12 Amendments of Mercedes BRESSO related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for the alignment of the future MFFs with the duration of Parliament’s legislative term and the Commission’s mandate, thereby reducing the length of the MFF from seven to five years; for some programmes 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
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points to the MFF’s importance as a fundamentally investment-focused multiannual budget;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Warns against the possibility that the upcoming Brexit negotiations might shroud the outcome of negotiations on the next MFF; recalls the difficulty of assessing the impact of Brexit on both the interinstitutional process and funding under the forthcoming MFF, and considers it unlikely that the long-term EU budgets can be increased in this contexton the other side suggests that Brexit presents an opportunity to reconsider the current system of rebates and corrections, which are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Treaties;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls that the new priorities and initiatives of the EU should be financed with fresh money without jeopardizing the existing programmes and policies, in this context calls for a depth reform of the financing system of the Union – a genuine system of own resources – to make the EU Budget more stable, more sustainable, and more predictable, while improving transparency for the citizens. Considers that the unity of the budget, and more budgetary flexibility have to be addressed;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for increased complementarity between national budgets and the EU budget, and for European funding to focus on areas that deliver genuine European added value and in which such well-targeted spending at European level can produce savings at national level.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. recalls that new priorities and initiatives of the EU should be financed with fresh money, and that cohesion policy should not be jeopardised by its current envelope being used as a source of funding for such new priorities and initiatives;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that regional funding should be protected and should continue to predominantly take the form of grants rather than financial instruments, which do, however, have an important role to play in certain cases and should be properly integrated with grants where appropriate; stresses that in the event of a reduction in the EU’s budgets, greater focus on the EU’s core goals is required;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that a 5+5 year MFF period, with a compulsory mid-term review, might be preferable;
Amendment 481 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Stresses that cohesion policy post- 2020 should remain the main investment policy of the European Union in order to tackle complex socio-economic challenges covering all EU regions while concentrating the majority of the resources on the most vulnerable ones; believes that, beyond the goal of reducing the disparities between levels of development and enhancing convergence as enshrined in the Treaty, it should focus on the achievement of the broad EU political objectives and proposes, therefore, that under the next MFF, the three cohesion policy funds – the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund – should concentrate mainly on providing support for innovation, digitalisation, reindustrialisa transition, SMEs, transport, climate change adaptation, employment and social inclusionand mitigation, environment, energy, infrastructuring, employment, education, including vocational education and training, social inclusion and capacity building, social inclusion and gender equality; recalls, in this context, the need for further integrated synergies in order to foster comprehensive, trans-sectorial strategies; calls, moreover, for a reinforced territorial cooperation component and an urban dimension for the policy and dedicated provisions for area with geographic specificities, such as rural, mountainous and remote areas;
Amendment 678 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97
Paragraph 97
97. Recalls that the adoption of the MFF Regulation requires Parliament’s consent; stresses, moreover, that Parliament and Council are two equal arms of the budgetary authority in the adoption of the annual EU budget, while the sectoral legislation setting up the vast majority of EU programmes, including their financial envelopes, is decided under the ordinary legislative procedure; expects, therefore, a decision-making procedure on the next MFF that safeguards Parliament’s role and prerogatives as set out in the Treaties; points to the possibility of switching from unanimity to qualified majority voting for the adoption of the forthcoming MFF Regulation, by using the provisions of Article 312(2) of the TFEU;