Activities of André ROUGÉ
Plenary speeches (7)
Outcome of G20 ministerial meeting in Rio-de-Janeiro and fighting inequality (debate)
Outcome of the Summit of the Future: transforming global governance for building peace, promoting human rights and achieving the sustainable development goals (debate)
Protecting our oceans: persistent threats to marine protected areas in the EU and benefits for coastal communities (debate)
One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
Foreign interference and espionage by third country actors in European universities (debate)
Right to clean drinking water in the EU (debate)
The situation in Mayotte following the devastating cyclone Chido and the need for solidarity (debate)
Written explanations (28)
Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund: assistance to Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Greece and France further to natural disasters occurred in 2023
La proposition de décision du Parlement européen et du Conseil de l’Union européenne relative à la mobilisation du Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne (FSUE) a pour objectif de venir en aide à l'Italie, la Slovénie, l'Autriche, la Grèce et la France, à la suite de d’inondations survenues en 2023. Le montant total proposé pour la mobilisation du FSUE s'élève à un milliard d'euros.Le texte, soutenu favorablement par la délégation française du groupe des Patriotes pour l’Europe, permet de répondre aux besoins des États membres de l’Union affectés par des catastrophes naturelles majeures et régionales.Conformément à sa ligne de soutenir les fonds qui viennent en soutien des États membres au titre de la solidarité européenne, en particulier dans un cadre d’urgence et de voisinage, la délégation française de notre groupe soutient cette proposition. Par ailleurs, la France, particulièrement touchée par les inondations dans les Hauts-de-France, en est directement bénéficiaire.Nous en appelons cependant à un examen régulier de l'efficacité des fonds alloués, et soulignons la nécessité d'améliorer la réactivité de l'Union pour que les populations bénéficient rapidement des soutiens promis, et surtout pour renforcer la capacité des États à agir de manière autonome face aux crises.
Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund: assistance to Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Greece and France further to natural disasters occurred in 2023
La proposition de décision du Parlement européen et du Conseil de l’Union européenne relative à la mobilisation du Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne (FSUE) a pour objectif de venir en aide à l'Italie, la Slovénie, l'Autriche, la Grèce et la France, à la suite de d’inondations survenues en 2023. Le montant total proposé pour la mobilisation du FSUE s'élève à un milliard d'euros.Le texte, soutenu favorablement par la délégation française du groupe des Patriotes pour l’Europe, permet de répondre aux besoins des États membres de l’Union affectés par des catastrophes naturelles majeures et régionales.Conformément à sa ligne de soutenir les fonds qui viennent en soutien des États membres au titre de la solidarité européenne, en particulier dans un cadre d’urgence et de voisinage, la délégation française de notre groupe soutient cette proposition. Par ailleurs, la France, particulièrement touchée par les inondations dans les Hauts-de-France, en est directement bénéficiaire.Nous en appelons cependant à un examen régulier de l'efficacité des fonds alloués, et soulignons la nécessité d'améliorer la réactivité de l'Union pour que les populations bénéficient rapidement des soutiens promis, et surtout pour renforcer la capacité des États à agir de manière autonome face aux crises.
Moldova's resilience against Russian interference ahead of presidential elections, EU integration referendum
Cette résolution s’inscrit dans un contexte particulier. En effet, des élections législatives auront lieu le 26 octobre en Géorgie. Les deux principales forces politiques sont généralement classées comme prorusses (l’actuelle majorité) et europhile (l’actuelle opposition). Cette classification, superficielle au regard de la situation politique intérieure, motive pourtant cette résolution. Le Gouvernement, démocratiquement élu, a adopté deux lois, dans le cadre d’un processus législatif ordinaire, en premier lieu sur la transparence des fonds étrangers qui constituent a minima 20 % de la trésorerie d’une ONG, et en second lieu une loi qui vise à limiter la propagande LGBT dans le pays, l’assimilant à l’inceste.Dans ce contexte, le groupe PPE a déposé une proposition de résolution visant à condamner les deux lois précitées, qualifiées de « recul démocratique ».Ce texte constitue clairement une ingérence du Parlement européen dans les affaires intérieures de la Géorgie à quelques semaines des élections, bien que certains pans des législations susmentionnées puissent nous paraître regrettables.Pour notre délégation, la volonté de l’élargissement de l’Union à la Géorgie, pays du Caucase qui n’a ni vocation à intégrer l’Union, ni un clair mandat de son peuple pour le faire, est une ligne rouge. Je me suis donc abstenu.
Moldova's resilience against Russian interference ahead of presidential elections, EU integration referendum
Cette résolution s’inscrit dans un contexte particulier. En effet, des élections législatives auront lieu le 26 octobre en Géorgie. Les deux principales forces politiques sont généralement classées comme prorusses (l’actuelle majorité) et europhile (l’actuelle opposition). Cette classification, superficielle au regard de la situation politique intérieure, motive pourtant cette résolution. Le Gouvernement, démocratiquement élu, a adopté deux lois, dans le cadre d’un processus législatif ordinaire, en premier lieu sur la transparence des fonds étrangers qui constituent a minima 20 % de la trésorerie d’une ONG, et en second lieu une loi qui vise à limiter la propagande LGBT dans le pays, l’assimilant à l’inceste.Dans ce contexte, le groupe PPE a déposé une proposition de résolution visant à condamner les deux lois précitées, qualifiées de « recul démocratique ».Ce texte constitue clairement une ingérence du Parlement européen dans les affaires intérieures de la Géorgie à quelques semaines des élections, bien que certains pans des législations susmentionnées puissent nous paraître regrettables.Pour notre délégation, la volonté de l’élargissement de l’Union à la Géorgie, pays du Caucase qui n’a ni vocation à intégrer l’Union, ni un clair mandat de son peuple pour le faire, est une ligne rouge. Je me suis donc abstenu.
Draft amending budget No 2/2024: entering the surplus of the financial year 2023
L'existence même d'un excédent budgétaire est perçue comme un signe de mauvaise planification de la Commission. Notre délégation estime que de meilleures prévisions auraient permis d’éviter cet excédent, qui traduit une mauvaise répartition des ressources disponibles. Par ailleurs, le groupe Patriotes pour l’Europe conteste les réductions forfaitaires accordées à certains États membres, qui augmentent la pression sur les autres pays contributeurs. Une révision de ces mécanismes est nécessaire pour garantir une répartition plus équitable des contributions.Le texte souligne également la nécessité de renforcer les ressources propres de l’Union européenne, point sur lequel nous exprimons une vive opposition. Notre délégation critique fermement cette approche, car elle constitue une tentative de centralisation accrue des finances au niveau européen. Augmenter les ressources propres de l'Union européenne reviendrait à réduire encore l'autonomie financière des États membres, en imposant des prélèvements supplémentaires pour financer des politiques européennes parfois éloignées des priorités nationales.En conclusion, notre délégation déplore la mauvaise gestion budgétaire de la Commission et l’injustice des réductions forfaitaires, qui pénalisent certains États membres dont la France. Nous nous opposons fermement à l'augmentation des ressources propres de l'Union européenne, qui menace l'autonomie financière des États et centralise davantage le contrôle budgétaire à Bruxelles. J’ai voté contre ce texte.
Draft amending budget 4/2024: update of revenue (own resources) and adjustments to some decentralised agencies
Le rapporteur souligne que les réductions liées au revenu national brut pour certains États membres de l’Union européenne aggravent la charge pour les autres. Il insiste sur la nécessité de réformer le système des ressources propres pour garantir des revenus durables et regrette que l’augmentation des fonds pour les agences décentralisées se fasse au détriment d’autres programmes.Le texte n’est pas soutenu par la délégation française du groupe Patriotes pour l’Europe, en raison des faiblesses du projet de budget rectificatif. Parmi celles-ci figurent des erreurs considérables dans les prévisions de ressources propres, marquées par une baisse des droits de douane (-18 %) et de la base de taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (-0,6 %). La réduction, mal évaluée elle aussi, de 1,5 milliard d’euros de la contribution du Royaume-Uni ajoute une pression supplémentaire sur le budget de l’Union européenne. Par ailleurs, les augmentations de financements pour certaines agences, comme l’Agence de gestion des systèmes d’information à grande échelle et l’Agence spatiale européenne, semblent disproportionnées. Enfin, le manque de transparence dans la renégociation du contrat de l’Agence européenne des médicaments à Londres avec WeWork, ayant causé des pertes financières, souligne une gestion négligente des contrats.J’ai donc voté contre ce texte.
Discharge 2022: EU general budget – European Council and Council
Il est à noter que les pensions représentaient en 2022 environ 70 % du total des dépenses et que 3 108 personnes étaient employées en 2022 contre 3 029 en 2021. Malgré les 19 °C imposés, les paiements pour l’eau, le gaz, l’électricité et le chauffage sont passés de 2,5 millions d’euros en 2021 à 11 millions d’euros en 2022, soit une augmentation de 338 %. La résolution jointe à la décharge regrette le manque de transparence du Conseil. Elle fait référence au Médiateur européen et à la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, qui confirment le droit des contribuables et du public à être informés de l’utilisation des recettes publiques (arrêt du 25 janvier 2023 dans l’affaire T-163/21): les documents produits par le Conseil dans ses groupes de travail ne sont pas de nature technique mais législative, et ils peuvent faire l’objet de demandes d’accès aux documents.Bien que le Conseil représente les États membres, nous ne pouvons accorder une décharge si nous n’avons pas une vision détaillée des dépenses du Conseil. J’ai voté contre la résolution jointe, qui prétend que le gouvernement hongrois abuse de la présidence du Conseil, ce qui ne m’apparaît pas justifié.
Draft amending budget No 2/2024: entering the surplus of the financial year 2023
L'existence même d'un excédent budgétaire est perçue comme un signe de mauvaise planification de la Commission. Notre délégation estime que de meilleures prévisions auraient permis d’éviter cet excédent, qui traduit une mauvaise répartition des ressources disponibles. Par ailleurs, le groupe Patriotes pour l’Europe conteste les réductions forfaitaires accordées à certains États membres, qui augmentent la pression sur les autres pays contributeurs. Une révision de ces mécanismes est nécessaire pour garantir une répartition plus équitable des contributions.Le texte souligne également la nécessité de renforcer les ressources propres de l’Union européenne, point sur lequel nous exprimons une vive opposition. Notre délégation critique fermement cette approche, car elle constitue une tentative de centralisation accrue des finances au niveau européen. Augmenter les ressources propres de l'Union européenne reviendrait à réduire encore l'autonomie financière des États membres, en imposant des prélèvements supplémentaires pour financer des politiques européennes parfois éloignées des priorités nationales.En conclusion, notre délégation déplore la mauvaise gestion budgétaire de la Commission et l’injustice des réductions forfaitaires, qui pénalisent certains États membres dont la France. Nous nous opposons fermement à l'augmentation des ressources propres de l'Union européenne, qui menace l'autonomie financière des États et centralise davantage le contrôle budgétaire à Bruxelles. J’ai voté contre ce texte.
Draft amending budget 4/2024: update of revenue (own resources) and adjustments to some decentralised agencies
Le rapporteur souligne que les réductions liées au revenu national brut pour certains États membres de l’Union européenne aggravent la charge pour les autres. Il insiste sur la nécessité de réformer le système des ressources propres pour garantir des revenus durables et regrette que l’augmentation des fonds pour les agences décentralisées se fasse au détriment d’autres programmes.Le texte n’est pas soutenu par la délégation française du groupe Patriotes pour l’Europe, en raison des faiblesses du projet de budget rectificatif. Parmi celles-ci figurent des erreurs considérables dans les prévisions de ressources propres, marquées par une baisse des droits de douane (-18 %) et de la base de taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (-0,6 %). La réduction, mal évaluée elle aussi, de 1,5 milliard d’euros de la contribution du Royaume-Uni ajoute une pression supplémentaire sur le budget de l’Union européenne. Par ailleurs, les augmentations de financements pour certaines agences, comme l’Agence de gestion des systèmes d’information à grande échelle et l’Agence spatiale européenne, semblent disproportionnées. Enfin, le manque de transparence dans la renégociation du contrat de l’Agence européenne des médicaments à Londres avec WeWork, ayant causé des pertes financières, souligne une gestion négligente des contrats.J’ai donc voté contre ce texte.
Discharge 2022: EU general budget – European Council and Council
Il est à noter que les pensions représentaient en 2022 environ 70 % du total des dépenses et que 3 108 personnes étaient employées en 2022 contre 3 029 en 2021. Malgré les 19 °C imposés, les paiements pour l’eau, le gaz, l’électricité et le chauffage sont passés de 2,5 millions d’euros en 2021 à 11 millions d’euros en 2022, soit une augmentation de 338 %. La résolution jointe à la décharge regrette le manque de transparence du Conseil. Elle fait référence au Médiateur européen et à la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, qui confirment le droit des contribuables et du public à être informés de l’utilisation des recettes publiques (arrêt du 25 janvier 2023 dans l’affaire T-163/21): les documents produits par le Conseil dans ses groupes de travail ne sont pas de nature technique mais législative, et ils peuvent faire l’objet de demandes d’accès aux documents.Bien que le Conseil représente les États membres, nous ne pouvons accorder une décharge si nous n’avons pas une vision détaillée des dépenses du Conseil. J’ai voté contre la résolution jointe, qui prétend que le gouvernement hongrois abuse de la présidence du Conseil, ce qui ne m’apparaît pas justifié.
Urgent need to revise the Medical Devices Regulation
Cette résolution exhorte la Commission à une réforme des règlements afin d’assouplir les règles et rationaliser le processus règlementaire, en s’adaptant notamment aux spécificités des dispositifs médicaux et in vitro.Bien que la sécurité des patients soit essentielle, les entreprises peinent à naviguer dans des procédures de certification, accumulant des retards, voire des refus d’autorisation. Par excès de régulation et d’atteinte à la souveraineté des États, ces règlements freinent l’innovation, affaiblissent la compétitivité et risquent de provoquer des pénuries. Leur complexité pèse tout particulièrement sur les TPE-PME, vitales pour le secteur.Face à cette urgence, la résolution commune (signée entre les groupes PPE, S&D, Verts, CRE, Patriotes pour l’Europe et Renew Europe) invite la Commission à une révision règlementaire, pour assouplir les normes. Si la démarche est positive, elle ne remet pas suffisamment en cause les effets nuisibles de ces règlements pour la compétitivité et l’innovation de nos industries nationales, ni la centralisation bureaucratique excessive qui entrave les spécificités de chaque pays. Voter pour cette résolution, ce serait adhérer tacitement à ce projet d’harmonisation, prémices d’une Europe de la santé. Néanmoins, s’y opposer dans un tel contexte d’urgence, ce serait faire fi des circonstances. Je me suis donc abstenu.
Urgent need to revise the Medical Devices Regulation
Cette résolution exhorte la Commission à une réforme des règlements afin d’assouplir les règles et rationaliser le processus règlementaire, en s’adaptant notamment aux spécificités des dispositifs médicaux et in vitro.Bien que la sécurité des patients soit essentielle, les entreprises peinent à naviguer dans des procédures de certification, accumulant des retards, voire des refus d’autorisation. Par excès de régulation et d’atteinte à la souveraineté des États, ces règlements freinent l’innovation, affaiblissent la compétitivité et risquent de provoquer des pénuries. Leur complexité pèse tout particulièrement sur les TPE-PME, vitales pour le secteur.Face à cette urgence, la résolution commune (signée entre les groupes PPE, S&D, Verts, CRE, Patriotes pour l’Europe et Renew Europe) invite la Commission à une révision règlementaire, pour assouplir les normes. Si la démarche est positive, elle ne remet pas suffisamment en cause les effets nuisibles de ces règlements pour la compétitivité et l’innovation de nos industries nationales, ni la centralisation bureaucratique excessive qui entrave les spécificités de chaque pays. Voter pour cette résolution, ce serait adhérer tacitement à ce projet d’harmonisation, prémices d’une Europe de la santé. Néanmoins, s’y opposer dans un tel contexte d’urgence, ce serait faire fi des circonstances. Je me suis donc abstenu.
Situation in Azerbaijan, violation of human rights and international law and relations with Armenia
Les ingérences de l’Azerbaïdjan dans les affaires de plusieurs États membres sont dénoncées dans ce texte, notamment les déstabilisations visant à alimenter le sentiment indépendantiste en Nouvelle-Calédonie, en Martinique et en Corse. La dépendance de l’Union européenne au gaz azéri y est également critiquée, une position que notre délégation soutient. Enfin, la résolution appelle l’Union européenne et ses États membres à renforcer leurs partenariats avec l’Arménie, en matière de sécurité et de défense.Dans la continuité des récents votes de la délégation française du groupe Patriotes pour l’Europe, nous accueillons favorablement cette résolution soutenant l’Arménie victime des offensives azéries, et comportant les positions politiques historiquement défendues par notre mouvement : dénonciation des ingérences dans nos territoires ultramarins, critique de l’accord gazier entre l’Union européenne et l’Azerbaïdjan, rappel des exactions commises par le régime d’Aliyev ou encore les multiples destructions du patrimoine chrétien en Arménie. Les récentes discussions entre l’Azerbaïdjan et l’Arménie semblent progresser vers une perspective d’accord de paix dans ce conflit frontalier. Je suis hostile à l’ingérence de la France dans les affaires intérieures d’autres États. Mon vote renvoie essentiellement à l’attitude de l’Azerbaïdjan envers la France des outre-mers. J’ai voté pour cette résolution.
People’s Republic of China’s misinterpretation of the UN resolution 2758 and its continuous military provocations around Taiwan
La résolution réaffirme fortement le statu quo dans le détroit de Taïwan, appelle au dialogue de confiance et au respect de la liberté de navigation, soulignant le rôle de la France. Malgré la présence de quelques paragraphes problématiques mais accessoires, le texte reste univoque sur le respect de la Résolution 2758 de l’ONU (qui, de facto, établit la politique d’une seule Chine) par l’Union européenne et sur la centralité de ce principe dans nos relations avec la Chine. Le texte ne prévoit aucun pas supplémentaire qui pourrait mener à terme à une reconnaissance de Taïwan par l’Union européenne ou les États membres, ou à une admission du pays dans les Nations unies, ce qui constituerait pour notre délégation une ligne rouge.Bien que la Chine soit un partenaire de taille pour la France, une action militaire coercitive contre Taïwan (telle qu’un blocus ou une invasion amphibie) provoquerait une déstabilisation massive des économies européennes et mettrait à mal ses industries à haute valeur ajoutée, qui demeurent à ce jour virtuellement dépendantes des semi-conducteurs exportés par Taïwan. Notre délégation s’est donc prononcée en faveur de cette résolution, relativement équilibrée entre dissuasion et rappel de la politique d’une seule Chine. J’ai voté pour.
Situation in Azerbaijan, violation of human rights and international law and relations with Armenia
Les ingérences de l’Azerbaïdjan dans les affaires de plusieurs États membres sont dénoncées dans ce texte, notamment les déstabilisations visant à alimenter le sentiment indépendantiste en Nouvelle-Calédonie, en Martinique et en Corse. La dépendance de l’Union européenne au gaz azéri y est également critiquée, une position que notre délégation soutient. Enfin, la résolution appelle l’Union européenne et ses États membres à renforcer leurs partenariats avec l’Arménie, en matière de sécurité et de défense.Dans la continuité des récents votes de la délégation française du groupe Patriotes pour l’Europe, nous accueillons favorablement cette résolution soutenant l’Arménie victime des offensives azéries, et comportant les positions politiques historiquement défendues par notre mouvement : dénonciation des ingérences dans nos territoires ultramarins, critique de l’accord gazier entre l’Union européenne et l’Azerbaïdjan, rappel des exactions commises par le régime d’Aliyev ou encore les multiples destructions du patrimoine chrétien en Arménie. Les récentes discussions entre l’Azerbaïdjan et l’Arménie semblent progresser vers une perspective d’accord de paix dans ce conflit frontalier. Je suis hostile à l’ingérence de la France dans les affaires intérieures d’autres États. Mon vote renvoie essentiellement à l’attitude de l’Azerbaïdjan envers la France des outre-mers. J’ai voté pour cette résolution.
People’s Republic of China’s misinterpretation of the UN resolution 2758 and its continuous military provocations around Taiwan
La résolution réaffirme fortement le statu quo dans le détroit de Taïwan, appelle au dialogue de confiance et au respect de la liberté de navigation, soulignant le rôle de la France. Malgré la présence de quelques paragraphes problématiques mais accessoires, le texte reste univoque sur le respect de la Résolution 2758 de l’ONU (qui, de facto, établit la politique d’une seule Chine) par l’Union européenne et sur la centralité de ce principe dans nos relations avec la Chine. Le texte ne prévoit aucun pas supplémentaire qui pourrait mener à terme à une reconnaissance de Taïwan par l’Union européenne ou les États membres, ou à une admission du pays dans les Nations unies, ce qui constituerait pour notre délégation une ligne rouge.Bien que la Chine soit un partenaire de taille pour la France, une action militaire coercitive contre Taïwan (telle qu’un blocus ou une invasion amphibie) provoquerait une déstabilisation massive des économies européennes et mettrait à mal ses industries à haute valeur ajoutée, qui demeurent à ce jour virtuellement dépendantes des semi-conducteurs exportés par Taïwan. Notre délégation s’est donc prononcée en faveur de cette résolution, relativement équilibrée entre dissuasion et rappel de la politique d’une seule Chine. J’ai voté pour.
Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603
Les cultures OGM tolérantes aux herbicides se traduisent par un risque d’effet cocktail via l’utilisation d'herbicides « complémentaires ». Cette plante OGM produit également la toxine Bt, suspectée d’effets secondaires pouvant perturber le système immunitaire. On peut également pointer du doigt le processus antidémocratique à l’œuvre dans cette décision de la Commission, étant donné qu’il n’y a pas eu une majorité qualifiée d’États membres en faveur de la mise sur le marché de ces OGM, ce que la Commission reconnaît et assume. Sauf cas particuliers et sans garantie sur l’innocuité de ces produits, il est d’usage au sein de la délégation française du groupe PfE de voter en faveur de ces objections, c’est à dire contre la proposition de la Commission, pour favoriser le principe de précaution. En effet, la Commission adopte sur les produits chimiques une vision généralement très souple, parfois indirectement dictée par les grands groupes industriels extra-européens, en l’occurrence ici ces molécules MON pour Monsanto, sont produites par Bayer CropScience LP, ainsi que par Corteva Agriscience LLC, entreprises dont les sièges sont aux États-Unis. J’ai voté pour ce texte.
Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified cotton COT102
Cette objection rejoint toutes les objections précédentes sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) que la Commission européenne souhaite autoriser sur le marché. Les rapporteurs rappellent que ce coton OGM produit des toxines Bt qui présentent une résistance aux antibiotiques. Les États membres de l’Union européenne ont averti l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments que la culture de coton génétiquement modifié sur des terres agricoles fait courir le risque d’une contamination des milieux naturels. On peut également pointer du doigt le processus antidémocratique à l’œuvre dans cette décision de la Commission, étant donné qu’il n’y a pas eu une majorité qualifiée d’États membres en faveur de la mise sur le marché de ces OGM, ce que la Commission reconnaît et assume. Sauf cas particuliers et sans garantie sur l’innocuité de ces produits, il est d’usage au sein de la délégation française du groupe PfE de voter en faveur de ces objections, c’est-à-dire contre la proposition de la Commission, pour favoriser le principe de précaution. En effet, la Commission adopte sur les produits chimiques une vision généralement très souple, parfois indirectement dictée par les grands groupes industriels extra-européens, en l’occurrence ici Syngenta Crop Protection, entreprise suisse. J’ai voté pour ce texte.
Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 810
Cette objection rejoint les objections précédentes sur les OGM que la Commission souhaite autoriser sur le marché. Les rapporteurs rappellent que ce maïs OGM produit des toxines Bt qui présentent une résistance aux antibiotiques et qui engendrent également des effets secondaires. Les États membres avertissent d’ailleurs l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments sur les risques de toxicité. On peut également pointer du doigt le processus antidémocratique à l’œuvre dans cette décision de la Commission, étant donné qu’il n’y a pas eu une majorité qualifiée d’États membres en faveur de la mise sur le marché de ces OGM, ce que la Commission reconnaît et assume. Sauf cas particulier et sans garantie sur l’innocuité de ces produits, il est d’usage au sein de la délégation française du groupe PfE de voter en faveur de ces objections, c’est-à-dire contre la proposition de la Commission, pour favoriser le principe de précaution. En effet, la Commission adopte sur les produits chimiques une vision généralement très souple, parfois indirectement dictée par les grands groupes industriels extra-européens. En l’occurrence ici, cette molécule MON pour Monsanto est produite par Bayer CropScience LP, entreprise dont le siège est aux États-Unis. J’ai voté en faveur de ce texte.
Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP915635
Cette objection rejoint toutes les objections précédentes sur les substances OGM que la Commission souhaite autoriser sur le marché. Les rapporteurs rappellent que le glufosinate est classé comme toxique pour l’appareil reproducteur et soulignent le cercle vicieux des plantes résistantes aux herbicides qui entraîne un sur-usage de ces produits. Les États membres avertissent d’ailleurs l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments sur les risques de toxicité. On peut également pointer du doigt le processus antidémocratique à l’œuvre dans cette décision de la Commission, étant donné qu’il n’y a pas une majorité qualifiée d’États membres en faveur de la mise sur le marché de ces OGM, ce que la Commission reconnaît et assume. Sauf cas particulier et sans garantie sur l’innocuité de ces produits, il est d’usage au sein de la délégation française du groupe PfE de voter en faveur de ces objections, c’est-à-dire contre la proposition de la Commission, pour favoriser le principe de précaution. En effet, la Commission adopte sur les produits chimiques une vision généralement très souple, parfois indirectement dictée par les grands groupes industriels extra-européens, en l’occurrence ici Pioneer Overseas Corporation, entreprise dont le siège est aux États-Unis. J’ai voté pour ce texte.
Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP23211
Cette objection rejoint toutes les objections précédentes sur les substances OGM que la Commission souhaite autoriser sur le marché. Les rapporteurs rappellent que le glufosinate est classé comme toxique pour l’appareil reproducteur et soulignent le cercle vicieux des plantes résistantes aux herbicides qui entraîne un sur-usage de ces produits. Les États membres avertissent d’ailleurs l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments sur les risques de toxicité. On peut également pointer du doigt le processus antidémocratique à l’œuvre dans cette décision de la Commission, étant donné qu’il n’y a pas eu une majorité qualifiée d’États membres en faveur de la mise sur le marché de ces OGM, ce que la Commission reconnaît et assume. Sauf cas particuliers et sans garantie sur l’innocuité de ces produits, il est d’usage au sein de la délégation française du groupe PfE de voter en faveur de ces objections, c’est-à-dire contre la proposition de la Commission, pour favoriser le principe de précaution. En effet, la Commission adopte sur les produits chimiques une vision généralement très souple, parfois indirectement dictée par les grands groupes industriels extra-européens, en l’occurrence ici Pioneer Overseas Corporation, entreprise dont le siège est aux États-Unis. Je vote pour ce texte.
Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize DP202216
Les rapporteurs rappellent que le glufosinate est classé comme toxique pour la reproduction et que ces plantes modifiées engendrent un sur-usage d’herbicides ; ils rappellent à ce titre le risque de présence de résidus d’herbicides sur les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux. L’objection pointe aussi du doigt le processus antidémocratique à l’œuvre dans cette décision de la Commission, étant donné qu’il n’y a pas eu une majorité qualifiée d’États membres en faveur de la mise sur le marché de ces OGM, ce que la Commission reconnaît et assume. Enfin, les rapporteurs rappellent que la Commission s’est engagée à revoir sa stratégie d’importations de produits dédiés à l’agriculture à la suite des manifestations d’exploitants en 2023 et 2024. Sauf cas particuliers et sans garantie sur l’innocuité de ces produits, il est d’usage au sein de la délégation de voter en faveur de ces objections, c’est à dire contre la proposition de la Commission, pour favoriser le principe de précaution. En effet, la Commission adopte sur les produits chimiques une vision généralement très souple, parfois indirectement dictée par les grands groupes industriels extra-européens, en l’occurrence ici cette molécule est produite par Pioneer Hi-Bred International, entreprise dont le siège est aux États-Unis. Je vote pour ce texte.
Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 94804
Les rapporteurs soulignent que si les micro-ARN ne présentent pas de risque de toxicité pour l’homme et les animaux, cet acide ribonucléique ne se dissipe pas aussi rapidement qu’attendu. Les États membres avertissent d’ailleurs l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments, en effet le risque porte sur des lacunes dans les données concernant les effets environnementaux et sanitaires liés aux modifications génétiques de la plante. On peut également pointer du doigt le processus antidémocratique à l’œuvre dans cette décision de la Commission, étant donné qu’il n’y a pas eu une majorité qualifiée d’États membres en faveur de la mise sur le marché de ces OGM, ce que la Commission reconnaît et assume. Sauf cas particuliers et sans garantie sur l’innocuité de ces produits, il est d’usage au sein de la délégation française de PfE de voter en faveur de ces objections, c’est à dire contre la proposition de la Commission, pour favoriser le principe de précaution. En effet, la Commission adopte sur les produits chimiques une vision généralement très souple, parfois indirectement dictée par les grands groupes industriels extra-européens, en l’occurrence ici cette molécule MON pour Monsanto est produite par Bayer CropScience LP, entreprise américaine. Je vote pour ce texte.
Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize MON 94804
Les rapporteurs soulignent que si les micro-ARN ne présentent pas de risque de toxicité pour l’homme et les animaux, cet acide ribonucléique ne se dissipe pas aussi rapidement qu’attendu. Les États membres avertissent d’ailleurs l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments, en effet le risque porte sur des lacunes dans les données concernant les effets environnementaux et sanitaires liés aux modifications génétiques de la plante. On peut également pointer du doigt le processus antidémocratique à l’œuvre dans cette décision de la Commission, étant donné qu’il n’y a pas eu une majorité qualifiée d’États membres en faveur de la mise sur le marché de ces OGM, ce que la Commission reconnaît et assume. Sauf cas particuliers et sans garantie sur l’innocuité de ces produits, il est d’usage au sein de la délégation française de PfE de voter en faveur de ces objections, c’est à dire contre la proposition de la Commission, pour favoriser le principe de précaution. En effet, la Commission adopte sur les produits chimiques une vision généralement très souple, parfois indirectement dictée par les grands groupes industriels extra-européens, en l’occurrence ici cette molécule MON pour Monsanto est produite par Bayer CropScience LP, entreprise américaine. Je vote pour ce texte.
Amending short-stay visas regulation (EU) 2018/1806) as regards Vanuatu
Compte tenu, selon le Conseil et la Commission, du risque constant que représentent ces programmes d’investissement pour la sécurité intérieure et l’ordre public des États membres, la Commission estime qu’il est nécessaire de transférer totalement le Vanuatu vers la liste des pays tiers dont les ressortissants sont soumis à l’obligation de visa Schengen. L’octroi de la nationalité relève du droit national de chaque pays tiers ou de chaque État membre. La proposition de la Commission ne remet pas en cause ce principe, mais évalue seulement les conséquences qu’une telle décision souveraine de la part d’un pays tiers peut avoir sur la sécurité des États membres. Dès lors, il peut s’avérer nécessaire de suspendre les régimes de libéralisation des visas avec les pays tiers dont certaines législations peuvent constituer une menace pour notre sécurité ou faciliter l'immigration clandestine dans l'espace Schengen. C’est le cas du Vanuatu. On peut simplement regretter qu’une telle sévérité ne s’applique pas plus souvent à l’égard de pays tiers exemptés de visa Schengen et dont les ressortissants représentent un risque d’immigration clandestine ou un risque pour notre sécurité. Je vote pour ce texte.
Draft amending budget No 5/2024: adjustment in payment appropriations, update of revenues and other technical updates
La gestion budgétaire de l’Union soulève des questions sur la responsabilité dans l’utilisation des ressources communes, et appelle à une révision des mécanismes budgétaires européens pour éviter des ajustements inefficaces. La délégation française du groupe PfE a déposé plusieurs amendements critiques sur cette gestion budgétaire, dénonçant la dépendance croissante aux recettes imprévisibles issues des amendes, telles que les 2,4 milliards d’euros provenant des pénalités en matière de concurrence. Elle appelle également à une meilleure optimisation des dépenses des agences décentralisées afin d’éviter des ajustements budgétaires récurrents. Concernant Frontex, notre délégation demande une augmentation des crédits équivalente à celle octroyée aux autres agences, ainsi qu’un renforcement des effectifs pour atteindre trente mille agents, tout en proposant l’harmonisation expérimentale du coefficient correcteur de Varsovie à celui de Bruxelles. Ces mesures visent à répondre aux besoins opérationnels spécifiques de l’agence et à garantir son efficacité. Cependant, il convient de noter que, dans son premier paragraphe, le texte se félicite des progrès réalisés dans la mise en œuvre des programmes, comme en témoigne l’augmentation des besoins en crédits de paiement pour le Fonds européen de développement régional (FEDER) et la politique agricole commune (PAC). Je me suis abstenu sur ce texte.
2025 budgetary procedure: Joint text
La moitié de ce montant, soit environ 1,1 milliard d'euros, est financée par l'instrument de flexibilité, et l'autre moitié provient des dégagements de crédits réalisés depuis 2021. Par ailleurs, un total de 3 milliards d'euros est anticipé pour des crédits de paiement afin de soutenir les régions touchées par des catastrophes naturelles. Des fonds supplémentaires incluent 10 millions d'euros pour la sécurité des bâtiments des délégations du Service européen pour l’action extérieure (SEAE) et des ressources pour des postes liés à la cybersécurité et à l'intelligence artificielle (IA). L’utilisation du European Union recovery instrument (EURI) dans le budget 2025 soulève des préoccupations, justifiant une opposition au texte. Initialement conçu comme un mécanisme exceptionnel pour financer les intérêts de NextGenerationEU, l’EURI représente un recours excessif à des ressources non conventionnelles, compromettant la discipline budgétaire et renforçant la dépendance de l’Union européenne à des dispositifs temporaires. Cette approche reporte les charges financières sur les générations futures. Par ailleurs, les députés français du groupe des Patriotes pour l’Europe (PfE) s’opposent aux augmentations prévues pour le programme LIFE, à l’attribution de 10 millions d’euros au SEAE pour la sécurité de ses bâtiments dans les délégations, ainsi qu'à d'autres augmentations. J’ai voté contre ce texte.
Recommendation on smoke- and aerosol-free environments
Bien que la lutte contre le cancer et les maladies cardiovasculaires soit une priorité pour le groupe PfE ainsi que pour le commissaire européen à la Santé, les députés PfE français divergent sur la méthode. La mise en place de restrictions aussi liberticides devrait être a minima appuyée par des études scientifiques, prouvant un lien causal entre consommation desdits produits en lieux publics extérieurs et maladies causées par le tabagisme passif. De plus, ces mesures au scope disproportionné risquent de fragiliser davantage les secteurs du tourisme et de la restauration, toujours en grande difficulté. Cette résolution soulève également un enjeu en matière de souveraineté en ce qu’elle encourage la Commission, par son programme EU4Health, à financer l’instauration des restrictions, soit un pas vers l’Europe de la santé. Enfin, ces recommandations rappellent le tournant liberticide et hygiéniste pris par les autorités lors de la pandémie: une déresponsabilisation des citoyens corrélée à une mise au ban de certaines catégories d’entre eux. Plutôt que de régir tout rapport humain par le droit, nous suggérons de laisser davantage de place aux relations interpersonnelles fondées sur la décence commune. Le cas de la cigarette en terrasse l’illustre avec éloquence. J’ai voté contre ce texte.
Written questions (11)
Pro-Hamas NGO funded by the EU
Consequences of suspension clauses for the survival of Air Austral
Geo-blocking in French overseas territories
EU aid to curb the decline in fruit production in Guadeloupe
Sharp increase in illegal fishing in French Guiana
Repeated failure to integrate migrants into European societies
Position of the Vice-President/High Representative on Madagascar’s interference regarding the Scattered Islands of the Indian Ocean
Scrutinising the declarations of interests made by Commissioners-designate
Michelin plant closures and European electricity market reform
Relevance of Commission financial support for the French-Brazilian initiative by Cirad and Embrapa to treat pathogenic fungus Ceratobasidium sp. in Guyana
Upcoming conclusion of the Mercosur agreement: stabbing French farmers in the back
Individual motions (1)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the surge in the number of sub-Saharan migrants
Amendments (171)
Amendment 148 #
2023/2121(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for disaster prevention and preparedness investments to be guaranteed either through a dedicated policy objective, thematic concentration or a specific enabling condition to ensure investments in local infrastructure and risk management in less developed urban and rural areas, including border regions; believes that targeted financing should focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation by tackling the side effects of climate change locally (slow onset events as well as extreme weather events), including wildfires, floods, landslides, heatwaves, coastal erosion and other events, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones, tropical storms, rising sea levels and other events such as droughts, particularly in the outermost regions (ORs), where they are likely to exacerbate the problems populations are already facing in accessing water;
Amendment 21 #
2023/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The support under the Facility should be provided to meet general and specific objectives, based on established criteria and with clear payment conditions. The general objectives of the Facility should be to accelerate regional economic integration, progressive integration with the Union single market, socio-economic convergence of Western Balkans economies and alignment with Union laws, rules, standards, policies and practices with a view to Union membership. The Facility should also help accelerate reforms related to fundamentals of the enlargement process, including, in order to develop economic exchanges to the mutual benefit of both the European Union and the Western Balkans, but without these convergence initiatives automatically entailing an enlargement of the EU with the accession of the Western Balkans. Thus, the Facility would remain an economic tool, without a political objective. The Facility should also help accelerate reforms concerning the rule of law, public procurement and State aid control, public finance management and fight against corruption. These objectives should be pursued in a mutually reinforcing manner.
Amendment 21 #
2023/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The support under the Facility should be provided to meet general and specific objectives, based on established criteria and with clear payment conditions. The general objectives of the Facility should be to accelerate regional economic integration, progressive integration with the Union single market, socio-economic convergence of Western Balkans economies and alignment with Union laws, rules, standards, policies and practices with a view to Union membership. The Facility should also help accelerate reforms related to fundamentals of the enlargement process, including, in order to develop economic exchanges to the mutual benefit of both the European Union and the Western Balkans, but without these convergence initiatives automatically entailing an enlargement of the EU with the accession of the Western Balkans. Thus, the Facility would remain an economic tool, without a political objective. The Facility should also help accelerate reforms concerning the rule of law, public procurement and State aid control, public finance management and fight against corruption. These objectives should be pursued in a mutually reinforcing manner.
Amendment 46 #
2023/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) accelerate alignment wiconvergence towards the Union's values, laws, rules, standards, policies and pwithout this automatically entailing integractices with a view to Union membershipon into the Union as a Member State.
Amendment 46 #
2023/0397(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) accelerate alignment wiconvergence towards the Union's values, laws, rules, standards, policies and pwithout this automatically entailing integractices with a view to Union membershipon into the Union as a Member State.
Amendment 88 #
2023/0264(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Draws attention to the need to create a budget line to support access to drinking water, sanitation and the renovation of water networks for the EU's outermost regions, overseas countries and territories and island regions;
Amendment 3 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas the persistency of cross- border obstacles of administrative and legal nature severely affects EU border regions’ livelihood and their economic and social potential and limits the exercise of rights granted by the Treaties to border regions’ citizenmakes it possible to guarantee the sovereignty and security of the Member States;
Amendment 7 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. Whereas it was estimated that the setting up of a legislative tool at Union level to address cross-border obstacles, combined with existing tools, could bring about economic benefits of 123 billion euros, while removing all obstacles would bring up benefits up to 460 billion euros; whereas, however, the removal of cross- border obstacles would as well bring about a positive impact on social rights, equal opportunities, and an improved access to high-quality public services for citizens living in border regions20; _________________ 20 European Parliamentary Research Service (2023). “Mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context”. European added value assessment, p.48.lso have detrimental effects by increasing unfair economic competition between Member States, in particular by facilitating posted work, and by contributing to the limiting of Member States’ sovereignty, in particular as regards borders ;
Amendment 10 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. Whereas some Member States have already concluded and can resort to bilateral or plurilateral treaties and agreements to set up structures and procedures for the removallimiting the burden of cross-border obstacles;
Amendment 13 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 16 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 18 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. Whereas, nonetheless, Council has raised some understandable legal concerns that should be addressed in the context of a new proposal;
Amendment 19 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. Whereas Parliament has made all necessary efforts to start inter-institutional negotiations with the Council in an open and constructive way; whereas Parliament has repeatedly called on the Commission to present a new amended legislative proposal in numerous resolutions and in formal and informal exchanges at the highest political level; whereas the adoption of such a legislative act is as well unfortunately part of the proposals contained in the Final Report of the Conference on the future of Europe22; _________________ 22 Final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe. Proposal 12, measure 15, p. 56.
Amendment 24 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that, in order to face various demographic, energy, economic and social challenges, and their ever-closer consequences, the Union needs to step up its efforts to address persisting cross-border legal and administrative obstacles in the broader context of cohesion through a far more efficient cooperation of border region authorities as well as a new effective instrumentpromote the sovereignty of the Member States and the Union’s self-sufficiency in key areas by supporting local economies, nuclear power, border protection and research;
Amendment 26 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that despite territorial cross- border activities developed over decades, supported and facilitated by the Union with legal and financial instruments, citizens fromof the Member States close to border regions are more often face a discrimination by not having access to the closest public service, which happens to be on the other side of the border, or their businesses enjoy fewer opportunitiharmed by the Union’s desire to promote unfair competition, including between Member States, which undermines national producers and businesses;
Amendment 28 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 29 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers the b-solutions initiative a success, but recognizes it also as justto be one of the technical tools, such as the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), Border Focal Point Network, or macro-regional strategies, that complements the Union’s cross-border cooperation but does not, evidently, provide a comprehensive and effective response to the obstacles affecting border regions;
Amendment 30 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 34 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Maintains that the amendment to the ECBM proposal should concentrate on creating a simple and straightforward coordinperation framework allowing authorities at various levels to remove legal and administrative obstacles, while preventing the duplication of bodies and authorities, and the creation of unnecessary administrative burden; the scope of the revised ECBM proposal should focus on joint projects;
Amendment 37 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 39 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 47 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Maintains that through Cross- border Coordination Points, Member States shall assess on a case-by-case basis whether and how to address the request for assistance in removingissues relating to the obstacles;
Amendment 52 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Emphasises that the adoption of a decision on the implementation of any ad- hoc solution drafted by the Cross-border Committee shall remain at the discretion of the competent authorities at national level, and shall in any case be carried out by Member States in full compliance with their legislative framework and their sovereignty;
Amendment 57 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 60 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls the commitment of the Commission President to Parliament’s right of initiative and of her pledge to follow up Parliament’s own-initiative legislative reports with a legislative act, in line with principles of Union law, contained in the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024; expects, therefore, the Commission to follow up this resolution with a legislative proposal;
Amendment 61 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 63 #
2022/2194(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying recommendations to the Commission and the Council.
Amendment 65 #
Amendment 37 #
2022/2170(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that job creation depends in part on access to high-quality training, which is not available in all the EU's outermost regions, forcing local people to leave for mainland France and reducing the scope for innovation and economic development at local level; stresses that economic difficulties and de facto territorial separation make it more difficult for overseas citizens of the Member States to access training;
Amendment 41 #
2022/2170(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Points to the inequalities in access to training, particularly between the EU's outermost regions and their metropolitan areas; calls for these factors to be taken into account in order to encourage Member States to support the creation of training and higher education centres, particularly in the outermost regions;
Amendment 43 #
2022/2170(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Stresses the need to protect and support local jobs and the know-how that goes with them, as they represent an opportunity in the transition to a sustainable economy by bringing together supply and demand;
Amendment 23 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas cohesion policy helps to respond effectively to asymmetric shocks such as the current refugee crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine;
Amendment 29 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the EU’s outermost regions are in more precarious situations than metropolitan areas, and whereas their above-average unemployment and poverty rates call for strong and specific responses;
Amendment 37 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas a factor exacerbating poverty and the decline in purchasing power is the very significant increase since 2020 in the cost of transporting goods by sea, which severely penalises the island regions of the EU;
Amendment 45 #
2022/2032(INI)
Ja. having regard to the often disastrous situation in many overseas regions concerning access to drinking water and the need to step up efforts to achieve significant progress in this area in the short term;
Amendment 57 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas cohesion policy should provide efficient responses for tackling poverty and social exclusion, creating employment and growth, promoting investment in education, health, research and innovation, fighting climate change and tackling demographic challenges, while maintaining respect for national and regional identities; whereas cohesion policy can only fulfil all these tasks if it is embedded in solid funding;
Amendment 65 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
Ma. whereas cohesion policies must not amount to a levelling of identities and economic situations by applying a single development model, but must work to combat disparities incompatible with the single market while respecting the specific characteristics and choices of local populations;
Amendment 90 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses the need to simplify access to funding from an administrative point of view, for example by seeking a one-stop- shop solution, in order to address underspending and delays in the allocation of funds;
Amendment 91 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 104 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to allocate the budget resources needed to expedite funding for the renewal of the road, rail and maritime freight transport fleet;
Amendment 139 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls that such a measure should only be considered following modelling of the consequences for the different regions and a comprehensive impact assessment;
Amendment 176 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the importance of supporting rural areas by valuing their diversity and potential, improving transport connectivity and high-speed broadband, and helping them meet challenges such as rural desertification, the decline of city- centre communities and, insufficient healthcare and the distance from public services;
Amendment 183 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls, in connection with the necessary development of small islands, for every effort to be made to enable their electricity interconnection and to encourage photovoltaic solutions;
Amendment 184 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Alerts the Commission to the need to take greater account of the health disasters occurring in the French outermost regions of Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, Mayotte, French Guiana and Saint Martin; calls, with a view to addressing this critical issue for the inhabitants of these departments, regions and collectivities, for all financial resources to be deployed very quickly in order to tackle the consequences of pollution of the soil and subsoil, watercourses and shorelines of Guadeloupe and Martinique by chlordecone, a highly carcinogenic substance; calls for the very swift deployment of all financial resources to combat the scourge of Sargassum seaweed, which is causing huge damage, in particular to the ecosystem of Guadeloupe; calls for the very swift deployment of all financial resources to ensure that everyone in Guadeloupe, Martinique and Mayotte has constant access to drinking water;
Amendment 195 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is convinced that the role of small cities, towns and villages should be bolstered in order to support local economies and address demographic challenges; backs, therefore, the reinforcement of the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, the EAFRD; recalls, in this connection, the need to prioritise short supply chains in the economic options promoted by the EU, not only from an environmental perspective but also from the point of view of preserving local know-how and a rooted economy;
Amendment 203 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that the potential that exists at local level could be better mobilised by strengthening and facilitating community- led local development (CLLD); takes the view that CLLD should be mandatory for Member States;
Amendment 219 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Calls on the Commission to take greater account of the specific climatic characteristics of the outermost regions, including Martinique, Guadeloupe, Mayotte, French Guiana and Saint Martin;
Amendment 246 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Stresses, in this connection, the unique nature of the outermost regions, and encourages the countries concerned to adopt policies to develop the blue economy and local job-creating sectors in these areas, based on medium- to long- term development programmes offering visibility to investors and local stakeholders;
Amendment 253 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that cohesion policy reform for the financial period 2021-2027 has contributed to simplified and flexible use of funding for beneficiaries and management authorities; calls on the Commission to promote further simplification, flexibility and citizen participationflexibility, citizen participation and simplification and to prioritise this in the next reforms of the structural funds and regional policies;
Amendment 275 #
2022/2032(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Calls for the creation, by those countries with a maritime area, of a European Agency of the Sea – along the lines of the European Space Agency – which should rightfully be based in overseas France; considers that this intergovernmental agency, which countries outside the European Union, such as the United Kingdom, could join, would have as strategic development priorities the exploration of energy and mineral resources (hydrocarbons, polymetallic nodules and sulphurised mixtures), research into renewable marine energy sources, research into biological, animal and plant resources, and research into maritime transport and surveillance; considers that this cooperation should not call into question national sovereignty over the maritime areas concerned or the role of national navies in their surveillance; considers that this agency could eventually be a forum for in-depth diplomatic cooperation on maritime issues, as well as a starting point for commercial projects on a European scale;
Amendment 50 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the deficit in terms of population, raw materials and resources of all kinds, and notes that in many islands access to drinking water is a central issue in people’s lives, the sustainability of the island and its tourism carrying capacity; recalls also that significant illegal immigration in the outermost regions destabilises local economies by minimising wages and creating chronic insecurity, which undermines the establishment of viable businesses and structures;
Amendment 63 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes with concern the long-term effects of the COVID-19 crisis and of illegal immigration, which is exacerbating an already precarious situation for EU islands in many areas;
Amendment 68 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Regrets the EU’s lack of vision and lack of protection for European islands;
Amendment 70 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Amendment 79 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to take greater account of the specific climatic characteristics of the outermost regions, including Martinique, Guadeloupe, Mayotte, French Guiana, Réunion and Saint Martin;
Amendment 103 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers the use of renewable energy to be a priority and believes it could bring substantial benefits to islands; calls, therefore, for the development of a wide range of renewable energy – other than wind energy – to be supported; welcomes the green hydrogen programmes which islands have launched;
Amendment 108 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Calls, as part of the necessary development of small islands, for every effort to be made to enable their electricity interconnection and encourage photovoltaic solutions;
Amendment 116 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls for urgent measures to counteract the depopulation of islands and to improve quality of life, support local businesses, maintain essential public services such as health and education, fight against irregular immigration and protect jobs; calls also for the development of professional training and employment establishments for island inhabitants to be promoted;
Amendment 123 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on the Commission to allocate the budget resources needed to expedite the funding of the conversion of road, rail and maritime freight fleets;
Amendment 145 #
2021/2079(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Calls for the creation, by those countries with a maritime area, of a European Agency of the Sea – along the lines of the European Space Agency – which should rightfully be based in overseas France; considers that this intergovernmental agency, which countries outside the European Union, such as the United Kingdom, could join, would have the following strategic development priorities: - exploration of energy and mineral resources:hydrocarbons, polymetallic nodules and mixed sulphides - research into renewable marine energy sources - research into biological, animal and plant resources - research into maritime transport and surveillance; considers that this cooperation should not undermine national sovereignty over the maritime areas concerned, or the role of national navies in monitoring such areas; considers also that, in the long term, this Agency could be a forum for in-depth diplomatic cooperation on maritime issues, as well as a starting point for commercial projects on a European scale;
Amendment 128 #
2020/2276(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Following the model of the European Space Agency, calls for the creation of a European Maritime Agency for maritime states, the seat of which should, legitimately, be in Overseas France. The strategic development focus of this intergovernmental agency, which countries outside the European Alliance, such as the United Kingdom, could join, would be on: - exploration of energy and mining resources:hydrocarbons, polymetallic nodules and sulphurised mixtures; - research into renewable marine energy; - research into biological, animal and plant resources; - research into maritime transport and surveillance. This cooperation should not call into question national sovereignty over the maritime areas concerned or the role of national navies in their surveillance. In the long term, this Agency could be a forum for in-depth diplomatic cooperation on maritime issues, as well as a starting point for commercial projects on a European scale.
Amendment 11 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas there are concerns about the long-term social, and economic, environmental and cultural consequences on the ORs of the COVID- 19 crisis and Brexit, and whereas these crises legitimately reinforce the demand that Article 349 TFEU be applied, which provides for a special status for the ORs, be applied and complied withthe EU and respective Member States to take particular account of the specific situation of the ORs and contribute to their development;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the ORs represent a real asset for the European Union, allowing its influence to reach the Atlantic and Indian oceans and also, through the OCTs, the Pacific ocean; whereas this key asset in many areas (biodiversity, raw materials, fishery resources, access to space, population growth) deserves to be highlighted, respected and protected; whereas the geographical remoteness of the European decision-making centres makes our overseas compatriots feel that their difficulties (illegal immigration, endemic poverty, structural economic underdevelopment) are not sufficiently addressed in the formulation of European public policy; whereas developing a comprehensive and ambitious catch-up plan should mark a renewal of relations between the European Union and its ORs, while respecting their individual situations and identities;
Amendment 22 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with satisfaction the extension and maintenance until 2027 of several tax derogations for the ORs (AIEM, dock dues, etc.)specific tax measures for the ORs, and recalls the importance of maintaining the arrangements based on Article 349 TFEU for the ORs, which must reconcile the twin imperatives of protectdeveloping local production and tackling the high cost of living;
Amendment 24 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission services and the national and regional authorities to strike a balance between legitimate and essential controls on the use of EU funds and simplifying and making more flexible the administrative rules needed to optimise them, in order to encourage local initiatives and productive investment;
Amendment 39 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the ORs to be fully integrated into the discussions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, in particular via the Conference of Presidents of the ORs, in order to provide a perspective from the outermost regionsgeopolitical perspective;
Amendment 62 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses the need to encourage local initiatives by supporting VSMEs, and SMEs and thein all sectors of activity, particularly the agricultural, industrial, tourism, craft, building and construction, and digital sectors;
Amendment 97 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls for the creation, by those countries with a maritime area, of a European Agency of the Sea – along the lines of the European Space Agency – which should rightfully be based in overseas France; considers that this intergovernmental agency, which countries outside the European coalition, such as the United Kingdom, could join, should have the following strategic development priorities: - exploration of energy and mineral resources: hydrocarbons, polymetallic nodules and mixed sulphides; - research into renewable marine energy sources; - research into biological, animal and plant resources; - research into maritime transport and surveillance; takes the view that this cooperation would not undermine national sovereignty over the maritime areas concerned, or the role of the national navy in monitoring such areas; considers that such an agency could eventually become the forum for wide-ranging diplomatic cooperation on maritime issues, and the starting point for Europe-wide commercial projects;
Amendment 120 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Encourages the emergence of new environment-related professions and support for grassroots actors involved in biodiversity protection, including associationsbiodiversity protection;
Amendment 130 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Reaffirms the objective of achieving energy autonomy for the ORs and sStrongly supports the objective of achieving 100% renewable energycarbon neutrality in 2050 in the ORs in line with the European commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050;
Amendment 135 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Calls on the European Commission to take greater account of the specific climate situation of the ORs, including Martinique, Guadeloupe, Mayotte, French Guiana, Réunion and Saint Martin;
Amendment 139 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Calls for every effort to be made to ensure the electricity interconnection of small islands and encourage photovoltaic solutions so that they can develop as needed;
Amendment 140 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)
Paragraph 21 c (new)
21c. Alerts the European Commission to the need to take greater account of the health disasters occurring in the French ORs – within the European definition – which are Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, Mayotte, French Guiana and Saint Martin; calls for the necessary financial resources to be provided as quickly as possible to tackle this critical issue for the inhabitants of these departments, regions and collectivities, and in particular to: - combat the scourge of Sargasso algae that are ravaging the ecosystem of Guadeloupe in particular; - tackle the consequences of pollution of the soil and subsoil, watercourses and shorelines of Guadeloupe and Martinique by chlordecone, a highly carcinogenic substance; - ensure that everyone in Guadeloupe, Martinique and Mayotte has constant access to drinking water;
Amendment 141 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for strong support to be provided to the ORs in order to promote a new sustainable economic model with structural initiatives for developing the circular economy, and stresses in particular that this model should not be jeopardised by inappropriate regulations;
Amendment 153 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses the need to protect the OR economielocal markets from aggressive trade practices, such as clearance markets and the abuse of monopoliedominant positions;
Amendment 156 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls for the creation of a specific tax status for enterprises in the ORs in order to increase their competitiveness, particularly within their region;
Amendment 167 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Calls on the European Commission to allocate the budget resources needed so that the conversion of road, rail and maritime freight fleets can be funded more quickly;
Amendment 176 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the ORs benefit fully from international agreements (EPAs, FTAs, etc.) concluded between the EU and third countries; calls for vigilance with regard to the consequences of these agreements on the OR economies and their export routes to the EU market and recommends that effective measures be put in place as part of trade policy, including safeguard clauses and specific checks by the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer, while ensuring that the principle of ‘equivalence’ does not lead to situations which discriminate against the ORs and that EU market opportunities for OR agricultural products are maintained in the long term;
Amendment 199 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Stresses that the ORs are strongly affected by migration flows from their immediate neighbourhood; warns of the impact of managing migration flows on local public policies and calls for the new Pact on Asylum and Migration to take account of the real challenges facing the ORs in this area, particularly Mayotte and French Guiana, are at the forefront of the battle against long- standing and endemic illegal immigration that is mainly due to nationals wishing to leave their regional environment in order to achieve stability and a standard of living that is far higher than in their country of origin; notes that such nationals try on a daily basis, mainly by abusing the humanitarian aim of the asylum procedure, to settle in the European Union, which jeopardises local economic and social balances that are already very fragile;
Amendment 205 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Points out that the ORs need the protection of the European Union which must not, through naivety or blindness, ignore their fate;
Amendment 207 #
2020/2120(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 b (new)
Paragraph 31 b (new)
31b. Urges its President to remind the Council, the Commission and the Member States of their protection duties;
Amendment 6 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to sovereign Member States and accession countries undergoing major disasters, represents true European added value and the materialisation of a will, that has sometimes been lacking, to provide mutual assistance at Union level;
Amendment 11 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, Parliament pointed out that solidarity among thesovereign Member States was not an option, but an obligation, stemming inter alia from Articles 2 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and was part and parcel of our European values, as set out in Article 3 of the TEU;
Amendment 24 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Fund’s regulatory framework was revised in 2014 by amending Regulation (EU) No 661/2014, in particular with a view to simplifying procedures, shortening the time frame for replying after the submission of applications, clarifying the eligibility criteria for requests for assistance in the event of regionnational, regional or local disasters, extending the implementation period and introducing advance payments, as called for by Parliament on several occasions; whereas, however, further progress is neededabsolutely necessary;
Amendment 43 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. regretting that people in the EUsovereign Member States are not very aware of the existence of the European Union’s Solidarity Fund, in particular because the Fund largely intervenes only after reconstruction work has been completed, in the form of reimbursements;
Amendment 45 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas special attention should be paid to the outermost regions (ORs), islands – which are particularly vulnerable to disasters – mountainous regions, sparsely populated regions and all areas that are particularly prone to the risk of natural disasters, and whereas it should also be borne in mind that those areas often have lower levels of insurance to cover the costs of damage than other areas in the EU;
Amendment 54 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses with concern that, in recent years, Europeans have had to face multiple emergencies that have devastated human lives, property, economic and social activities, the environment and cultural heritage;
Amendment 69 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 73 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 80 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is of the view that the risks of natural, ecological and health disasters have now become systemic and that the least developed and most fragile territories, such as the outermost regions and islands, are often the most affected by the impact of climate change;
Amendment 81 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls for the swift deployment of financial resources to combat the scourge of Sargassum seaweed, which is causing huge damage, in particular in the ecosystem of Guadeloupe and Martinique;
Amendment 82 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Points out that chlordecone is a highly carcinogenic substance that is polluting the soil, subsoil, rivers and shores of Guadeloupe and Martinique, and calls for the health consequences of chlordecone pollution to be recognised as a major public health emergency, thereby benefiting from support under the EUSF;
Amendment 83 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Calls for access to drinking water for everyone living in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Mayotte to be recognised as a major public health emergency and therefore to benefit from support under the EUSF;
Amendment 86 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers it vital to improve disaster risk prevention and management in Europe, and to support adaptation measures in construction, in particular via the development of new infrastructure and the renovation of existing infrastructure; recommends, in this regard, that Member States put in place, together with the Commission, disaster management plans for accurate and rapid damage assessment;
Amendment 107 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Draws particular attention to the situation of the local authorities of the sovereign Member States which have little experience in EU-funded projects and calls on the Commission to provide them with increased operational support, in particular administrative support;
Amendment 151 #
2020/2087(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission and the sovereign Member States to improve the visibility of the Fund’s assistance through ad hoc, targeted communication activities, and to make rapid response and delivery of aid a priority, in order specifically to highlight the Union’s added value in the event of natural and health disasters and its ability to put genuine mutual assistance into practice by providing significant budgetary resources;
Amendment 14 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas climate change is a challenge that transcends boundaries and requires immediate and ambitious action at Union, national, regional and local and sovereign Member State levels to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and prevent biodiversity loss on a massive scale;
Amendment 25 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the transition to a climate- neutral economy poses both a great opportunity and a challenge for the Union and for its sovereign Member States, regions, cities, local communities and citizens;
Amendment 29 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Cohesion Policy not only offers investment opportunities to respond to local and regional needs of the sovereign Member States through the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds, it also provides an integrated policy framework to reduce developmental disparities between the European regregions of the sovereign Member States of the Unions and to help them address the multiple challenges to their development, including through environmental protection and sustainable development;
Amendment 34 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the economic, social and territorial disparities which Cohesion Policy has the primary goal of addressing may also be exacerbated by climate change and its long-term consequencesust be effectively reduced by making best use of the opportunities offered by innovation in the climate and environmental sphere;
Amendment 42 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas local and regional authorities of the sovereign Member States are key actors for implementing Cohesion Policy effectively and delivering an effective response to the urgent threat of climate change;
Amendment 47 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the climate crisis is closely linked to other crises such as biodiversity and the COVID-19 pandemic;
Amendment 52 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the transition to a climate- neutral, sustainable and circulargreenhouse gas-neutral economy must involve citizens and all sectors of society, including local and regional authorities, and must be backed by robust and inclusive social measur of the sovereign Member States, to ensure a fair energy transition that supports job retention and creation;
Amendment 60 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas energy sources derived from fossil fuels undermine efforts to achieve climatea special effort needs to be made to offset the greenhouse gas impact of energy sources derived from fossil fuels in order to effectively achieve the aforementioned neutrality;
Amendment 64 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas regional environment strategies of the sovereign Member States of the Union should serve the pursuit of full employment and social progress;
Amendment 71 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas a multilayered European governanceEuropean model built on an active and constructive partnership between the various levels of governancesovereign Member States and stakeholders is key to the climategreenhouse gas neutrality transition;
Amendment 73 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas the sovereignty of EU Member States should be respected, whereas ecology should under no circumstances be punitive, and whereas localism should be encouraged;
Amendment 75 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L b (new)
Recital L b (new)
Lb. whereas all European institutions should prioritise solely the decarbonisation of energy production and energy efficiency in support of all public policies involving energy, climate and the circular economy;
Amendment 77 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L c (new)
Recital L c (new)
Lc. whereas the national sovereignty of EU Member States should be respected in choosing and funding the energy mix as part of the climate neutrality transition;
Amendment 78 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L d (new)
Recital L d (new)
Ld. whereas it is important to fund subsidies for the accelerated conversion of road, rail and waterway freight transport fleets within the Union;
Amendment 87 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the Commission’s proposal on the European Cclimate Law, which enshrines the 2050 climategreenhouse gas neutrality target into Union legislation, including the intermediate targets for 2030 and 2040, into Union regulations, which will be subject to review by the sovereign Member States;
Amendment 94 #
2020/2074(INI)
3. Emphasises the need for local and regional authorities of the sovereign Member States to make a clear political commitment to achievingcontributing more to the climate targets;
Amendment 100 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the crucial role for Cohesion Policy in fighting climate change and achieving climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest and the intermediate target by 2030, as well as the role of local and regional authorities of the sovereign Member States of the Union in mitigating and adapting to climate change, in particular through a far- reaching reform of investment policies, which absolutely must be targeted, as a matter of priority, at decarbonised or offset energy where facilities powered by fossil fuels are essential;
Amendment 106 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that climate policies should serve the pursuit of full employment, including green jobby investing in the retraining of affected employees, and fair social progress;
Amendment 118 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that sustainability and the transition to an economy that is safe, climate neutral, climate resilientgreenhouse gas neutral, more resource efficient and circular are crucial to ensuring the long-term competitiveness of the Union economy of the sovereign Member States of the Union;
Amendment 124 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that it is paramount to fully uphold multi-level governance and partnership principles under Cohesion Policy, as local and regional authorities have direct competencieof the sovereign Member States have a role to play in terms onf the environment and climate change;
Amendment 134 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that Cohesion Policy should focus on the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the fight against climate change through an effective methodology for monitoring climate spending and its performance, including its negative effects for EU regions;
Amendment 144 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines the key role of local, regional and regnational authorities of the EU Member States in achieving a fair transition to a climate-neutral economy for all, with social and economic cohesion at its corefor all;
Amendment 150 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to monitor the progress of national governments and their local and regional authorities in addressing climate change; stresses the need to enhance the effectiveness and complementarity of ESI Funds in tackling climate change;
Amendment 166 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Reaffirms that the specificities of all regions of the EU Member States as defined in Articles 174 and 349 of the TFEU need to be fully reflected in the transition process so that none of these regions is left behind; notes that account should be taken of the specificities of the outermost regions (ORs) under Article 349 of the TFEU so that their particular climate conditions are given due consideration;
Amendment 176 #
2020/2074(INI)
14. Emphasises that islands, in particular small islands, with limited governing autonomyhich have small isolated systems, should be able to access sufficient economic resources in order to deliver integrated, sector-coupled and innovative interventions for infrastructure and local economic development;
Amendment 183 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Highlights the need to capitalise on the outcome of initiatives such as New Energy Solutions Optimised for Islands (NESOI), which include, in particular, photovoltaic solutions, and Clean Energy for EU Islands (CE4EUI) of Member States to ensure a functional transition between the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods; welcomes the Memorandum of Split, which recognises the leading role for island communities in the energy transition;
Amendment 191 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that all sectors need to be represented and supported in the transition towards climategreenhouse gas-neutral industrial and agricultural processes, while maintaining international competitiveness;
Amendment 204 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the need for the Energy Taxation Directive11 to be revised in line with the polluter pays principle, so as to promote sustainable energy sources to the detriment of fossil fuels by 2025 at the latest, paying particular attention to the social impacthat do not have any negative externalities due to their intermittent nature; _________________ 11 OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51.
Amendment 205 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls for the application of a progressive carbon tax at the Union’s borders on foreign products that do not meet the same environmental production standards;
Amendment 206 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls for the updated Circular Economy Action Plan to continue to support the transition towards a circular economy, to tackle issues linked to resource efficiency and to drive sustainable consumption, while taking account of the economic challenges faced by businesses during the period needed to recover from the COVID-19 health crisis;
Amendment 221 #
2020/2074(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls for a greater role for Cohesion Policy in supporting risk prevention efforts to adapt to the present and future impacts of climate change at the regional and local levels of the sovereign Member States;
Amendment 30 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the free movement of labour is one of the ‘four freedoms’ of the European Union and its single markethas an impact on demographics and causes economic and social imbalances in some regions with population deficits;
Amendment 42 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the health and economic crisis generated by the COVID-19 pandemic made clear that solidarity between generations is one of the driving forces of the recovery process and that health infrastructures have to be accessible to the population in the whole territory;
Amendment 44 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the health and economic crisis generated by the COVID-19 pandemic made clear that solidarity between generations is one of the driving forces of the recovery processfactors that fosters social equilibrium;
Amendment 54 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas insular and mountainous regions suffer from a structural on the geographic, social and economic point of view and therefore they are particularly affected by the depopulation trend;
Amendment 59 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that the free movement of labour represents a cornerstone of EU competitiveness; notes, nevertheless, that it affects demographics, which has major implications for EU regions and their economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 64 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Observes in this context significant demographic contrasts at both Union and Member State level between core, metropolitan regions and periphery, often ruraland in comparison with rural, insular and mountainous areas;
Amendment 68 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Observes that GDP per capita, income level, employment rate, fertility rate and population ageing are among the most important factors with a direct impact on demographics; notes that the current employment dynamics in particular are generating demographic flows within European regions leading to socio-spatial disparities and challenges that post-2020 cohesion policy will need to address; underlines that migration patternsby European citizens is mainly from eastern, southeastern and central regions of the EU to northern and northwestern regions mostly involve young, educated and skilled workersof the EU;
Amendment 91 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that in general rural, post- industrial, insular, mountainous and remote areas are facing a number of specific situations: a considerable decline in population numbers, lower than national or EU average levels of income and difficulties of territorial integration with other regions, making them more exposed to the risk of depopulation; points out that rural regions currently account for 28 % of Europe’s population but this is predicted to fall significantly in the future;
Amendment 97 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Draws attention to some of the drivers of demographic change, forcing inhabitants from the abovementioned areas to leave and discouraging others from moving there: offshoring and the absence of genuine national reshoring policies, failure to implement pro-birth policies, poor infrastructure, including a lack of fast broadband internet and missing transport networks, fewer job opportunities, lack of public services and difficult access to health services, fewer education opportunities, making it more difficult to adapt to technological change, and a lack of cultural venues and leisure activities;
Amendment 105 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that this lack of diversification in the regional economic structure of certain regions, with particular regard to insular regions, risks creating a negative ‘label’, also among their inhabitants, manifesting dissatisfaction with the quality of life and the facilities and services at their disposal; highlights in this context the brain drain effect, leading to the emigration of highly trained and qualified people from a particular region or country to another; points out, in particular, that the ‘exodus’ of medical staff such as doctors and nurses and teaching staff has led to a deterioration in the quality of medical care and education, making it difficult, especially in rural areas, to access high-quality care and education;
Amendment 107 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that this lack of diversification in the regional economic structure of certain regions risks creating a negative ‘label’, also among their inhabitants, manifesting dissatisfaction with the quality of life and the facilities and services at their disposal; highlights in this context the brain drain effect, leading to the emigration of highly trained and qualified people from a particular region or country to another, irrespective of whether they are highly trained and irrespective of whether they are qualified; points out, in particular, that the ‘exodus’ of medical staff such as doctors and nurses and teaching staff has led to a deterioration in the quality of medical care and education, making it difficult, especially in rural areas, to access high-quality care and education;
Amendment 109 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is of the view that urban areas are also exposed to depopulation, with one in five cities in Europe facing population losses since 1990; notes, however, that urban shrinkage is not always a continuous linear process and can be episodic or temporary, depending on the territorial and economic context;
Amendment 113 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines a pattern of ‘inner peripheralisation’, in the sense that eastern and southern European regions report a substantially negative net population migration rate, while northern and western European regions report a substantially positive rate, receiving constantly large numbers of international economic migrants in addition to influxes of Europeans;
Amendment 119 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Acknowledges that the metropolitan areas around major cities register a positive migration rate, with characteristic rural-to-urban population movements as well as movements of people from non-EU countries to these urban areas, as a consequence of an increasingly urbanised concentration in employment growth patterns;
Amendment 124 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines, on the other hand, that overconcentration of the population in certain urban areas has already led to side- effects, such as congestion, rising housing and transport costs, pollution, deterioration of the quality of life, and urban sprawl, as well as a significant risk of poverty and, social exclusion and insecurity for certain segments of the population, and thus local authorities being unable to provide services to all residents of urban areas;
Amendment 127 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that economic migration has a direct impact on the inclusivenesslevel of insecurity of cities, requiring tailored policy responses in different territorial contexts;
Amendment 145 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that local, regional and regnational authorities should play a decisive role in developing territorial strategies, taking into consideration the development needs and the potential of the areas concerned, including the economic, social and demographic trends; points out that community-led local development strategies are a useful tool that can be used to create jobs and increase accessibility to services at local level;
Amendment 147 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Considers that the Urban Agenda for the EU, which identifies major priorities and actions for improving the quality of life in urban areas could serve as a model for providing proper instruments promoting growth, integration, cooperation and innovation and tackling social challenges; insists alsoinsists on developing strategies aimed at enhancing the knowledge economy and smart specialisation in European regions, including through developing knowledge networks and providing support for human and industrial capital investments with a high rate of employability;
Amendment 151 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls the need for strategies aimed at reversing labour migration; calls on local and regional authorities to tackle the brain drain in ‘sending’ regions through prevention, mitigation and appropriate responses; underlines in this context that there are already several initiatives in various Member States, such as incentives for workers with highly specialised skills, aimed at turning the brain drain into a brain gain for the regions in question; considers that this strategy aimed at reversing brain drain in ‘sending’ regions of the EU should also be applied in the ‘sending’ regions of non-EU countries;
Amendment 165 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that the COVID-19 health crisis has affected all Member States and regions to different extents, and is likely to lead to new trends as regards demographic flows; recalls in this context that the additional resources provided through REACT-EU in order to ensure a sound and robust recovery of the EU’s economy from the crisis could significantly help to keep people in employment, including through support for small and medium-size enterprises and for short-time work schemes and the self- employed;
Amendment 170 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that the Recovery and Resilience Facility will provide large-scconditionale financial support to make Member States’ economies more resilient and better prepared for the future, and insists that Member States should propose measures for addressing demographic change; highlights the importance of the instruments for a transition to sustainability such as the Just Transition Fund and its implementation mechanism, which aim to support the communities affected by the energy transition and avoid the risk of depopulationto improve mobility of people and goods in rural, insular and mountainous areas;
Amendment 179 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Reiterates the need for further simplification of cohesion policy instruments in order to allow for an easier, but at the same time sound management of financial resources and for maximising synergies among the various EU funds; emphasises the need to reduce red tape and ensure coherent legislation throughout the project implementation process and a focused technical assistance at all stages;
Amendment 202 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Member State to include demographic challenges in their national development policies and long- term strategies for sustainable development correlated with the European Semester, thus ensuring proper financing for demographic issues;
Amendment 203 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Member State to include demographic challenges in their national development policies and long- term strategies for sustainable development correlated with the European Semester, thus ensuring proper financing for demographic issues;
Amendment 210 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the regions at risk of depopulation to focus investments on universal accessibility and redeployment to quality public services and infrastructure and job creation; insists on investment in education, reskilling of workers, reshoring of business, creating entrepreneurial conditions and supporting SMEsmicro- enterprises/SMEs, innovative industries, short supply chains and localism;
Amendment 217 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the regions at risk of depopulation to focus investments on universal accessibility to quality services and infrastructure and job creation; insists on investment in education, reskilling of workers, creating entrepreneurial conditions and supporting micro and SMEs;
Amendment 220 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Considers that, within the framework of the economic recovery, the Commission should think about ways to retain local jobs and businesses in the ‘sending’ regions; considers that national and local authorities should support their economies through public procurement; considers that avoiding major migrations and offshoring provides an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus to meet European Green Deal targets;
Amendment 228 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Considers it appropriate to involve national, regional and local authorities in long-term cooperative governance and planning initiatives at various levels; asks the Commission and the Member States to disseminate good practices on the use and benefits of this type of governance and of planning tools to support polycentric development;
Amendment 256 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Insists that investments should be focused on information and communication technologymobility infrastructures and local health , since this has the potential to reduce the distance between the users and to attract high- skilled workers; stresses the importance of funding the development and uptake of these technologielabour skills among companies and schools in rural, insular, mountainous and isolated regions and regions in industrial transition;
Amendment 262 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Considers that municipalities should promote ‘open innovation’ initiativsocial, cultural and business initiatives, besides "open innovation" ones, making use of the knowledge to accelerate the innovation process and to develop a collaborative approach with relevant partners and stakeholders with a view to creating innovationcultural and business friendly ecosystems;
Amendment 263 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Considers that municipalities should promote ‘open innovation’ initiatives, making use of the knowledge to accelerate the innovation process and to developthe establishment of centres of innovation supported by a cpollaborative approach with relevant partners aicy of defending digital and ind ustakeholders with a view to creatrial sovereignty ing innovation ecosystemsdividual Member States and in the EU as a whole;
Amendment 270 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Recommends, where appropriate, the that the Member States should, where appropriate, embark on the task of rethinking and reform ofing education and training systems inand the Member States, combined with policiesystem of remuneration for highly qualified researchers and workers to prevent a permanent brain drain from the ‘sending’ regions; insists on using local at regional advantages, as well as the development of economic and social facilities, not only to prevent the brain drain, but also to reverse this phenomenon both within and outside Europe;
Amendment 280 #
2020/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the initiative on the long-term vision for rural, insular and mountainous areas includes practical solution and means of support to address demographic changes; invites the Commission, in agreement with the Member States, to propose a ‘new deal’ on demographics in the EU as a multi-level policy approach;
Amendment 149 #
2020/0380(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Member States should raise awareness on the Union contribution fromuse of the Reserve and inform the public accordingly as transparency, communication and visibility activities are essential in making Union action visible on the grounkeeping European citizens properly informed. Those activities should be based on accurate and updated information.
Amendment 327 #
2020/0380(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall be responsible for informing and publicising to Union citizens the role, the results and impact of the Union contribution fromuse of the Reserve through information and communication actions.
Amendment 2 #
2019/0183(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 and Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States to cover serious financial burden inflicted on them following a withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union without an agreement
Amendment 4 #
2019/0183(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The European Union Solidarity Fund (‘the Fund’) was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/20028 . The Fund was created to provide financial assistance to Member States following emergency situations as a concrete sign of European solidarity in situations of distress, to respond to major natural disasters, and to express European solidarity with disaster-stricken regions within Europe. _________________ 8Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3).
Amendment 5 #
2019/0183(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1 a) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established1a to show solidarity towards workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and global financial and economic crises, and can also support beneficiaries in small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, in particular with regard to collective applications involving small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs), even if the number of redundancies is below the normal threshold for mobilisation of the EGF. _________________ 1aRegulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (OJ L 406, 30.12.20016, p.1).
Amendment 26 #
2019/0183(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) To maintain the availability of the Fund for natural disasters, itsEuropean Union Solidarity Fund and of the EGF for their original purposes, a budgetary ceiling for support related to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union without an agreement should be established.
Amendment 36 #
2019/0183(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 and Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly,
Amendment 46 #
2019/0183(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002
Article 3 a – paragraph 1
Article 3 a – paragraph 1
(1) At the request of a Member State, assistance from the European Union Solidarity Fund may also be mobilised when serious financial burden is inflicted on this Member State as a direct consequence of the United Kingdom leaving the Union without an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) TEU (“withdrawal without an agreement”). The assistance shall take the form of a financial contribution from the Fund. (This amendment applies throughout the text.)
Amendment 48 #
2019/0183(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002
Article 3 a – paragraph 2
Article 3 a – paragraph 2
(2) The available appropriations solely for this goal shall be limited to half5 % of the maximum available amount for the Fund intervention for the years 2019 and 2020.
Amendment 84 #
2019/0183(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013
Article 1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013
Amendment 85 #