21 Amendments of Sophie MONTEL related to 2014/2248(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that for the Union cannoto meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and tor address current and new challenges effectively, it needs to be granted a budget that is commensurate with the mission it is called on to accomplish; considers that the current level of the EU budget, which corresponds to 1 % of the EU-28 GDP, is not sufficient to achieve these goalsexcessive;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) proposes the principle of a forced reduction in the EU budget of 3% each year;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 2 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 2 (new)
(2) proposes the principle of a reduction in the EU wage bill of 3% per year;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 3 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 3 (new)
(3) proposes the principle of a reduction in operating expenditure of 4% per year;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 4 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 4 (new)
(4) proposes the principle of an annual assessment of the various departments within each EU body, so as to make it possible to cut the wage bill of departments to which too many resources are allocated;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 5 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 5 (new)
(5) takes the view that the various reforms to the EU’s economic and budgetary framework have given rise to complications that mean that the system is not viable;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 6 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 6 (new)
(6) takes the view, in particular, that the European Semester, the six-pack and the two-pack have proven to be useless;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 7 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 7 (new)
(7) considers, furthermore, that the European Semester, the six-pack and the two-pack are anti-democratic instruments;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 8 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 8 (new)
(8) therefore calls for them to be scrapped;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 9 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 9 (new)
(9) takes the view that the proposal made in Mr Verhofstadt’s report to merge the deficit and debt procedures, the macroeconomic imbalance procedure and the country-specific recommendations into a single ‘convergence code’ of a legally binding nature is clear example of the doctrine according to which ‘if Communism didn’t work it’s because we needed more of it’;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 10 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 10 (new)
(10) therefore demands that this ridiculous idea be scrapped;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 11 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 11 (new)
(11) takes the view that the proposal to appoint a ‘European finance minister’ is a dangerous one;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 12 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 12 (new)
(12) takes the view, furthermore, that the proposal is not politically acceptable for the public;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 13 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 13 (new)
(13) takes the view, therefore, that it is anti-democratic and belongs in the realm of technocratic fantasy;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 14 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 14 (new)
(14) points out that the Nation is the only legitimate framework for the exercise of democracy;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Takes the view that the EU largely functions by means of fraud, corruption and wastefulness, and that lavish spending is rife;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Takes the view that the EU has provided sufficient evidence of the harm it does for the conclusion to be drawn that it should be scrapped;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is convinced that the EU budget needs to be endowed with a system of genuine own resourcescut as much as possible, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; considers that such a system should reduce the share of GNI contributions to the EU budget with a view to abandoning the ‘juste retour’ approach of Member States; insists, in this context, on the phasing-out of all forms of rebates;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the need for the EU budget to be simple, clear and easily understood by EU citizens, and to be based on a structure that allows it to be compared and coordinated with national budgets; considers that these should be underpinning principles for both the expenditure and revenue sides of the EU budget;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the multiannual financial framework shouldit is the national budgets that allow for maximum flexibility in order to respond as effectively as possible to crises and evolving political priorities; stresses, in this context, the need to make available in the budget all extraordinary revenue resulting from decommitments under the EU budget or competition fineat the restrictions imposed on certain States have had a detrimental effect, especially as regards the management of the migration crisis;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the need to safeguard the principle of unity of the budget, and is concernCalls for the Community method to be phased about the recent shift from the Community method to intergovernmental decision-making as observed in the setting-up of ad hoc satellite instruments outside the EU budget such as the Trust Funds; stresses the need to ensure parliamentary oversight over all EU expenditure.and replaced by intergovernmental decision-making;