8 Amendments of Dominique BILDE related to 2017/2043(BUD)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. DeplorNotes the fact that the EUR 200 million top-up for Erasmus+ proposed under the MFF revision for 2017-2020 has been reduced by Council to EUR 100 million, with EUR 50 million already allocated in 2017; recalls that Erasmus+ helps to deliver growth and is a strategic investment in Europe’s young peoplefor young people in European nations Erasmus+ can be an interesting opportunity to train abroad and acquire new and enriching experiences;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses, however, that some shortcomings in its administrative and budget management have been noted, notably by the European Parliament in its report of 2 February 2017 on the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme; states that, in view of these problems, and the restrictions on the budget, it is important that the programme focuses on its original basic tasks and that funding for this programme is not used to finance new initiatives launched by the Commission, such as the European Solidarity Corps, whose usefulness moreover still remains to be seen;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that proposed funding for the new Solidarity Corps draws heavily on Erasmus+ (circa EUR 58 million in 2017) and Europe for Citizens (around EUR 3.5 million a year); insists that new initiatives require a legal base and clear policy design and must be coordinated with other programmes; stresses that it appears as if the future roll- out of the Solidarity Corps must notis being superimposed on top of other EU initiatives in the same field, such as the European Voluntary Service; wonders therefore how useful it will be to launch a further initiative in this field, and one, what is more, that will undermine funding for priority education and culture programmes;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that both the Culture sub-programme under Creative Europe and the Europe for Citizens programme continue to have low project success rates (11 % and 16 % respectively in 2016), causing frustration among applicants and hampering programme functioning; calls for more funds to be allocated to the; insists on management of the funds allocated to these EU actions being reviewed, just like some of these programmes’ objectives, notably Strand 2 of the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programmes in 2018, in order to enbe sure of their efficient and effective delivery;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for greater synergies between culture and education programmes and EFSI and the ESI Funds; urges the CommissionMakes known its doubts regarding the use made to date of EFSI and the ESI Funds; emphasises that as regards culture and education, the latter should be used for investment in school facilities, notably for rural areas suffering a population exodus, as well as to facilitate accessibility to culture and education for persons with a disability; urges the Commission to follow up on its declarations of good intent with tangible actions and to frontload the Creative Europe Guarantee Facility through EFSI to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the cultural and creative sector and thereby drive growth;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesTakes note of the agreement reached on the European Year of Cultural Heritage (EYCH) 2018 with a budget of EUR 7 million in 2018, 4 million of which is fresh money; reiterates that funding for the EYCH must have no negative impact on Creative Europemakes known, however, its concerns regarding the directions the Commission seems to be taking for this Year, which boil down, it would seem, to ‘communications actions’;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. States that as the EU budget is made up of money from taxpayers in the Member States, it is essential that the Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 serves citizens’ real needs and expectations; stresses that for this to happen, monies allocated to this Year ought to be used on specific work to restore and conserve cultural buildings and artefacts in Europe and to help, for instance, save the 10 000 churches threatened with destruction in France, or even to restore buildings destroyed by natural disasters, for example those hit by the earthquakes in Italy in August 2016;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. NoStates the success of the Nat people in Europe do not need ‘a new Nnarrative for Europe, now in its final year as a Preparatory Action; stresses that the initiative has proven its worth, fostering debate and fresh thinking among young people on the challenges facing the EU’ created out of nothing for the benefit of an ideological project that is out of step with reality to reconcile them to the European Union, but rather for Europe to be made democratic again via the establishment of a Europe of nations and cooperation, as well as recognition of specific national historical and cultural characteristics, and of being part of a European civilisation founded on a very specific heritage; calls, in light of those challenges, for theis analysis for an end to the ‘New Narrative for Europe’ initiative to bewhich constinued through the Youth strand of Erasmus+tutes a waste of resources for a questionable end.