2022/2142(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)

(1) Deplores the growing misuse of the veto right to block Council decision- making in tax matters; regrets most particularly the Polish and Hungarian vetoes during the Council negotiations on the Commission proposal of 22 December 2021 for a Council directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021)0823) delaying the adoption for several months;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the EU Institutions to respect the treaties and the principle of rule of law protected by Article 2 of the TEU; highlights that the Union has the obligation to strive for consensus during the process of decision-making, emphasizes the importance of taking into account the particular nature and sensibilities of Member States ensuring that they may not be disregarded during decision-making; confirms that there is no "veto" expressed in the treaties, only the need for consensus during decision- making in specific areas where Member States have reserved their sovereignty and right to decide on essential issues; notes that missing the needed consensus during the decision-making process is in fact lack of support; invites all EU institutions to remain in the scope of their remit during EU legislative and non-legislative procedure;

Amendment 12 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Regrets, in this regard, that national vetoes have consistently hampered progress in many important areas of taxation, with proposals such as the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), the revision of the Interest and Royalties Directive (IRD), the reform of the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation, the implementation of a Financial Transaction Tax, and, most recently, the Pillar II Directive; stresses that some key legislative proposals, such as the Pillar I Directive or the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT) risk facing the same problem;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Reminds the Member States that unanimity as it appears in the Treaties must be counterbalanced by a high level of responsibility and must be in line with the principle of sincere cooperation based on Article 4(3) TEU;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Regrets the fact that the current situation often leads to delays and a lack of progress in the harmonisation and coordination of tax rules across the Union and fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance, even though such harmonisation and coordination would benefit everyone; notes that some legislative proposals, such as the debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) or the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT), will be key to supporting the competitiveness of European companies;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Regrets the fact that the current situation ~~often~~could in some cases leads to delays and a lack of progress in the harmonisation and coordination of tax rules across the Union, even though such harmonisation and coordination wcould benefit everyone; notes that some legislative proposals, such as the ~~debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) or the~~ Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT), will be key to supporting the competitiveness of European companies;

Amendment 18 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Regrets the fact that the current situation often leads to delays and a lack of progress in the harmonisation and coordination of tax rules across the Union, even though such harmonisation and coordination would benefit everyone; ~~notes that some legislative proposals, such as the debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) or th~~warns that the lack of better coordination and harmonisation of tax rules harms the single market and the performance of the Union in reaching its economic, green, social and digital objectives; notes that some legislative proposals, such as the directive on preventing shell companies from misusing their structure for tax purposes (UNSHELL), the upcoming withholding tax framework and the future Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT), will be key to supporting the fairness of our tax system, the competitiveness of European companies, while the revision of the energy taxation directive will be key to supporting the EU’s climate goals;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Regrets the fact that the current situation often leads to delays and a lack of progress in the harmonisation and coordination of tax rules across the Union, even though such harmonisation and coordination would benefit everyone; notes that some legislative proposals, such as the ~~debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) or the~~ Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT)~~, will be key to supporting the competitiveness of European companies~~ or the rules to prevent the misuse of shell entities for tax purposes (Unshell), will be key to supporting the competitiveness of European companies; deplores the fact that proposals such as the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) and the revision of the Interest and Royalties Directive have remained blocked in the Council;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that taxation is one of the few areas that remain subject to unanimity voting in Council; stresses that it has become increasingly evident over recent years that stronger coordination in the field of taxation is needed at EU and global levels in the light of economic developments and the new challenges created by digitalisation and globalisation; regrets, in this regard, Hungary’s misuse of its veto right to block the Council negotiations on the Commission proposal of 22 December 2021 for a Council directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021)0823);emphasises that a strong Union, from a labour, capital and fiscal perspective amongst others, cannot be reached without much needed tax coordination and harmonisation; emphasises further that tax coordination is essential to ensure the sustainable and future-proof tax systems in Member States; notes that stronger tax coordination in the Union has been sought since the landmark 1992 Ruding committee report1a; _________________ 1a http://aei.pitt.edu/8702/1/8702.pdf

Amendment 20 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Pedro MARQUES, Aurore LALUCQ, Marek BELKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Re~~grets the fact~~cognises that the current situation often leads to delays and a lack of progress in the ~~harmonisation and~~ coordination of tax rules across the Union, even though such ~~harmonisation and coordination would benefit everyone~~coordination would in some cases benefit everyone; calls, therefore, on the Commission to propose solutions that have a chance of broad support in the Council, and on the Council to act in a spirit of responsibility and solidarity; notes that some legislative proposals, such as the debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) or the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT), ~~will~~could be key to supporting the competitiveness of European companies;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. RStresses that unanimity voting in the Council over tax policy does not facilitate the changes needed to tackle the current challenges; regrets the fact that the current situation often leads to delays and a lack of progress in the harmonisation and coordination of tax rules across the Union, even though such harmonisation and coordination would benefit everyone; notes that some legislative proposals, such as the debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) or the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT), will be key to supporting the competitiveness of European companies;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Underlines the sovereignty of Member States on determining their tax policy; stresses, however, that the free circulation of capital in the EMU, makes the fight against tax evasion and avoidance a communitarian issue, like showed by famous schemes such as the Double Irish Dutch Sandwich; moreover, stresses that some Member States developed a predatory economic model based on deviating tax revenues from other Member States;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Highlights that the treaties provide for means of collaboration between the Member States in case the needed support is missing for reaching further cooperation in a specific field, for instance enhanced cooperation;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Recalls~~Takes note that Article 48(7) of the Treaty on European Union provides for two general passerelle clauses that allow the decision-making procedures to be changed in order either to adopt measures in Council through qualified majority voting (QMV) in areas that are currently subject to unanimity~~; regrets the fact that these passerelle clause~~ or to change the legislative procedure in areas tha~~ve never been used; r~~t are currently subject to special~~ls that activating the passerelle clauses would in any case require unanimity in the European Council and Parliament’s consent~~ legislative procedures in favour of the ordinary one; regrets the fact that these passerelle clauses have never been used;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Rec~~all~~ognises that Article 48(7) of the Treaty on European Union provides for two general passerelle clauses that allow the decision-making procedures to be changed in order to adopt measures in Council through qualified majority voting (QMV) in areas that are currently subject to unanimity; ~~regrets the fact that these passerelle clauses have never been used~~stresses the dangers and risks for Member States that may result from removing their freedom of decision in tax matters, which are highly important for economic and social policy-making; recalls that activating the passerelle clauses would in any case require unanimity in the European Council and Parliament’s consent;

Amendment 28 #

Caroline NAGTEGAAL, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Billy KELLEHER, Georgios KYRTSOS, Erik POULSEN, Nicola BEER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that Article 48(7) of the Treaty on European Union provides for two general passerelle clauses that allow the decision-making procedures to be changed in order to adopt measures in Council through qualified majority voting (QMV) in areas that are currently subject to unanimity~~; regrets the fact~~ and, in cases of special legislative procedure, to adopt a decision in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure; underlines that any decision on the use of a passerelle clause must be limited to a specific area or case, according to the same Article 48(7); notes that these passerelle clauses have never been used; recalls that activating the passerelle clauses would in any case require unanimity in the European Council and Parliament’s consent; stresses that national parliaments are entitled to oppose the activation of such clauses;

Amendment 3 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Pedro MARQUES, Aurore LALUCQ, Marek BELKA, Paul TANG, Joachim SCHUSTER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that taxation is one of the few areas that remain subject to unanimity voting in Council; stresses that it has become increasingly evident over recent years that stronger coordination in the field of taxation is needed at EU and global levels in the light of economic developments and the new challenges created by digitalisation and globalisation; re~~grets, in~~calls thisat re~~gard, Hungary’s misuse of its veto right to~~cent tax proposals were block ~~the~~ed in Council ~~negotiations on the Commission proposal of 22 December 2021 for a Council directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021)0823)~~due to vetoes of single Member States for reasons which were unrelated to the content of the proposal; deplores the recourse to national vetoes as a bargaining tool;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that Article 48(7) of the Treaty on European Union provides for two general passerelle clauses that allow the decision-making procedures to be changed in order to adopt measures in Council through qualified majority voting (QMV) in areas that are currently subject to unanimity; regrets the fact that these passerelle clauses have never been used; recalls that activating the passerelle clauses would in any case require unanimity in the European Council and Parliament’s consent; stresses that the involvement of both national parliaments and the European Parliament to launch the passerelle clause promotes more accountability from the governments to their populations; furthermore, stresses the fact the decision to launch the passerelle clause is taken in the European Council, rather than in the Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Council, leading to a better media coverage and public scrutiny of the position of each Member States;

Amendment 32 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Believes the recourse to passerelle clauses could help reduce the negative interference of vetoes used as bargaining tools only; recalls that the use of Article 122 has made it possible to introduce temporary solidarity contribution for fossil companies with activities in the crude petroleum, natural gas, coal and refinery sectors; calls on the Commission to use all of the tools at its disposal to achieve effective action and results;

Amendment 34 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Pedro MARQUES, Aurore LALUCQ, Marek BELKA, Evelyn REGNER, Paul TANG, Joachim SCHUSTER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Believes the recourse to passerelle clauses could help reduce the negative interference of vetoes used as bargaining tools only;

Amendment 35 #

Caroline NAGTEGAAL, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Billy KELLEHER, Erik POULSEN, Nicola BEER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Recommends using the two general passerelle clauses for selected Treaty articles concerning the EU’s competences in the area of taxation; recalls that the Commission~~Calls on the Commission to relaunch the discussion on the use of qualified majority voting in some tax matters through a phased approach, as a follow-up to its communication of 15 January 2019 entitled ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ (COM(2019)0008) and ~~the conclusions~~as a response to the outcome of the Conference on the Future of Europe ~~both recommended moving from unanimity voting to QMV on tax matters~~; nevertheless reminds that taxation constitutes one of the core elements of the Member States's sovereignity and the introduction of QMV in the tax policy area might raise issues in relation to some constitutional requirements in the EU Member States; therefore takes into consideration the idea of the adoption of QMV for technical adjustments and tax fraud/evasion while maintaining the unanimous voting for tax rates and tax base.

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. RDoes not recommends using ~~the two general~~ passerelle clauses ~~for selected Treaty articles concerning the EU’s competences~~ in tax matters; stresses the risks to host and founding Member States of the EU from the central EU institutions’ agenda of increasing centralisation and weakening the ~~area~~powers of ~~tax~~nation~~; recalls that~~al governments; notes, in this context, the Commission communication of 15 January 2019 entitled ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ (COM(2019)0008) and the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe ~~bot~~, whose legitimacy is highly problematic, which recommended moving from unanimity voting to QMV on tax matters.; calls for respect for the Treaty competences of the Member States and for the principle of unanimity in tax matters;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Highlights that taxation is one of the few areas that remain subject to unanimity voting in Council; stresses that~~Remarks the continuous trend to reduce the fields of policy area falling under unanimity voting in Council; takes note that, in this regard, taxation has not been part of this trend so far; stresses it has become increasingly evident over recent years that stronger coordination in the field of taxation is needed at EU and global levels in the light of economic developments and the new challenges created by digitalisation and globalisation; re~~gret~~marks, in this regard, ~~Hungary’s~~that the misuse of ~~its~~ veto right to block the Council negotiations on the Commission proposal of 22 December 2021 for a Council directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021)0823)for decisions requiring the unanimity, blocks negotiations and delays the adoption of important legislations needed in tax matters;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Recommends using~~Calls the Council to use the two general passerelle clauses for selected Treaty articles concerning the EU’s competences in the area of taxation~~; recalls that~~ such as article 113 and 115 TFEU; supports the Commission communication of 15 January 2019 entitled ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ (COM(2019)0008) and the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe both recommended moving from unanimity voting to QMV on tax matters.; highlights the need for stronger Parliamentary involvement in tax decision-making in the EU;

Amendment 41 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Recommends~~Suggests further analysis of using the two general passerelle clauses for selected Treaty articles concerning the EU’s competences in the area of taxation; recalls that the Commission communication of 15 January 2019 entitled ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ (COM(2019)0008) and the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe both recommended moving from unanimity voting to QMV on tax matters.

Amendment 42 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Pedro MARQUES, Aurore LALUCQ, Marek BELKA, Evelyn REGNER, Paul TANG, Joachim SCHUSTER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recommends using the two general passerelle clauses for selected Treaty articles concerning the EU’s competences in the area of taxation; recalls that the Commission communication of 15 January 2019 entitled ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ (COM(2019)0008) and the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe both recommended moving from unanimity voting to QMV on tax matters; highlights that using QMV on tax matters would contribute to a more effective framework for tackling tax evasion, avoidance and fraud concerns, but also open the path to a more efficient tax collection, benefitting both sovereigns and companies.

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recommends using the two general passerelle clauses for selected Treaty articles concerning the EU’s competences in the area of taxation; recalls that the Commission communication of 15 January 2019 entitled ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ (COM(2019)0008) and the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe both recommended moving from unanimity voting to QMV on tax matters; recalls that the EP resolution of 4 July 2022 entitled national vetoes to undermine the global tax deal (2022/2734(RSP)) recommended to Member States to consider the added value of transitioning to qualified majority voting.

Amendment 44 #

Markus FERBER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recommends using the two general passerelle clauses for selected Treaty articles concerning the EU’s competences in the area of taxation on issues that are of a technical nature or that implement international agreements that Member States have previously agreed to on international level; recalls that the Commission communication of 15 January 2019 entitled ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ (COM(2019)0008) and the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe both recommended moving from unanimity voting to QMV on tax matters.

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reminds that there are six special passerelle clauses provisioned in the treaties, namely in the areas of common foreign and security policy (Article 31(3) TEU), family law with cross-border implications (Article 81(3) TFEU), social policy (Article 153(2) TFEU), environmental policy (Article 192(2) TFEU), multiannual annual financial framework (Article 312(2) TFEU), and enhanced cooperation (Article 333 TFEU); notes that the legislator of primary EU Law provisioned these special clauses, signalizing therefore these policy dimensions as the main areas where passerelle clauses must be applied; recalls that taxation is not among such dimensions;

Amendment 46 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Pedro MARQUES, Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Joachim SCHUSTER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Recommends using the passerelle clauses following a sectorial approach and not for single files, as it would limit the benefit of lifting unanimity voting; proposes to trigger general passerelle clauses for largely integrated tax policies, such as Value Added Tax (VAT) in the area of indirect taxation, and/or for proposals aiming at implementing international agreements for which a large majority of Member States has participated into the negotiations;

Amendment 47 #

Markus FERBER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes that switching to qualified majority voting in relation to tax rates and the definition of the tax base, however, could lead to constitutional challenges in some Member States as such procedures might infringe on the budgetary prerogatives of national parliaments;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Urges to move from unanimity to QMV through the ordinary legislative procedure in tax matters;

Amendment 49 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Pedro MARQUES, Aurore LALUCQ, Marek BELKA, Paul TANG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Recalls that the common VAT system was introduced in 1992, 30 years ago, with the aim to ultimately establish a definitive VAT system in which the collection of VAT by EU established entities will take place in one country only; believes that the recourse to the passerelle clause would help delivering a definitive VAT system, more than 30 years after the temporary one was adopted;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that taxation is one of the few areas that remain subject to unanimity voting in Council; stresses that it has become increasingly evident over recent years that ~~stronger~~ coordination and greater responsibility and solidarity in the field of taxation is needed at EU and global levels in the light of economic developments and the new challenges created by digitalisation and globalisation; regrets, in this regard, Hungary’s misuse of its veto right to block the Council negotiations on the Commission proposal of 22 December 2021 for a Council directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021)0823);

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Recalls that the general passerelle clauses provisioned in Article 48(7) TEU first and second paragraphs "do not envisage the modification of Union competences, but only a change in the decision-making procedure, using existing powers"1a; _________________ 1a C. Callies, M. Ruffert and H.-J. Cremer, EUV/AEUV, Der Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtcharta, 2016, Article 48, mn. 12.

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. Recognizes that the specific procedure for the application of general passerelle clauses provisioned in Article 48(7) TEU comprehends a series of requirements that make its activation difficult; understands that the teleology of such provision is the need to create a significant limitation to the use of such clauses as they represent a de facto Treaty change, in the sense that they formally change the legislative procedure and the majority requirements provisioned in the treaties; takes duly note of such originary intention of the primary EU Law legislator;

Amendment 52 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Pedro MARQUES, Aurore LALUCQ, Marek BELKA, Evelyn REGNER, Paul TANG, Joachim SCHUSTER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. Encourages the transition towards QMV for other initiatives in the tax area which are necessary for the single market, most notably tax policies that have long been awaiting finalisation, such as the creation of a common corporate tax system in the EU.

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4 d. Notes that the use of general passerelle clauses is subject to political, academic and judiciary debate within the European Union; recalls, inter alia, the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 30 June 2009, specifically referring the general passerelle clauses, namely the part that states: "In so far as the general bridging procedure under Article 48.7(3) Lisbon TEU and the special bridging clause under Article 81.3(3) TFEU grant the national parliaments a right to make known their opposition, this is not a sufficient equivalent to the requirement of ratification. It is therefore necessary that the representative of the German government in the European Council or in the Council may only approve the draft decision if empowered to do so by the German Bundestag and the Bundesrat within a period yet to be determined in accordance with the purpose of Article 48.7(3) Lisbon TEU, by a law within the meaning of Article 23.1 second sentence of the Basic Law."2a _________________ 2a https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/ SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2009/06 /es20090630_2bve000208en.html

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that taxation is ~~one of the few areas that remain~~ subject to unanimity voting in Council; stresses that it has become increasingly evident over recent years that stronger coordination and cooperation in the field of taxation is needed at EU and global levels in the light of economic developments and the new challenges created by digitalisation and globalisation; regrets, in this regard, Hungary’s misuse of its veto right to block the Council negotiations on the Commission proposal of 22 December 2021 for a Council directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021)0823);

Amendment 8 #

Markus FERBER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

source: 739.751

2023/02/16 AFET 58 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Recital -A (new)

-A. Whereas a growing number of threats, including the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the continued rise of global authoritarianism, the assertive foreign policy of the People’s Republic of China, the climate emergency, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, are profoundly reshaping the EU’s immediate geopolitical environment; whereas the proliferation of new and emerging challenges requires the EU to be in a position to act in a swift and decisive manner in its external action; whereas the present de facto requirement of Council unanimity in all matters under Title V TEU severely hampers the Union’s ability to pursue this objective;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the use of passerelle clauses would immediately boost the efficiency of decision-making in the field of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and would be highly appropriate given the dramatic change to the European security environment as a result of the Russian war against Ukraine; whereas the use of QMV could also shield the EU from third-country pressure and divide- and-rule tactics;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the use of passerelle clauses ~~would immediately boost the efficiency of decision-making~~ in the field of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) ~~and~~ would ~~be highly appropriate given the dramatic change to the European security environment as a result of the Russian war against Ukraine~~continue the headlong rush of the European Union, which is increasingly superseding the will of its constituent states;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the use of passerelle clauses would immediately ~~boost~~enhance the efficiency of decision-making in the field of the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP) ~~and would be highly appropriate given~~; whereas doing so would allow the EU to respond more swiftly and decisively to the dramatic change to the European security environment as a result of the Russian ~~war~~Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the use of passerelle clauses would ~~immediately boost the efficienc~~jeopardise the unanimity of decision-making in the field of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and would be highly ~~appropriate~~dangerous given the dramatic change toin the E~~uropean security environment as a result of the Russian war against Ukraine~~U's foreign policy;

Amendment 14 #

Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Draft opinion
Recital B

Amendment 15 #

Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the use of passerelle clauses would immediately boost the efficiency of decision-making in the field of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and would be highly appropriate given the dramatic change to the European security environment as a result of ~~the~~ Russian’s war of aggression against Ukraine;

Amendment 16 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Nathalie LOISEAU, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the use of passerelle clauses ~~would immediatel~~may boost the efficiency of decision-making in the field of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and ~~would be highly~~may be appropriate given the dramatic change to the European security environment as a result of the Russian war against Ukraine;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. Whereas according to the Treaties, the activitation of the passerelle clauses always requires unanimity in the Council or European Council;

Amendment 18 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Nathalie LOISEAU, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. Whereas the geopolitical situation urges the EU to play a stronger and more coherent role in the international arena;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

B b. Whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe has shown that citizens want more efficient decision-making in the field of foreign and security policy through the use of QMV instead of unanimity;

Amendment 2 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Nathalie LOISEAU, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Recital -A (new)

-A. Whereas the unanimity rule is one of the major shortcomings of the EU, affecting its ability to act and making it unfit to tackle many of today's challenges; whereas a reform of the EU's decision- making should therefore be a priority for Member States to ensure that the EU can react more swiftly to future crises;

Amendment 20 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Nathalie LOISEAU, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)

B c. Whereas in light of a possible future enlargement of the Union, internal reform and abolishing unanimity becomes even more pressing;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

~~C. whereas the Czech Presidency of the Council sent a letter to the Member States with a list of specific policy areas that could be switched to qualified majority voting (QMV);~~deleted

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas the Presidency listed 11 concrete actions in foreign affairs, and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) related to the Articles 24, 27, 28, 29, 37, 39, 41, 42, and 44 TEU;

Amendment 23 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Nathalie LOISEAU, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Strongly believes that the Council’s unanimity-based decision- making process in matters falling under Title V TEU is deeply inadequate to effectively respond to emerging international challenges and crises and shape the EU’s pro-active and decisive external action on the global stage;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Calls for limiting the use of unanimity by using the passerelle clauses or by amending the Treaties;

Amendment 25 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Nathalie LOISEAU, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Regrets~~Deplores the fact that passerelle clauses have never been used in the field of the CFSP~~, even though~~ due to Member States’ lack of political will and contrary to the Parliament’s clear position on the matter; takes the view that emerging global challenges and the Union’s immediate geopolitical environment, notably the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine ~~has~~, clearly ~~called for~~necessitate the EU to adopt swifter and more efficient ~~and swift~~ decision- making processes;

Amendment 26 #

Bernhard ZIMNIOK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Regret~~Notes that passerelle clauses ~~have~~was never ~~been used~~used so far in the field of the CFSP, ~~even though~~and that this makes sense, as the sensitivity of the issues dealt with under CFSP and the Rupossi~~an war against Ukraine has clearly~~ble ramifications for individual European nations considered in the light of the sovereignty of the Member States and calleds for m~~ore efficient and swift decision-making~~easured and balanced responses and as such the EU Commission cannot encroach further of the sovereign rights of the Member States;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Regrets that passerelle clauses have never been used in the field of the CFSP, ~~even though the Russian war against Ukraine has~~despite repeated calls of the European Parliament and recommendations of citizens in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe, even though the Russian war against Ukraine and the corresponding increased geopolitical volatility and security instability in Europe clearly called for more efficient and swift decision-making;

Amendment 28 #

Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Regrets that passerelle clauses have never been used in the field of the CFSP, even though the ~~Russian war against Ukrain~~volatile international security environment of which the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is the most blatant example has clearly called for more efficient and swift decision-making;

Amendment 29 #

1. ~~Regrets~~Welcomes the fact that passerelle clauses have never been used in the field of the CFSP~~, even though the Russian war against~~; is concerned about the attempts to use the war in Ukraine has ~~clearly called for more efficient and swift decision-making~~a pretext for giving the EU all the prerogatives of a state, including in foreign and defence policy, by watering down the sovereignty of the Member States;

Amendment 3 #

Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the potential for fast, efficient and effective foreign policy, security and defence action, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty, has been hampered by the unanimity vote still required in the Council, and it has only been used in a very limited way over the past decade due to a lack of political will from the Member States;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Regret~~Notes that passerelle clauses have never been used in the field of the CFSP~~, even though the Russian war against Ukraine has clearly called for more efficient and swift decision-making~~ and continues to insist on unanimity in voting on CFSP issues;

Amendment 31 #

Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Regrets that passerelle clauses have never been used in the field of the CFSP, even though ~~the~~ Russian’s war of aggression against Ukraine has clearly called for more efficient and swift decision-making;

Amendment 32 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Regret~~Notes that passerelle clauses have never been used in the field of the CFSP, even though the Russian war against Ukraine has clearly called for more efficient and swift decision-making;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Acknowledges that passerelle clauses could improve the efficiency of the EU's decision making if activated; is however of the opinion that passerelle clauses have considerable flaws due to the requirement of unanimity for their activation and that Treaty change therefore is necessary;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Member States to demonstrate the political will to overcome the practice of imposing vetoes on matters related to the Union's external action for purposes of obtaining concessions in unrelated policy areas;

Amendment 35 #

Bernhard ZIMNIOK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

~~2. Urges the Council Presidency to follow up on the Czech initiative in an effective way by putting the use of the passerelle clauses in the field of the CFSP on the agenda;~~deleted

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

~~2. Urges the Council Presidency to follow up on the Czech initiative in an effective way by putting the use of the passerelle clauses in the field of the CFSP on the agenda;~~deleted

Amendment 37 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Frédérique RIES, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Nathalie LOISEAU, Ramona STRUGARIU, Javier NART, Klemen GROŠELJ, Salima YENBOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the Swedish Council Presidency to follow up on the ~~Czech initiative in an effective way by putting the use~~initiative of the Czech Council Presidency in an effective way, starting with the addition of the use of passerelle clauses in the field of ~~the~~ CFSP ~~on the agenda~~and relevant Commission external action to the agenda of the first Council meeting following the adoption of the present report;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the Swedish and upcoming Spanish and Belgian Council Presidencyies to follow up on the Czech initiative in an effective way by putting the use of the passerelle clauses in the field of the CFSP on the agenda and decide on its activation without delay and certainly by the end of this parliamentary term;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the Council Presidency to follow up on the Czech initiative in an effective way by putting the feasibility of the use of the passerelle clauses in ~~the field~~specific areas of the CFSP on the agenda;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas ~~the potential for fast, efficient and effective~~passerelle clauses in foreign policy, security and defence action, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty, hasve only been used in a very limited way over the past decade ~~due to a lack of political will from the Member States~~;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the Council Presidency ~~to follow up on the Czech initiative in an effective way by putting the use of the passerelle clauses~~not to call into question unanimous decision- making in the field of the CFSP ~~on the agenda~~;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that Article 48(7) and Article 31(3) TEU contain passerelle clauses that can enable switching from unanimity to qualified majority voting in areas that fall under Title V TEU; calls on the Member States to make full use of the passerelle clauses, in particular that contained in Article 31(3) TEU, without further delay, especially in priority areas;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to switch to QMV for decisions in all areas of the CFSP, starting within a year with priority areas such as the EU global human rights sanctions regime, restrictive measures and other instruments linked to the Russian war against Ukraine and interim steps in the enlargement process; stresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP);deleted

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to switch to QMV for decisions in all areas of the CFSP~~, starting within a year with priority areas such as the EU global human right~~ and relevant Commission areas of external action, starting within a year by activating the passerelle clauses for priority areas; insists that these priority areas include all decision-making regarding the Union’s sanctions regimes, ~~restrictive measures and other instruments link~~notably the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, as well as any measures related to the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and interim steps in the enlargement process; stresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP); , including restrictive measures, defence assistance, and financial and economic support, and interim steps in the EU accession process; urges Member States to give consideration to switching to QMV for relevant Council decisions pertaining to the common security and defence policy (CSDP) with the exception of the mutual defence clause in Article 42(7) TEU; encourages the consideration of the use of QMV in situations where passerelle clauses do not apply and for the creation and deployment of military missions under the CSDP that do not involve an executive mandate;

Amendment 44 #

Bernhard ZIMNIOK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to not switch to QMV for decisions in all areas of the CFSP, starting within a year with priority areas such as the EU global human rights sanctions regime, restrictive measures and other instruments linked to the Russian war against Ukraine and interim steps in the enlargement process; stresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP)any decisions in the areas of the CFSP;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to switch to QMV for decisions in all areas of the CFSP, starting within a year with priority areas such as the EU global human rights sanctions regime, restrictive measures and other instruments linked to the Russian war against Ukraine and interim steps in the enlargement process; sStresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP);

Amendment 46 #

Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Radosław SIKORSKI, Francisco José MILLÁN MON, Mariya GABRIEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to ~~switch to QMV for decisions in all areas of the CFSP, starting within a year with priority areas such as the EU global human rights sanctions regime, restrictive measures and other instruments lin~~continue working on building common threat perception and strategic culture which, alongside political will, are the kedy to ~~the Russian war against Ukraine and interim steps in the enlargement process~~more efficient and swift decision- making; stresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP);

Amendment 47 #

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to switch to QMV for decisions in all areas of the CFSP, starting within a year with priority areas such as the EU global human rights sanctions regime, restrictive measures and other instruments linked to the Russian war against Ukraine and interim steps in the enlargement process with the exception of the interim benchmarks related to chapters 23 and 24; stresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP);

Amendment 48 #

Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to switch to QMV for decisions in all areas of the CFSP, starting within a year with priority areas such as the EU global human rights sanctions regime (the EU Magnitsky Act), restrictive measures and other instruments linked to ~~the~~ Russian’s war of aggression against Ukraine and interim steps in the enlargement process; stresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP);

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to switch to QMV for, as a matter of priority, decisions in ~~all~~ areas of ~~the CFSP, starting within a year with priority areas such as~~CFSP concerning the EU global human rights sanctions regime, restrictive measures and other instruments linked to the Russian war against Ukraine ~~and interim steps in the enlargement process~~; stresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP);

Amendment 5 #

A. whereas the potential for fast, efficient and effective foreign policy, security and defence action, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty, has only been used in a very limited way over the past decade due to a lack of common threat perception, strategic culture and political will from the Member States;

Amendment 50 #

David LEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Member States to switch to QMV ~~for decisions in all areas of the CFSP~~, starting within a year with priority areas, for decisions in certain areas of the CFSP such as the EU global human rights sanctions regime, restrictive measures and other instruments linked to the Russian war against Ukraine and interim steps in the enlargement process; stresses that unanimity decisions should remain required for the creation and deployment of military missions or operations under the common security and defence policy (CSDP);

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Urges the Council to make greater use of the flexibility provided for in Article 31(2) TEU; calls on the European Council to explore the adoption of a greater number of decisions regarding the EU’s CFSP and relevant Commission external action as relating to the Union’s strategic interests and objectives under Article 22(1) TEU, whether concerning the relations of the Union with a specific country or region or thematic in approach, thereby enabling qualified majority voting under Article 31(2) TEU;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Encourages, pending the activation of the passerelle clauses and the full application of qualified majority voting in all areas of the CFSP and relevant Commission areas of external action, the use of constructive abstention in line with Article 31(1) TEU;

Amendment 53 #

3 c. Invites the Member States, where appropriate, to make greater use of enhanced cooperation in the fields of CFSP and relevant Commission external action and consider the adoption of decisions in line with the provisions for qualified majority voting set out in Article 333(1) TFEU and Article 330 TFEU;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3 d. Insists that any activation and implementation of passerelle clauses regarding Title V TEU may not delay, nor form a pretext for any lack of political will to facilitate, convening a convention by activating the procedure for revising the Treaties provided for in Article 48 TEU, with the objective of, inter alia, enshrining qualified majority voting for all matters relating to the EU’s CFSP and relevant Commission areas of external action in the Treaties;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Reiterates the need for strong parliamentary oversight of the CFSP and CSDP to ensure accountability and democratic legitimacy; call~~Stresses that the European Parliament must under no circumstances undermine the prerogatives onf the Council, Commission and European External Action Service to proactively engage with Parliament and keep it informed; commits itself to improving the efficiency of its oversight mechanisms, so as to potentially speed up decision-making within the Councilparliaments of the Member States by becoming a monitoring body for a supposed EU foreign policy, which would not be the desired outcome of its constituent states but would have its own rationale.

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Reiterates the need for strong parliamentary oversight of the CFSP ~~and CSDP~~, CSDP, and Commission external action to ensure accountability and democratic legitimacy; calls on the Council, Commission and European External Action Service to proactively engage with Parliament and keep it informed; commits itself to improving the efficiency of its oversight mechanisms, ~~so as to potentially~~in particular where doing so could contribute to speeding up decision-making within the Council.

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reiterates that the option for constructive abstention enshrined in Article 31 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) should be used more often to overcome potential deadlocks imposed by Member States.

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls for the “passerelle” clauses to be used also for those areas where responsibilities have been conferred upon the EU.

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the potential for fast, efficient and effective foreign policy, security and defence action, as set out in ~~the Lisbon Treaty, has only been used in a very limited way~~particular in Article 48(7) and Article 31(3) TEU, has yet to be ovper ~~the past decade~~ationalised due to a lack of political will from the Member States;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the potential for fast, efficient and effective foreign policy, security and defence action, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty, has ~~only~~ been used ~~in a very limited way over the past decade due to a lack of political will from~~to an appropriate extent and with due regard to the Member States' positions;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas two out of the eight passerelle clauses in the Treaty on European Union are applicable to foreign and security policy, notably the general passerelle clause in Article 48 (7) TEU and in Article 31 (3) TEU;

Amendment 9 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas passerelle clauses could be used immediately to switch from the requirement of unanimity to qualified majority voting in specific policy areas, with the exception of decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence;

source: 742.299

2023/03/17 AFCO 130 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

— Having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (A8-0386/2016),

Amendment 10 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. Whereas the allocation of Union financial resources to address the Covid- 19 and the consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine requires a mid-term review of the 2021-2027 MFF; Whereas the achievement of unanimity in Council on the mid-term review of the MFF might delay this process, to the detriment of citizens and businesses in need;

Amendment 100 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Commission, in light of the broader context of the climate and environmental emergency, to present a proposal for the activation of the special passerelle clause provided for in Article 192(2)(2) to move to OLP for taxation matters with an environmental dimension;deleted

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Commission, in light of the broader context of the climate and environmental ~~emergency~~objectives set out by the European Green Deal, to present a proposal for the activation of the special passerelle clause provided for in Article 192(2)(2) to move to OLP for taxation matters with an environmental dimension;

Amendment 102 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Stresses that the treaty provisions governing the adoption and the review of the MFF Regulation entail long and cumbersome negotiations that slow down the adoption and the allocation of the Union budget; Calls on the European Council to adopt a decision in line with the sector-specific passerelle clause foreseen in Article 312(2)(2) TFEU to allow Council to adopt the Multiannual Financial Framework by QMV in view of the 2024 mid-term review;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls on the European Council to adopt a decision under Article 31(3) TEU establishing that Union positions on human rights in multilateral forums (Article 29 TEU), international agreements in the area of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) (Article 37 TEU) and common security and defence policy (CSDP) civilian missions (Articles 42(4) and 43 TEU) are to be taken by QMV;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16 b. Calls on the European Council to activate the general passerelle clauses to switch to QMV and OLP in policies related to largely harmonised tax policies, particularly in the value added tax (VAT) taxation (Article 113 TFEU), and for all acts which directly affect the functioning of the internal market (Article 115 TFEU), in particular those related to previously agreed international agreements;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16 c. Calls on the European Council to authorize the use of a general passerelle clause (Article 48(7) TEU) on measures concerning non-discrimination and for the adoption of recommendations on social security and social protection of workers.

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11

~~Medium-term priority areas (by the end of 2024 or the current Commission’s mandate)~~deleted

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11

~~Medium-term priority areas (by the end of 2024 or the current Commission’s mandate)~~deleted

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls on the European Council to adopt a decision under Article 31(3) TEU establishing that Union positions on human rights in multilateral forums (Article 29 TEU), international agreements in the area of CFSP (Article 37 TEU) and CSDP civilian missions (Articles 42(4) and 43 TEU) are to be taken by QMV;deleted

Amendment 109 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas passerelle clauses ~~do not change~~cannot lead to an increase in nor to a modification of EU competences, but ~~only~~they rather entail the streamlining of decision- making ~~rul~~procedures, allowing a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) and/or from special legislative procedures to the ordinary legislative procedure (OLP) in specific cases;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 111 #

Helmut SCHOLZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls on the European Council to adopt a decision under Article 31(3) TEU establishing that Union positions on human rights in multilateral forums (Article 29 TEU), international agreements in the area of CFSP (Article 37 TEU) ~~and CSDP civilian missions (Articles 42(4) and 43 TEU)~~ are to be taken by QMV;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls on the European Council to activate the general passerelle clauses to switch to QMV and OLP in policies related to largely harmonised tax policies, particularly in the VAT taxation (Article 113 TFEU), and for all acts which directly affect the functioning of the internal market (Article 115 TFEU), in particular those related to previously agreed international agreements;deleted

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 116 #

Giuliano PISAPIA, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Urges the European Council to activate passerelle clauses to move to QMV for decisions in all areas of common foreign and security policy (CFSP), except for the creation of military missions or operations with an executive mandate under the common security and defence policy (CSDP), pending the entry into force of relevant Treaty changes;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to submit and adopt a decision to include violence against women and girls and other forms of gender-based violence as one of the areas of crime defined in Article 83(1) TFEU;1a _________________ 1a Resolution of 28 November 2019 on the EU’s accession to the Istanbul Convention and other measures to combat gender-based violence

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 12

~~Long-term priority areas (as soon as possible in the next legislative term)~~deleted

Amendment 119 #

Laura HUHTASAARI, Gunnar BECK, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 12

~~Long~~Medium-term priority areas (as soon as possible in the next legislative term)

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas passerelle clauses ~~do not change EU competences but only decision-making rules, allowing~~are a serious attempt to distort EU competences and to move towards a movre f~~rom unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) and/or from special legislative procedures to the ordinary legislative procedure (OLP) in specific case~~ederalist EU without necessary democratic checks and balances i.e. changes of treaties and referendums;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 123 #

Helmut SCHOLZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Urges the European Council to activate passerelle clauses to move to QMV for decisions in all areas of CFSP, except for the creation of military missions or operations with an executive mandate under the CSDP, pending the entry into force of relevant Treaty changes; Stresses that future treaty changes should not remove such an excemption of military missions or operations with an executive mandate under the CSDP;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Urges the European Council to decide upon setting up a Convention for Treaty reform at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that citizens’ expectations are met and that the outcome of the Conference on the Future of Europe are implemented as soon as possible.

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Urges the European Council or the Council to activate passerelle clauses to move to QMV and OLP for decisions in all possible areas affecting the democratic functioning of the Union, including the elections to the European Parliament;

Amendment 126 #

Helmut SCHOLZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Urges the European Council to activate passerelle clauses to move to QMV for all decisions related to a reform of the EU asylum system;

Amendment 127 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Reiterate its call on the European Council8to adopt a decision in line with the sector-specific passerelle clause provided for in Article 312(2)(2) TFEU in order to allow the Council to adopt the multiannual financial framework through QMV instead of unanimity; _________________ 8 Resolution of 14 November 2018 on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021- 2027 — Parliament’s position with a view to an agreement (OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 179).deleted

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Reiterate its call on the European Council8to a~~dopt a decision in line with~~ctivatethe sector-specific passerelle clause ~~provided for~~foreseenin Article 312(2)(2) TFEU ~~in order to allow theCouncil to adopt them~~also for the adoption byCouncil of the nextMultiannual fFinancial fFramework through QMV instead of unanimity; _________________ 8 Resolution of 14 November 2018 on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021- 2027 — Parliament’s position with a view to an agreement (OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 179).

Amendment 129 #

Giuliano PISAPIA, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20 a. Calls on the European Council to activate the general passerelle clauses to allow measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (Article 19 TFEU) to be approved by OLP and QMV;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas general passerelle clauses are mechanisms that were introduced with the aim of making decision-making in the EU more flexible, by changing from unanimity to QMV and to introduce the ordinary legislative procedure where the Treaties provide for a special legislative procedure;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

~~21. Invites the Council and the Commission to engage in discussions with Parliament in line with the timeline above;~~deleted

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

C b. whereas the use of general passerelle must be unanimously authorised by the European Council and European Parliament’s consent of its component members is required; whereas national parliaments can use their prerogative to veto the decision of the European Council authorising the change in voting rules or in the type of legislative procedure;

Amendment 15 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

C c. whereas in addition to the general passerelle clauses, there are six special passerelle clauses that are aimed at modifying decision-making in the same way as general passerelles but only in certain sub-areas of a specific policy field in which qualified majority voting or the ordinary legislative procedure do not apply and introduces less stringent conditions;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas passerelle clauses ~~were already used~~have been used only once in 2004 to move to QMV and co-decision for specific decisions on visas, asylum, migration and free movement of persons3; whereas no passerelle clause has been activated since then entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; _________________ 3 Council decision 2004/927 providing for certain areas covered by Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be governed by the procedure laid down in Article 251 of that Treaty (OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 4).

Amendment 17 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the ~~conc~~European Parliament in its resolustions of ~~the Conference on the Future of Europe~~9 June 2022 on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties proposed to move from unanimity to QMV for activating passarelle clauses in order to improve the EU’s decision- making procedures and ensure the EU’s capability to act rapidly and effectively~~4; _________________ 4 Proposal 39, Conference on the Future of Europe, ‘Report on the Final Outcome’, May 2022.~~;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the Treaties foresee that the activation of passerelle clauses ~~still~~ requires unanimity in the Council or the European Council;

Amendment 19 #

João PIMENTA LOPES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Considers that the unanimity rule puts all Member States on an equal footing in decision-making, by acting as a guarantee that no decision will be imposed against the interests of a particular State or group of States and, thus, as an important safeguard for the interests of countries with less weight in current decision-making;

Amendment 2 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 b (new)

— Having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (A8-0390/2016)

Amendment 20 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the Union must be ~~able~~equipped with all necessary means to respond rapidly and effectively to the unprecedented challenges it is facing, instead of relying on emergency procedures requiring unanimity voting in Council with no formal involvement of Parliament in the negotiations ; regrets that, even though the Union has proven in specific cases to be able to act decisively, the unanimity voting requirement has often blocked EU action in different areas;

Amendment 21 #

Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gunnar BECK, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the Union must be able to respond rapidly and effectively to the unprecedented challenges it is facing; regrets that, even though the Union has proven in specific cases to be able to act decisively, the unanimity voting requirement has often blocked EU action in different areasreturn to the intergovernmental cooperation model and preserve the unanimity voting requirement; regrets that willingness of some Member States to abide by the EU treaties and to maintain their sovereignty is being used as a scapegoat for the EU's internal problems to further a federalist agenda;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the Union must be able to respond rapidly and effectively to the unprecedented challenges it is facing~~; regret~~ within its competences; notes that, even though the Union has proven in specific cases to be able to act decisively, the unanimity voting requirement has ~~often~~sometimes blocked EU action in different areas;

Amendment 23 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

~~2. Considers it urgent, therefore, to go beyond unanimity and move as soon as possible to QMV and OLP in key policy fields in order to improve the EU’s capacity to act;~~deleted

Amendment 24 #

Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gunnar BECK, Gilles LEBRETON, Jaak MADISON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers it urgent, therefore, to ~~go beyond~~maintain unanimity and ~~move as soon as possible to~~reject QMV and OLP in key policy fields in order to improve the EU’s c~~apac~~onsensus and ability to act;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers it urgent, therefore, to go beyond unanimity and move as soon as possible to QMV and OLP in ~~key policy fields in~~ order to improve the EU’s capacity to act;

Amendment 26 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on Council to abandon a culture of unaminity in policy fields where QMV is already possible;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes~~Highlights that the use of the “untapped potential” of the Lisbon Treaty has often been instrumentalised to postpone an inclusive and constructive discussion on Treaty change, and cannot be further invoked as an alternative or a preliminary step ahead of Treaty revisions; Regrets, however, that such untapped potential has not been exploited satisfactorily; Welcomes in this respect the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe;, and reiterates its commitment to following them up effectively ~~and its c~~through its proposall for amending the Treaties ~~to be amended urgently5~~5;Calls again on the Council to quickly forward this proposal to the European Council, and calls as well on the Commission to take its full responsibility on this matter pursuant to Article 48(2) TEU; _________________ 5 Resolution of 9 June 2022 on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties.

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes~~Notes the the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe; reiterates its commitment to following them up effectively and its call for the Treaties to be amended urgently5; _________________ 5 Resolution of 9 June 2022 on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties.

Amendment 29 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe; reiterates its commitment to following them up effectively and its call for the Treaties to be amended urgently5; calls on Council to follow suit without further delay; _________________ 5 Resolution of 9 June 2022 on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties.

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the unanimity requirement in the Council continues to be one of the biggest impediments in reaching rapid and effective EU decision- making processes; whereas some Member States have repeatedly used their right to veto to block or delay decisions, notably in order to raise concerns o~~n other unrelated issue~~r even exert undue pressure on other unrelated issues; whereas this raises, in some cases, serious concerns related to the full respect of the principle of sincere cooperation; whereas this has affected the Union’s ability to act, notably to tackle crisis situations, and pursue its objectives in several areas;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe; reiterates its commitment to following ~~them~~ up effectively ~~and its~~based on the citizens' recommendations and their call for the Treaties to be amended urgently5; _________________ 5 Resolution of 9 June 2022 on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties.

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that~~, if approved,~~ Treaty changes extending QMV to areas where unanimity is currently required ~~would require time before coming into force~~based on their preparation by a convention within an ordinary treaty revision procedure would require time before coming into force, while, under the current Treaties, passerelle clauses can be activated immediately and therefore provide an important tool to enhance the effectiveness of decision-making in Council and thus ultimately to meaningfully improve the EU‘s ability to act;

Amendment 32 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines th~~at, if approved,~~e necessity to act urgently since Treaty changes extending QMV to areas where unanimity is currently required ~~would requir~~take time before coming into force;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that, ~~if approved~~while urgent, Treaty changes extending QMV to areas where unanimity is currently required would require time before coming into force;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

~~5. Stresses that, under the current Treaties, passerelle clauses can be activated immediately but only following a vote by unanimity in the Council or European Council;~~deleted

Amendment 35 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that, under the current Treaties, passerelle clauses can be activated immediately but only following a vote by unanimity in the Council or European Council; stresses that passerelle clauses should immediately be activated as a first step to increase the ability of the European Union to act; underlines that the activation of passerelle clauses cannot substitute the necessary Treaty reform to move from unanimiy to majority decision- making;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Stresses that, under the current Treaties, passerelle clauses can be activated immediately but only following a vote by unanimity in the~~Highlights however that the activation of passerelle clauses requires paradoxically an unanimous vote in Council or in the European Council;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

~~6. Suggests that the activation of passerelle clauses should be possible through reinforced QMV and calls for the Treaties to be changed to allow for this;~~deleted

Amendment 38 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Max ORVILLE, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Suggests that the activation of passerelle clauses should be possible through ~~reinforced~~ QMV and calls for the Treaties to be changed to allow for this;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the fact that, in recent discussions in the Council, a majority of Member States have expressed their willingness to use passerelle clauses in certain fields and on a case-by-case basis; regrets that, unfortunately, no formal decision on their activation has yet been taken; Recalls that, in case of prolonged stalemate, the clause of enhanced cooperation should also be activated;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the unanimity requirement in the Council continues to be one of the biggest impediments in EU decision- making processes; whereas some Member States have used their right to veto to block or delay decisions in order to raise concerns on other unrelated issues; whereas despite the Treaties providing for qualified majority voting in many policy fields, Council continues to employ a culture of unaminity in these fields, oftentimes preventing ambitious policy outcomes;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that, in recent discussions in the Council, a majority of Member States have expressed their willingness to use passerelle clauses in certain fields and on a case-by-case basis; ~~regrets that, unfortunately, no formal decision on their activation has yet been taken;~~

Amendment 41 #