14 Amendments of Tamás DEUTSCH related to 2010/2211(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that cohesion policy is an important componentbut not the only tool for the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and that a sound cohesion policy is the prerequisite for successful joint action by the EU as it contributes to a better ownership of EU2020 objectives at regional and local level and allows for a consolidation of strategic goals and local needs with potential on the ground; emphasises that objectives that are included in the Lisbon Treaty but are not part of EU2020 goals should also be achieved and the relationship between the objectives of the EU2020 Strategy and other objectives should be clarified;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Draws the attention to the fact that the means of achieving greater competitiveness depend on the specificities of each region including the development levels thereof, and therefore due account has to be given to providing flexibility to Member States and regions to draw up the best policy mixes;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Endorses the view that that the ESF must remain an integral component of cohesion policy and be strengthenedthat operational integration should exist between the ERDF and the ESF, their resources should be used in a more coordinated manner in order to allow for integrated and more effective delivery; calls for greater coordination with cohesion policy measures so that rural regions can be properly involved and resources used more efficiently;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Insists, in keeping with a spirit of solidarity, on specific support for the EU- 27‘s most disadvantaged regions within Objective 1; stresses, at the same time, the need for a powerful Objective 2 and sounds well as the drawing up of appropriate transitional rules;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that funds must be spent transparently, effectively and efficiently in the regions, cities and municipalities on the basis of rules that are as simple as possible and sound management; in view of what it calls for the reduction of complexity and administrative burdens.
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Insists that, in future, expenditure control should be streamlined and more result-oriented in order not to put excessive administrative burden on final beneficiaries;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that a five-year period is too short, since authorisation procedures would be much too long and would not make it possible to use resources efficiently; points to the fact that a seven-year period has proved its worth in the past and that the programming period should in no circumstances be shorter; underscores the fact that a seven-year period, until 2020, would make the link with the EU 2020 strategy clearor even longer multiannual financial framework (MFF) period, would safeguard the efficiency;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that cofinancing and the n+2 and n+3 rules should be maintained, possibly combined with greater flexibility to cover exceptional situations which might be expected to arise within the next programming period; insists that unspent funds should be made available for other regions and not returned tof the Member States concerned;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. demands a proposal with the aim of stricter financial sanctions for Member States which do not adhere to the stability criteria, and considers thereby stronger automatisms;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that monies from funds set up in connection with cohesion policy must not be used, under the Stability and Growth Pact, as a means of ‘punishment’; that would be counterproductive for the regions and Member States affected and the EU; points to the fact that such measures would treat Member States and regions unequally as they would punish the poorest the most;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that monies from funds set up in connection with cohesion policy must not be used, under the Stability and Growth Pact, as a means of ‘punishment’; that would be counterproductive for the regions and Member States affected and the EUffected;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Acknowledges that irregularities in the use of structural funds occur mostly and especially in Member States which repeatedly and intensely violate the stability criteria;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Demands that, for Member States where violation of stability criteria coincides with higher irregularities in the use of structural funds, a proposal on automatic regulation be put forward, which put these countries under an intensive European financial and management control concerning the use of EU structural funds;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. PStresses particularly stresses the fact that cohesion policy is the only European policy which can play not only an ‘intelligent’, but also, which is at the same time intelligent and ‘environmentally- friendly’ and a ‘unifying’ role within the can play a crucial role in the attainment of EU2020 objectives, in spite of the fact that it is by no means the only responsible for the achievement of EU 2020 strategygoals, given that all policy fields have to make a contribution; points out that this provides further clear evidence of the importance of cohesion policy as a whole, and rejects any fragmentation of this policy across various budget headings.;