26 Amendments of Bogusław LIBERADZKI related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Subheading -1 (new)
Subheading -1 (new)
-1 Objectives of the MFF
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Underlines the importance of the MFF which should reach the objectives of sustainability, bringing citizens closer to the EU Budget, and bridging the gap between Member States through cohesion policy;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Points that the MFF should be planned on amounts which can secure strategic growth, levering EU added value, making the EU economy stronger, making societies more pro-European; point that the EU budget should be readable and transparent;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls Parliament’s view that the duration of the MFF should be reduced from seven to five years so that it is aligned with the political mandate periods of Parliament and the Commission1 1; points out that in 2020 there will be an opportunity to bring the long-term strategy cycle in line with the budgetary cycle, and strongly recommends that this opportunity be taken; considers that the Commission should also examine the possibility of introducing a rolling programme in which each MFF, while having the same duration as now, would partially cover the previous one, on the premise that overlapping could help mitigate naturally existing peaks and troughs;recalls its view that, given the rapidly changing political environment and with a view to ensuring greater flexibility, some elements of the MFF should be agreed for 5 years while others, notably those related to programmes requiring longer-term programming and/or policies foreseeing complex procedures for the establishment of implementation systems, such as cohesion policy or rural development, should be agreed for a period of 5+5 years with compulsory mid-term revision. __________________ 1 See paragraph 73 of its resolution of 6 July 2016 on the preparation of the post electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309) and paragraph 5 of its resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. AskUrges the Commission, before drafting its to come forward with a proposal for a new MFF and, to carry out a thorough and comprehensive spending review that would assess the extent to which:
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
- the allocation of resources in the EU budget reflects the EU’s strategic priorities and opportunities to add value, in particular in policies that have shown to drain a lot of resources while serving merely redistributive functions, such as the Cohesion Policy and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), and in recent priority policy fields that have shown to have insufficient budget measures in times of variable circumstances, such as immigration policy and external action, and the extent to which
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that in the course of the current MFF period, the EU has suffered multiple crismay face many new challenges; calls on the Commission to provide flexibility in the budget planning so that it is able to tackle unexpectedly changing circumstances more efficiently; considers, in this regard, that adequate emergency measures still need to be taken, in coordination with other actions, to alleviate the European crises, especially in the areas of agriculture and migration, along with measures to ensure that Parliament’s role in implementing and adopting the MFF is fully respected and that the Council does not act without Parliament’s consent;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Reiterates Parliament’s call to integrate the European Development Fund into the EU budget in order to be able to control and tackle the root causes of excessive migration in a better way, and one that is in line with Union policies and strategies, using tools and methods deriving from the Union’s budgetary competence; considers that common European challenges in development policy could be better mastered through common administration from the EU budget;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Endorses the suggestion made by the European Court of Auditors in its briefing paper on the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 that it is better to determine the duration of programmes and schemes on policy and citizens’ needs, rather than basing it on the length of the financial planning period4 ; __________________ 4 See points 39 and 40. See points 39 and 40.
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Strongly regrets the persistence of aing high levels of outstanding commitments that iswhich is on one hand the result of delays by Member States in submitting payment claims and on the other hand caused by the European Commission being considerably late in proposing the programs; points out that this circumstances makes any effective evaluation and review of the budget implementation impossible, whether at mid-term or at the end of the programming period; regrets that this handicaps the forecasting capacity of the budgetary authority; regrets, in particular, that the outstanding commitments increased significantly by the end of 2016, to reach EUR 238 billion, and that the increase relative to the figure for 2015 – over EUR 21 billion – was twice as high as initially expected;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Performance-based budget: framework to determine cut-offs
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Asks the Commission and the Member States to significantly modernise and redesign the EU budget along the principles of performance-based budgeting in order to fit the new priorities that have been agreed on at the EU-27 level, and to back up a fiscal stabilisation function for the euro area using own resources;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that in its resolution accompanying the discharge 20156 , [1],Parliament called on the Commission to fundamentally reconsiderpropose necessary updates of the design and delivery mechanism for the ESIFs taking into account also the suggestions of the high level simplification group in order to strengthen the cohesion policy contribution to tackle disparities in inequalities between Union regions and Member States and to foresee, for the next programming period, more manageable and measurable performance indicators; insists that all future expenditure should focus on programmes, with proven EU added value, designed to deliver results at minimum cost, and that performance should be at the centre of the next generation of all programmes and schemes together with better geographical balance, which should ensure a fair distribution of financing across Europe; __________________ 6 See paragraph 190 of the resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Points out that the EU-27 should consider halting commitments, or doing less, in domains where the Union is perceived as having limited added value, or as being unable to deliver on promises; believes, however, that there should be a clearly stated link between the aims and the allocated funds, that where ambitious aims are set, sufficient funds should be allocated, and that where new goals are set, new resources should be presented; stresses that taken altogether, EU finances should be able to meet the financing needs of new priorities, such as countering terrorism, managing migration by better addressing the root causes, improving integration and through border controls among other things, and minimising the effects of the possible financial gap resulting from Brexit;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Calls on the Commission to improve its strategy to communicate the added value of EU funds to the citizens and counter the dissemination of distorted facts which threaten to undermine the trust of citizens in the EU.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Considers that while the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the Union is an unfortunate event that will have a negative influence on the future of the lives of citizens in the UK and in the remaining Member States, it also creates an opportunity to redefine and reform the EU-27’s political ambitions and the needed budget tools and methods; considers that the EU-27 should be ambitious in its budget reform and aim to maintain an annual EU budget similar in size to that of the EU-28;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Believes that those policy fields likely to suffer most significantly from the budget gap resulting from Brexit should be protected from major setbacks in order not to destabilise in an excessive way any current economic, social or administrative framework; points in particularfor example to the need to secure the Union’s resources in the field of research, development and innovation in order to enhance the Union’s global leadership; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to examine carefully the consequences of different Brexit scenarios when preparing the MFF proposal and its impact assessment;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Encourages the Commission and the Member States also to consider othernew tax- based resources available to the EU-27 that could provide for more European added value in certain risk-related policy fields, while at the same time strengthening the EU budget; believes that a tax on financial transactions, CCTB, a European Corporate Income Tax, or a CO2 levy through carbon pricing should be part of future genuine own resources to be considered by the European Commission.