Activities of Reimer BÖGE related to 2014/2005(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
MFF negotiations 2014-2020: lessons to be learned and the way forward (short presentation)
Amendments (14)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the EU annual budget will continue to represent approximately 1 % of EU GNI in the coming years, well below the own-resources ceiling of 1.29 % of EU GNI for commitments and 1.23% of EU GNI for payments, as decided in 1992; set in 20101 a; __________________ 1a Downward adaptation of the own- resources ceilings of 1.31 % and 1.24 % of EU GNI respectively as decided by the European Council in 2007 (OJ L 163, 23.06.2007, p. 17) following the decision to apply FISIM for own resources purposes, OJ C 121, 19.04.2011, p. 41.
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas, in adherence to the guiding principle 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed', Parliament gave its consent to the new MFF Regulation and approved the new Interinstitutional Agreement on 19 November 2013, following the Council’s fulfilment of the conditions set out in Parliament’s resolution of 3 July 2013, including the adoption of an additional EUR 11.2 bn in payments for 2013;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Strongly regrets the fact that both the procedure leading up to the agreement on the MFF 2014-2020 and the political debate surrounding these negotiations demonstrated a clear lack of shared vision of the EU institutions as regards the EU budget and fell short of Parliament’s increased role and prerogatives, as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon; considers it of the utmost importance, therefore, that this report draw the necessary political and institutional lessons, which can serve as a basis for the preparation of future negotiations, notably in relation to the post- electoral revision of the MFF, due to be launched by the Commission before the end of 2016;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the fiscal consolidation that Member States are currently facing did not facilitatmade a more ambitious agreement on the MFF 2014- 2020 infeasible; deeply regrets, however, the fact that, as a result of these negotiations, the role of the EU budget as an important and common policy instrument for overcoming the current economic and social crisis and coordinating and enhancing national efforts to regain growth and generate employment in the whole EU has been largely disregarded;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is deeply concerned at 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 8574 % of revenues stem from national contributions based on GNI instead of genuine own resources; 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 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that this logic also prevailed in the way the MFF agreement was struck by the European Council on 8 February 2013; considers it regrettable that this was reflected in the fact that the national allocations, especially from the two big blocks agriculture and cohesion policy, were determined at that moment; deplores, in particular, the list of special allocations and ‘gifts’ granted in the course of negotiations between Heads of State and Government, which are not based on objective and verifiable criteria, but rather reflect the bargaining power of Member States, trying to secure their national interests and maximise their net returns; denounces the lack of transparency in striking this agreement and the reluctance of Council and Commission to provide Parliament with all relevant documents;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that Parliament was the first EU institution to present its vision on the MFF 2014-2020 and the need to reform the financing of the EU budget, with the report of its specialised SURE Committee, in June 2011; believes that the early positioning helped to keep Parliament united throughout the subsequent negotiating process; considers further that this report provided effective guidance for the Commission in drafting its own proposals on the MFF and own resources and appreciates the regular political dialogue that was established between the two institutions at all stages of the preparation of this report; points to the obvious advantages for Parliament of an early preparation for any negotiations on the MFF;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that genuine negotiations on the MFF Regulation and the IIA were launched only in Marchy 2013, whileith Council negotiators not having a formal negotiating mandate but instead considereding the MFF agreement by the European Council as the only point of reference, with no margin for any discussion; stresses that this attitude lednot only led to an unnecessary loss of time but also to the unacceptable attempt by Council to exclude certain topics from the negotiations, forcing Parliament to struggle, including at the highest political level, in order to engage in ‘codecision type’ negotiations on every article of the MFF Regulation / IIA;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Points to the tremendous amount of information exchange and coordination required inside Parliament to ensure consistency in the parallel negotiations of the MFF and the legislative bases of over 60 multiannual programmes; is convinced that a better deal could have been struck by Parliament if the procedures had been disentangled because there would have been less pressure on the MFF negotiators to conclude in order to leave the legislative committees with sufficient time to finish their negotiations; finds, therefore, that different options of adjusting the duration of both the MFF and the multiannual programmes should be explored to limit the coordination effort for the future;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Declares its intention to ensure that all new provisions that were successfully incorporated into the MFF Regulation and IIA are utilised in full in the annual budgetary procedure; expects that the Council will not attempt to impose restricted interpretations of these provisions, especially on the nature and scope of all special instruments, but that it will instead act responsibly and approve the necessary appropriations to cover both its previous commitments and unforeseen expenditure even if the unprecedented situation occurs in which the annual MFF ceilings need to be exceeded;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Places particular emphasis on the new rules on flexibility that should allow maximum use of the respective MFF ceilings for commitments and payments; stresses that the practice of previous financial frameworks whereby the annual EU budget remained far below the MFF ceilings, particularly in payment appropriations, can no longer be sustained; given that the accumulated RALs have reached a critical level that might eventually lead the EU budget into structural deficit which would clearly offend against the provisions of the Treaty (Articles 310 and 323 TFEU);
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that the next Commission, which will come into office after the 2014 European elections, is due to launch a compulsory review and revision of the MFF 2014-2020 by the end of 2016; underlines the fact that this post-electoral MFF review/revision clause was one of Parliament’s key demands in the MFF negotiations, based on the need to allow the next Commission and Parliament to reassess the EU’s political priorities, hence endowing the MFF with renewed democratic legitimacy; stresses the need for the next Parliament to identifyreflect in good time on its political priorities, i.e. to identify areas for which more investments will be deemed necessary in the second half of the next MFF as well as areas from which funds can be redeployed for there is no proven added value of EU spending;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that the Commission proposals for the MFF revision should take full account of the latest macroeconomic projections and include a thorough assessment of the operation of all special instruments, in particular the global margins in commitments and payments; recalls that this process will not have a downward impact on any pre-allocated national envelopes; in this context, expects the Commission to provide Parliament and Council with identical and consistent data on figures and estimates in order to avoid misunderstandings in the negotiations with regard to the basis of discussion;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Expresses its firm conviction that any new fiscal capacity or budget developed specifically for eurozone Member States whose fiscal functions are not covered by the MFF must be developed within the Union framework and must be subject to proper democratic scrutiny and accountability through the existing institutions;