8 Amendments of Jordi CAÑAS related to 2022/2051(INL)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the original idea behindconclusion of the Conference on the Future of Europe as regards citizens’ information and participation in democracy at Union level, aiming at making the Union more understandable and accessibla watershed moment for European democracy and a precedent for citizens’ participation in the Union's decision- making process for the years to come;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that citizens have identified at the Conference that the technological revolution and geopolitical upheaval pose new transnational challenges which are to be addressed; points out that for citizens to understand the added value of the Union, the European institutions need to be empowered to act more effectively;
Amendment 5 #
1 b. Recalls the joint commitment by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission to listen to Europeans and to follow up on the recommendations made by the Conference on the Future of Europe;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that manysome of the proposals endorsadopted by the Conference on the Future of Europe do not require Treaty change but instead call for the strengthening of existing policies and instruments; takes the view that the division of competences provided for in the Treaties, and in particular Articles 4 and 5 Tstresses that others can only be implemented through a substantial amendment of the Treaties, inter alia, concerning the simplification of the institutional architecture of the Union, more transparency and accountability in the decision-making process and a new reflection on Union competences, such as health and healthcare, defence, education, application of fundamental rights and citizenship; takes the view that these proposals together indicate a clear demand and mandate for an urgent and deep reform of the Union’s architecture and decision-making procedures; underlines that this reform necessarily includes a substantial amendment of the Treaties per Article 48 TFEU,; should remain unchangedtates that many of the petitions sent to the Parliament address situations that could be improved if those changes were made;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Calls on the Commission to include in its set of concrete actions to deliver on the Conference proposals the consolidation of a European Citizenship Statute providing citizen-specific rights and freedoms, which would make the European values and rights more tangible for citizens of the Union;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the right to petition is a citizen’s right which should plays a fundamental role as a direct participatory democracy tool in the Union’s decision- making; recalls that petitions can be used as means of creating opportunities for public debate and of initiating and evaluating policy and legislative changes; calls on the Member States and the Commission to do their utmost toall actors involved in the Treaty reform procedure to seize the occasion to strengthen citizens' participation in the Union's decision-making as well as the right to petition, inter alia by ensureing that petitions are given adequately followed up by the Union institutions; stresses that citizens themselves should have a substantial say in said Treaty reform procedure;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. NoteRegrets that the right to petition remains underused at Union level when compared with the situation, as underpinned by Articles 10 and 11 TEU and Articles 24 and 227 TEU, remains underused at Unational level; recalls, also, that about a quarter of the petitions submitted to the European Parliament are declared inadmissible, mainly because the matter falls outside the Union’s fields of activity, which points out the lack of understanding, among Union citizens, of the Union’s remit of competen; therefore calls to assess the division of competences set forth in the Treaties and more clearly define the Union’s remit so that the right to petition can be more effectively implemented in practice;