Activities of Alain LAMASSOURE related to 2018/2093(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on differentiated integration
Amendments (15)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Requests a strengthened role for the European Parliament and the national parliaments in the renewed economic governance framework to reinforce democratic accountability;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the proposal to integrate the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the legal framework of the Union.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Welcomes and strongly encourages the initiative from some Member States to consider joining the Banking Union.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that differentiated integration should always take place within the Treaty provisions, maintain the unity of EU institutions and should not lead to the creation of parallel institutional arrangements; reminds, but instead allow specific bodies to be established where appropriate, without prejudice to the competences and role of the EU institutions; points out that flexibility and adaptation to national, regional or local specificities can and should also be ensured via provisions in secondary law;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that democracy should never be the price to pay for differentiation and that differentiated integration should not lead to more complex decision-making processes that would undermine the democratic accountability of Union institutions;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Demands that opt-outs from the Treaty provisions should not be permissible, as they lead to negative differentiation in Union primary law and distort the homogeneity of Union law; considers, however, that given transitional periods could be authorised, on a case-by-case basis, for candidate countries, as has happened in the past
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Insists that differentiation should not be permissible when it comes to the respect of existing fundamental rights and values and in policy areas where non- participating Member States could create negative externalities, such as economic and social dumping; demands that any potentialthe centrifugal effects, including in the long run, ar be carefully examined by the Commission when it submits a proposal for enhanced cooperation is proposed;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Suggests, when competences attribution allows it, permitting regions to participate in cases of enhanced cooperation; also proposes opening enhanced cooperation to the participation of candidate countriesand other EU local authorities directly concerned to participate in cases of enhanced cooperation;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Suggests developing tools within the Union law and budget for testing trans- border initiatives within the EU on issues that represent an EU-wide interest that could eventually turn into legislative proposals or cases of enhanced cooperation;