9 Amendments of Frédéric DAERDEN related to 2014/2005(INI)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is deeply concerned atwith the fact that any budgetary debate in the Council has been for many years poisoned by the logic of ‘'fair returns’' ; stresses that this situation is largely due to the current system of EU financing, whereby some 85 % of revenues stem from national contributions instead of genuine own resources, as foreseen in the Treaty of Rome; considers that such a system places disproportionate emphasis on net balances between the Member States and has led to the progressive introduction of complex and opaque rebates and other correction mechanisms for the financing of the EU budget;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the European Council took a top-down approach toin deciding the overall size of the MFF 2014-2020, which in turn demonstrates a worrying discrepancy between EU political commitments which the European Council has been making and its reluctance to adequately finance them; believes, on the contrary, that this decision should be based on a bottom-up process, resulting from a thorough assessment of EU financial needs and political objectives as set out in EU multiannual programmes and policies defined by the legislator; underlines that the European Parliament has underestimated the ability of the European Council to evaluate the impact of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty regarding the EP powers on the MFF adoption and to maintain this approach;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is, therefore, convinced that any decision on the financial framework should be preceded by – and based on – a genuine political debate on the role, function and added value of the EU budget and on its compatibility with the political strategy adopted by the Union and operational objectives assigned to the Union; considers that, in order to bridge the gap between divergent visions on what the EU budget stands for and what it can achieve, this debate should be organised in due time and involve the three EU institutions and all national parliaments, but also engage the highest political level in the Member States;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Invites the next European Commission and the next European Parliament to carefully look at the achievements of the EU 2020 strategy, especially at the employment-related targets, and to use the review clause to add financial resources to boost the Strategy, taking into account that the negative impact of the ongoing crisis has jeopardised it;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Points out that the conclusions of the European Council are to be seen as negotiating instructions for the Council and that they in no case constitute red lines which cannot be negotiated with Parliament; deeply regrets the fact that this problem marked the negotiations on EU multiannual programmes, notably regarding the European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund; calls for a standard formula recalling the provisions of Article 15(1) TFEU to be included in the conclusions of the European Council;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Regrets that the European Parliament decided not to make full use of the possibilities provided by the ordinary legislative procedure in the negotiations with the Council on the legislative basis; considers, in this context, that special attention should be given to the cases where a legislative proposal has been recognised to fall in the competences of more than one committee; is of the view that in these special cases, the mandate for negotiations with the Council should be obtained from the plenary in order to assure broad support, strengthen the EP negotiation position and guarantee transparency;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Considers that, while agreements negotiated with the Council should be given the possibility of a smooth adoption in plenary, this cannot be at the price of preventing plenary of any possibility to amend the agreed texts; is of the view that such procedures could only be applied when a very broad political consensus has been found on the agreed text; calls, therefore, on its competent committee to examine the possibility to apply the provisions of Rule 138 of the EP Rules of Procedure to first and second reading agreements;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Suggests, if the Treaty remains unchanged, that in the next MFF negotiations the European Parliament should approach the MFF regulation and legislative proposals of the different multiannual programs as a whole package like it did it successfully in case of the Supervision System Mechanism;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Recalls that the foreseen revision of the MFF shall not have a downward impact on any pre-allocated national envelopes for cohesion policy and in particular on ESF allocations;