4 Amendments of Isabelle THOMAS related to 2014/2245(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the importance of the investment plan presented by the Commission as a first step in offsetting the deficit in public and private investment in the EU; recalls, in this connection, that the principle of additionality is to be respected, and favourable fiscal treatment ensured for both direct and indirect national contributionshowever, that the Juncker plan represents only EUR 100 billion in potential investments per year when, according to the Commission, the European Union has an investment gap of at least EUR 300 billion per year; stresses that the fall in investments that followed the economic crisis has been particularly marked in the least wealthy regions, notably at the edges of the European Union; highlights, therefore, the need to restore additional room for manoeuvre for investment in the EU budget and in Member States’ budgets; considers it necessary, to this end, to exclude contributions to the Union budget and co-financing, as well as contributions to projects financed by EU programmes and the European Fund for Strategic Investment, from the calculation of investment spending;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the fact that the Council, the Commission and Parliament have arrived at an agreement to reduce the level of unpaid bills, and looks forward to receiving; points out that it is imperative that the Commission’ submit its proposal for a payment plan as soon as possible, and in any event before the presentation of the 2016 draft budget;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates its strong criticism of the measures linking the effectiveness of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) to sound economic governancecompliance with the provisions of the Stability Pact; stresses that macro-conditionality would impose sanctions on regions for political decisions that fall outside their remit, and that this pro-cyclical arrangement would have the effect of punishing regions that are by definition facing economic difficulties, and as a result would simply aggravate the public finance situation in the States and regions subject to sanctions;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its deep conviction that a genuine revision ofConsiders it vital for the revision of Council Regulation No 1311/2013 on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) byto be introduced in 2016, at the latest, would be the ideal opportunity to revisit the MFF Regulation to make sure that it addresses the persistent problem of payment appropriations and the possible impact on payments of the delayed implementation of operational programmeand for it to give priority to addressing the budgetary consequences of delays in implementing the structural funds, the problem of youth unemployment in Europe, the financing of the EFSI and new proposals ion the area of cohesion policy.Union’s own resources;