32 Amendments of Elisa FERREIRA related to 2013/2277(INI)
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the economic situation and recent developments in some Member States have compromised the quality oserious and previously unforeseen negative impacts on f employment, social protection and health and safety standards;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas in October 2010 Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Nicholas Sarkozy met at Deauville, prior to a EU summit, and announced that sovereign bailouts from the European Stability Mechanism would require that losses be imposed on private creditors; whereas this triggered market speculation against the euro that dramatically aggravated yields demanded from Portuguese sovereign debt, forcing Portugal to request a bailout.
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the Task Force for Greece was initially set up to strengthen the capacity of the Greek administration to design and implement structural reforms to improve the functioning of the economy and society and create the conditions for sustained recovery and job creation, as well as to speed up the absorption of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in Greece and to provide critical resources to finance investment;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that tensions on the Portuguese sovereign bonds market only started in mid April 2010, that is five months after Greek sovereign bonds rates had started increasing; notes that this timing coincides with the Greek government request for financial assistance on 23rd April 2010; deplores the lack of immediate reaction from the European Council and the ECB to the situation developing on financial markets in the first months of 2010; Is of the opinion that this inaction up to May 2010 contributed to the speculative pressure on Greek bonds spilling over to Portuguese bonds.
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that, the EU-IMF assistance programme followed the severe impact on the Portuguese economy of the coordinated nationally based European fiscal-stimulus response to the global financial crisis which cause, in a short time, an increase in the fiscal deficit and debt levels; aggressive behaviour of financial markets, quickly drove up Portugal's refinancing costs in capital markets to unsustainable levels; notes in this context that, immediately before the crisis, in 2007, Portugal's growth rate reached 2.4%, its fiscal deficit 3.1%, its debt level 62.7% and its current account deficit 10.2% of GDP, with the unemployment rate standing at 8.1%;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that, at the beginning ofbefore the EU- IMF assistance programme, the Irish economy had just suffered a banking crisis of unprecedented dimensions, causing Irish GDP to fall by 6.3% in 2009 (1.1% in 2010) from a positive growth level of 5% of GDP in 2007, unemployment to increase from 4.7% in 2007 to 13.7% in 2010 and - its most detrimental impact - the government balance of payments to experience a deficit in 2010 of 30.6%, down from a surplus in 2007 (0.2%); further notes in the decade prior to the assistance programme that the Irish economy experienced a prolonged period of negative real interest rates;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes that the initial agreement between the Portuguese authorities on the one side and the EU and IMF on the other was adopted on 17 May 2011 in the relevant MoUs containing the policy conditionality for EU-IMF financial assistance; further notes that the Portuguese programme has since been reviewed regularly, leading to the combined eighth and ninth quarterly reviews of Portugal's economic adjustment programme;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Acknowledges, however, that the immense challenge the Troika faced leading to the crisis was unique as a result of the poor state of regulation of financial services, large macroeconomic imbalances, and the fact that a number of instruments such asmost traditional macroeconomic instruments such as budgetary policies and external devaluation were not available due to the constraints ofand limitations of the monetary union; notes, moreover, that time was running out, legal obstacles had to be cleared, fear of a melt-down of the euro area was palpable, political agreements had to be reached, the world economy was in a downturn, and a number of countries which were intended to contribute financial support had seen their own public and private debt increase in alarming ways;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Regrets the lack of transparency in the MoU negotiations; notes the necessity to evaluate whether fregrets that normal documents were not clearly communicated in due time to the national parliaments and the European Parliament neither adequately discussed with social partners; further notes the possibleextremely negative impact of such practices on citizens’' rights and ,the political situation within the countries concerned and trust of citizens on democracy and on the European Union project;
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Regrets the absence of proposals within the MoUs to fight corruption, fraud, party clientelism and influence peddling through budget transparency, regulation of conflict of interests in decision-making, mechanisms for civic participation, tighter rules and supervision of party funding, fair taxation and effective tax collection;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Deplores that recommendations contained in MoUs mark a departure from and are in clear contradiction withe thinkinge objectives initiated by the Lisbon strategy and the Europe 2020 strategies); regrets that massive cuts in public investment did not exempt strategic investment in education and qualification, scientific research and innovation; points out however that this can be partly explained, even if not fully justified, by the fact that programmes had to be implemented under considerable time pressure in a difficult political environment; regrets however, that correction was not made in the recommendations since 2010, in spite of the several revisions made.
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Deplores that countries under such weak negotiating conditions should be forced to privatize major sectors of their economy, including utilities and quasy monopolies irrespective of the strategic character of such sectors, and of the actual institutional conditions for adequate supervision and regulation; electricity, telecommunications, communications, major infrastructures, banks, insurance companies, water and sewage became good bargains for powerful not necessarily democratic and liberal players.
Amendment 377 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Deplores that since 2008 the income distribution inequality has grown above average in the four countries and that cuts in social benefits and rising unemployment are raising poverty levels; points out the devastating impact on citizens trust and life quality of massive cuts in pensions; deplores that major and unprecedented tax increases played a major role in the adjustment programmes with major impact on the middle class and small and medium enterprises.
Amendment 398 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points to the unacceptable level of unemployment, long term unemployment and youth unemployment in particular in the four Member States under assistance programmes; points especially to the sharp increase in youth unemployment in Greece, Cyprus and Portugal;
Amendment 409 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Regrets that forced migration from the periphery and these four countries in particular ended up in massive brain drain with the loss of national and European investment made over more than a decade in educating and training a new generation; recalls that education, training and a strong scientific and technological background were systematically identified as the critical path for the structural catching up of these economies.
Amendment 430 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the end of the programme for Ireland and the expected end of the programme for Portugal; regrets the lack ofslower progress in Greece despite unprecedented reforms having been undertaken;
Amendment 435 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Welcomes the fact that both Ireland and Portugal achieved their first debt issues in January 2014 since the beginning of their adjustment programme; believes that sustainable growth and job creation are necessary in order to secure a lasting return to market financing for these countries;
Amendment 475 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that financial assistance achieved in the short run the avoidance of a disorderly default on sovereign debt that would have had extremely severe economic and social consequences, as well as spill-over effects for other countries of an incalculable magnitude, and possibly the forced exit of countries from the euro area; further notes that there is no guarantee this will be avoided in the long run; also notes that the financial assistance and adjustment programme in Greece have not prevented an orderly default nor contagion of the crisis to other Member States; deplores the economic and social downturn spiral which became evident when the fiscal and macroeconomic corrections were put into place;
Amendment 490 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes that from the onset the Troika published comprehensive documents on the diagnosis, the strategy to overcome the problems, a set of policy measures elaborated together with the national government concerned, and economic forecasts, all of which are updated on a regular basis; Regrets, however, that it has always been impossible to adequate discuss the reasons for higher than expected economic and social impact of measures, alternative measures, the huge and persistent deviations of achieved values versus forecasts as well as the assumptions of such forecast
Amendment 495 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Deplores however the sometimes over- optimistic assumptions made by the Troika, especially as far as growth and unemployment is concerned, but also the insufficient recognition of political resistance to change in some Member States; deplores the fact that this also affected the Troika’'s analysis of the interplay between fiscal consolidation and growth; notes that as a result fiscal targets could not be fulfilled;
Amendment 518 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Notes that the most relevant instrument to stabilize sovereign debt was a consequence not of the adjustment programmes but rather of the non- conventional measures by the ECB, in particular, the announcements during the summer of 2012.
Amendment 550 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that too little attention has been given to alleviating the negative impact of adjustment strategies in the programme countries or correcting their massive non forecasted recessionary impacts;
Amendment 595 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the Troika’'s mandate has been perceived as being unclear and ,lacking transparency and democratic oversight;
Amendment 639 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Takes note of the dual role of the Commission in the Troika as both an agent of Member States and an EU institution; warns that conflicts of interests may therefore exist within the Commission between its role in the Troika and its responsibility as a guardian of the Treaties, especially in policies such as competition and state aid,state aid and respect for the Treaty of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 682 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Points to the generally weak democratic accountability of the Troika in programme countries at national level; notes however that this democratic accountability varies between countries, depending also on the will of national executives;
Amendment 707 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 b (new)
Paragraph 37 b (new)
37b. Calls for the current troïka setting to be discontinued;
Amendment 774 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Stresses that the ESM should evolve towards Community-method management as provided for in the ESM Treaty andDemands the ESM to be immediately integrated in the European Union's legal framework; demands that the ESM beis made accountable to the European Parliament including with respect to decisions to grant financial assistance, in order to exert democratic accountability over the ESM; calls for the decision to disburse loan tranches to member state under assistance to be subject to co- decision rules; calls for the ESM to be accountable to both the European Parliament and the European Council; calls for the ESM to be further developed, with increased lending and borrowing capacities and joint and several guaranties from the euro area member states.
Amendment 798 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Calls for thea real involvement of social partners in the design and implementation of adjustment programmes, current and future; Deplores the troika's refusal to accept the agreement reached by social partners in Portugal on the minimum wage; Calls for any assistance mechanism of the European Union to actively seek the conclusion of social agreements by social partners, and to respect them once concluded ;
Amendment 826 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Calls for memoranda to be revised within the frame of the community legislation so as to promote credible and sustainable consolidation strategy, and serve the objectives of the Union growth strategy and stated social cohesion and employment objectives; demands in particular that fiscal adjustment timeframes are prolonged; calls for revised memoranda to restore the principles of upward convergence and cohesion on which the EU was founded, as well as the principles contained in the Charter of fundamental right of the European Union;
Amendment 827 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 b (new)
Paragraph 42 b (new)
42b. Strongly reject the Commission proposal for bilateral contractual arrangements, which represents the extension of the troika system to all member states of the euro area;