being under any obligation in that regard, may decide that the acquisition and possession of firearms for the purpose of, for example, hunting, target shooting, self-defence, reservist training, various scientific, technical and testing activities and re-enactment of historical events, filmmaking or historical study constitutes good cause.
Amendment 549 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall provide for standard medical tests for issuing or renewing authorisations as referred to in paragraph 1 and shall withdraw authorisations if any of the conditions on the basis of which it wasthey were granted is no longer met.
Amendment 578 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. This Directive is without prejudice to the ownership of firearms and ammunition acquired through inheritance. Member States shall prohibit the possession of such firearms by owners who are not duly authorised.
Amendment 590 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take all appropriate steps to prohibit the acquisition and the possession of the firearms and ammunition classified in category A and to destroy those. In exceptional and duly reasoned cases, the competent authorities may grant authorisations for the acquisition and possession of such firearms and ammunition wheld in violation of this provison and seizedre this is not contrary to public security or public order.
Amendment 620 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Member States may authorise persons or bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established to keep in theiracquire and possession firearms classified in category A acquired before [the date of entry into force of this Directive] provided they have been deactivated in accordance with the provisions that implement Article 10(b)when this is not contrary to public security or public order.
Amendment 660 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 7
Article 1 – point 7
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Amendment 731 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 91/477/EEC
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
The Commission shall submit every five years submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive, including a fitness check of the new provisions, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals in particular as regards the categories of firearms of Annex I and the issues related to new technologies such as 3D printing. The first report shall be submitted by ... [two years after the date of entry into force of this Amending Directive].
Amendment 748 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
Amendment 751 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
6. Automatic firearms which have been converted into semi-automatic firearms; which have not been authorised in accordance with Article 10ba, with the exception of firearms converted prior to ... [the date of entry into force of this Amending Directive1a]; __________________ 1a In this case, Article 10ba shall be amended as follows: "Member States shall take measures to ensure that long semi-automatic firearms which have been converted from originally automatic firearms cannot be reconverted into automatic firearms. Mechanical design of any particular type of long semi- automatic firearms including conversions of any particular type of originally automatic firearms into semi-automatic firearms must be authorised for civilian use by a competent public authority before being placed on the market."
Amendment 755 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 6
6. AComponents with which a semi- automatic firearms which have can been converted into semi-an automatic firearm without sophisticated skills and tools;
Amendment 762 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 7
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 7
Amendment 778 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point i
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 8
Annex I – part II – point A – category A – point 8
Amendment 811 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 5
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 5
5. Alarm and signal weaponsFirearms under categories A, B and points 1 to 4 of category C, after having been converted to alarm, signal, salute and, acoustic weapons as well as replicas;, gas, paintball or airsoft, Flobert, or percussion lock weapons.
Amendment 822 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Article 1 – point 13 – point a – point iii
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 6
Annex I – part II – point A – category C – point 6
Amendment 830 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 14 – point a
Article 1 – point 14 – point a
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part III – point a
Annex I – part III – point a
Amendment 838 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 14 – point c
Article 1 – point 14 – point c
Directive 91/477/EEC
Annex I – part III – paragraph 2
Annex I – part III – paragraph 2
Amendment 843 #
2015/0269(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive [36 months after publication toin the OJ]. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Amendment 4 #
2014/2248(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. BelievNotes that for the Union to meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to address current and new challenges effectively, it needs to be granted a budget that is commensurate with the mission it is called on to accomplish; considers that the current level of the EU budget, which corresponds to 1 % of the EU-28 GDP, is not sufficient to achieve these goalthe EU’s current problems cannot be resolved either with a greater degree of centralisation and harmonisation of European structures or with yet more European taxpayers’ money, but only by a return to a United Europe of sovereign nation States whose political acts are guided by the European ideal of peace, the quest for freedom and prosperity and the obligation to provide for social security and governed in principle by the will of the citizen, as this will ensure the lasting competitiveness of the Member States;
Amendment 30 #
2014/2248(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is convinced that the EU budget needs to be endowed with a system of genuine own resources, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; considers that such a system should reduce the share of GNIRejects therefore the measures proposed or advocated in the draft report to address the crisis in the EU as a further coentributions to the EU budget with a view to abandoning the ‘juste retoalisation of the EU with an independent EU government, an EU Finance Minister, an independent eur’o approach of Member States; insists, in this context, on the phasing-out of all forms of rebatrea budget (a ‘fiscal capacity for the euro area’), a Banking Union and a redemption fund for euro area countries;
Amendment 34 #
2014/2248(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the need for the EU budget to be simple, clear and easily understood by EU citizens, and to be based on a structure that allows it to be compared and coordinated with national budgets; considers that these should be underpinning principles for both the expenditure and revenue sides of the EU budget;
Amendment 37 #
2014/2248(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that the current challenges of the EU can be dealt with well enough with the present ceiling of the EU budget, provided that the corresponding appropriations are used in an efficient and targeted way in accordance with the requirements of professional project management, such as programme and project relevance, measurability of objectives, sustainability and good cost-benefit ratio;
Amendment 1 #
2014/2185(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Is of the opinion that the effects of aggressive competition and rising fuel prices are not exclusive to Air France; stresses real concern that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) risks subsidising the costs of redundancies which are caused by corporate and commercial decisions; stresses that the EGF should not be used as a vehicle for transferring costs to the public sector;
Amendment 31 #
2014/2078(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Reiterates that maintaining the security of Parliament's buildings and their immediate surroundings must be given the highest priority; requests that as part of this work security in the car parks should be improved, and the access to the parts of the buildings containing Members' offices in Parliament should be controlled;
Amendment 47 #
2014/2078(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Working places of Parliament (subtitle) 33b. Notes that the European Council whilst justifiably calling for austerity on the part of Parliament, continuous to deny in the opportunity to make the considerable savings that would arise from ceasing to hold meetings in Strasbourg;
Amendment 56 #
2014/2078(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Reminds that the budget for the EuroparlTV was EUR 8 000 000 in 2013 and EUR 5 000 000 in 2014 while the performance of the service has been improved with a number of new activities and projects; notes that between 2012 and 2014 the average monthly number of videos watched has gone up from 53 000 to 400 000; remarks that the cost of this project is still very high;
Amendment 59 #
2014/2078(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 c (new)
Paragraph 39 c (new)
39c. Calls for efficiencies to be found in its budget;
Amendment 61 #
2014/2078(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Notes with concern that mission expenses in 2013 of the Information Offices amounted to EUR 1 839 696, with missions to Strasbourg accounting for EUR 1 090 290; regrets that the cost of missions from Information Offices to Strasbourg increased by around 7 % from 2012, with a further 2 % increase being due to the creation of the new Information Office in Croatia; insists that priority should be given to the use of videoconferences, making both structural cost reductions to the Parliament's budget and environmental improvements, which do not detract from Parliament's work;
Amendment 91 #
2014/2078(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Notes that the property portfolio of Parliament has substantially increased over recent years; insists that no additional buildings be purchased or leased during the next multiannual financial framework period;
Amendment 455 #
2014/2075(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204 a (new)
Paragraph 204 a (new)
204a. Recalls the Parliament's proposal for a full-time Commissioner for Budgetary Control and welcomes comments made by the new Budget Commissioner that she should also be treated as Commissioner for Budgetary Control - suggests that this be reflected in her official title;
Amendment 457 #
2014/2075(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204 b (new)
Paragraph 204 b (new)
204b. Requests that the Commission submit to Parliament's competent committee by September 2015 a comprehensive report on its activities to encourage whistle-blowing by the wider public;
Amendment 16 #
2014/2059(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Finds it regrettable that the Member States continue to underestimate the role and contribution of the EU budget in strengthening economic governance and budget coordination throughout the Union, and therefore calls on them not to consider their contribution to the EU budget as an adjustment variable in their consolidation efforts and not to seek to artificially reduce the volume of the EU budget’s growth-enhancing expenditure, in contradiction with the political commitments they have made at the highest level; believes, on the contrary, that fundingBelieves that where there is EU added value, growth-enhancing expenditure at EU level can generate savings for the Member States’ budgets;
Amendment 19 #
2014/2059(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls its view that the fiscal situation of Member States can be eased through a new system of own resources to finance the Union budget that will reduce gross national income (GNI) contributionsa new system of own resources should be explored, thus enabling Member States to meet their consolidation efforts without jeopardising EU funding to support investment in economic recovery and reform measures; underlines, therefore, the importance it attaches to the new high-level group on own resources, which should lead to a true reform of EU financing;
Amendment 27 #
2014/2059(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the commitment by the President-elect of the Commission to deliver on the Commission’s roadmap entitled ‘Towards a genuine economic and monetary union’ of 5 December 2012; believes that any additional funding or instruments, such as a solidarity mechanism, must be an integral part of the EU budget, but over and above the agreed MFF ceilings.
Amendment 11 #
2014/2041(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 12 #
2014/2041(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes the Commissions intention to organise two meetings with the Expert Group of National Contacts at an estimated cost of EUR 70 000 in addition to two seminars of EGF implementing bodies in the Member States at a cost estimated at EUR 120 000; believes that while some of the proposed expenditure outlined by the Commission is necessary, believes that some of the proposed expenditure outlined above represents poor value for money;
Amendment 17 #
2014/2041(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Deeply regrets that the Commission did not duly analyse the effectiveness of the use of the crisis derogation criterion, especially taking into account that these EGF cases were not duly considered in the EGF framework review; regrets, however, that the results did not arrive in time to feed into the discussion on the new regulation for the EGF in 2014-2020, especially regarding the effectiveness of the use of the crisis derogation criterion; still believes that this should be taken into account for the future evaluation of the EGF; calls on the co-legislators to consider the reintroduction of this measure without delay, especially in the context of the social emergency situations in several Member StatesCalls on the Commission to produce a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of the use of the crisis derogation criterion;
Amendment 19 #
2014/2041(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 20 #
2014/2041(BUD)
9a. Strongly believes that it is essential that Union expenditure is closely scrutinised on the basis of value for money; asks the Commission to outline clearly the added value in terms of tangible outcomes in creating a separate budget line for the EGF;
Amendment 1 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
- having regard to the Common statement by eight Member States on the mobilisation of the contingency margin;
Amendment 10 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates the complementary nature of the EU budget to national budgets and the impetus it creates to promote growth and jobs and underlines that given its very nature and limited size it should not be checked and curbed by arbitrary reductions but on the contrary targeted areas need to be reinforcedthe principle of EU added value must represent the cornerstone of all EU Budgets;
Amendment 11 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Believes that European public spending cannot be exempt from the considerable efforts made by Member States to bring their public spending under control, stresses that the action taken in recent years to curb annual growth in European payment appropriations should therefore be stepped up;
Amendment 12 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the Draft Budget 2015 (DB) proposed by the Commission amounts to (including special instruments) EUR 145 599,3 million in commitment appropriations (CA) and EUR 142 137,3 million in payment appropriations (PA); highlights that the overall volume of the payment appropriations in the DB represents a moderate 1,4% increase over the 2014 Budget (taking into account AB 1 and DAB 2-4/2014), and is still EUR 2 billion lower than the implemented 2013 budget (taking into account AB 1 - 9); notes that the Commission proposed to leave a total margin of EUR 1 478,9 million in commitment appropriations under the ceilings in its DB;
Amendment 13 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Believes that in any sound budgetary process a margin between the agreed budget and the annual ceiling must be large enough to deal with unforeseen pressures that will inevitably emerge;
Amendment 16 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. DeplorNotes that the Council, in its reading, reduced commitment appropriations by EUR 522 million and payment appropriations by EUR 2,1 billion, thus setting the Union budget for 2015 at EUR 145 077,4 million in commitments and EUR 139 996,9 million in payments; points out that the EUR 2,1 billion cut in payments would represent a reduction of - 0,18 % as compared to 2014 Budget (including AB 1/2014 and DAB 2-4/2014);
Amendment 20 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Disapproves ofNotes the Council’s reading on the 2015 Budget which disregards the multiannual character of the Union's policies, and which would instead of tackling the issue further aggravate payments shortages and slowdown further the implementation of Union programmesrecognises that the front- loading into the first few years of the MFF would impose pressure on later years of the deal;
Amendment 21 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Deplores the arbitraryNotes the cuts proposed by the Council to the administrative and support lines financing the implementation of key Union programmes which could be detriwhich demonstrates their commitmental to the successful start of new programmes as a lack of administrative capacity entails a serious risk of hampering the implementation of Union policiesreal budgetary restraint and discipline;
Amendment 24 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 25 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 39 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. SupportNotes the Commission’s proposal to make full use of resources available under the 2015 payment ceiling thereby leaving no margin under the 2015 payment ceiling; restores all of the Council's cuts in payments on the basis of current and expected implementation patterns;
Amendment 40 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Highlights however, that even the full use of the payment ceiling is not sufficient to adequately address the Union’s ongoing payment problems that have erupted since the 2010 Union budget; hence, decides to go beyond the Commission's proposals in payments for a number of budget lines, where the situation in payments is the most critical;
Amendment 9 #
2014/0332(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. Whereas onea number of Member States which, over the years, hadve largely benefited from past underestimation of itstheir GNI expressed its reluctance to pay by the legal deadline the additional amounts dutheir concern with the unprecedented level of redistribution to be paid by the legal deadline;
Amendment 15 #
2014/0332(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned byNotes the proposed larger discretion left to Member States as to the timing of their contributions to the Union budget; stresses that this would create a precedent that could have an impact on the Commission's treasury, the timing of payments to the beneficiaries of the Union budget and, ultimately, the credibility of the Union's budget;
Amendment 16 #
2014/0332(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the fact that this proposal makes the Own Resources system even more complex and is aimed at amending legislation that will soon be replaced, retroactively, by already agreed pieces of legislation; stresses, against this background, the crucial role of the High Level Group on Own Resources in delivering proposals for overcoming the deficiencies of the current system;