Activities of Marco VALLI related to 2015/2353(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament's input ahead of the Commission's proposal (A8-0224/2016 - Jan Olbrycht, Isabelle Thomas) IT
Amendments (23)
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Article 311 TFEU states that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies; considers, therefore, that should the review arrive at the conclthe Union should identify and focusi ons that the current ceilings were too low, it would be a primary law requirement to increase the ceiling clear priorities and calls for a real commitment by Member States to solve the problem of late payments;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of seprious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia,rities such as the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limitsalso regrets that policy initiatives such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) have diverted resources earmarked for other programmes without bringing any added value;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that significant budgetary means have been deployed to tackle the root causes of the refugee and migration crisis by reinforcing specific EU programmes under Heading 4; recalls the reallocations in favour of migration/refugee-related actions of EUR 170 million in the course of 2015, as well as the approval in 2016 of an additional EUR 130 million under Heading 4 for migration/refugee-related activities, together with the reshuffling of EUR 430 million under the Instrument for Pre- accession Assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Neighbourhood Instrument; recalls, furthermore, that in order to address the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis the Commission has made various additional proposals having an impact on the EU budget, such as those for the establishment of EU trust funds (the Madad Trust Fund and the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, with an estimated initial budgetary impact of EUR 570 million and EUR 405 million respectively), as well as of; notes, however, that the Refugee Facility for Turkey, for which EUR 1 billion isought to be funded from the EU budget, not counting possible additional fundingis in fact illegal, since no provision has been made for ratification by the European Parliament; stresses that further pressure on the Union budget might arise from other planned actions announced by the Commission such as the ‘London pledge’ or from events such as the EU- Turkey summit of 18 March 2016; is concerned, howemoreover, that owing to the magnitude of the problems the EU is facingthese initiatives are failing to resolve matters where they are not, as in the case of Turkey, actually counterproductive and that further actions might still be required;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Concludes that the activities planned by the Commission to cope with the migrant and refugee crisis could not have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the MFF 2014-2020; highlights the factRegrets that, on adoption of the 2014-2020 MFF, the problems relating to the migrant and refugee crisis were not adequately assessed, despite the numerous warning signals; notes that owing to the lack of sufficient resources the EU has had to set up ad hoc, ‘satellite’ instruments such as EU trust funds and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; considers unacceptable, however, the agreement reached with Turkey providing for disbursement of substantial funds from the EU budget without any guarantee that the issue will be resolved; stresses, howemoreover, that e lack of solidarity and responsibility on the part of Member States that have not yet delivered on their contribution pledges to the trust funds, thus undermining the success of those funds;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines that, in response to this pressing problem, the new Commission in 2014 proposed an investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new investment in the real economy; notes, however, that the projects selected for the EFSI do not represent new investment in the real economy but the refinancing of existing projects of questionable sustainability in economic, social and environmental terms; stresses also that the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI is covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget, which has diverted resources from programmes such as Horizon 2020 or the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF);
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines that the EU budget makes a significant contributiones to the fight against unemployment, especially through the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI); stresses that despite the, however, that many initial delays have occurred in the designation of national authorities and the implementation of the YEI, the current figures indicate full absorption capacityand that the actual results in terms of youth employment are woefully inadequate; notes that an evaluation of this initiative will soon be concluded, and expects that the necessary adjustments will be introduced to ensure its successful implementation;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Is particularly concerned, however, at the lack of new commitment appropriations for the YEI as of 2016, given that its entire original envelope was frontloaded in 2014-2015 (Article 15 of the MFF Regulation); stresses that in supporting this frontloading Parliament never intended that the initiative should be terminated after only two years of funding and that other MFF mechanisms, such as the Global Margin for Commitments, were put in place with the purpose of ensuring its continuation; also notes the frontloading of appropriations, on the basis of the same article, for Erasmus + (EUR 150 million), this being another EU programme that makes a majoright contributione to improving the employability of young people, which was fully implemented in the first two years of this period;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls the recent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium and the increased threat levels in other Member Statcountries, which call for more coordinated and reinforced action at EU levelbetween Member States; underlines that the Union already has the Internal Security Fund as an appropriate instrument and has several agencies operating in this field; considers that more European action, and therefore funding,coordination initiatives will be needed in this area to provide an adequate response to this threat;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 21 – subparagraph 1 (new)
considers it essential to consider various options with regard to payments, including a freeze on future low-priority programme commitments pending the settlement of all outstanding arrears;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 23 – subparagraph 1 (new)
considers that, for the funding of non- budgeted initiatives, the first option should always be the redeployment of appropriations from existing non-priority budget lines, taking care to avoid waste and mismanagement;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Is convinced that, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies, as was the case for EFSI; intends to deliver on its commitment to fully offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, through redistribution, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years ago;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Strongly supports the continuation ofTakes the view that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a means of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of an adequate level of commitment appropriations for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFF; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilhas to date failed to achieve its objectives; considers that the objective of facilitating youth employment can only be achieved by addressing the imbalances resulting from the single currency, eliminating the social and economic constraingts of Subheading 1b, as no margins are availableimposed by the EU and generating massive public investment;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that the magnitude of the migration and refugee crisis goes to show that additional needs with significant budgetary consequences may be expected to arise in the coming years; underlines, moreover, that the need for internal security in the EU and the fight against terrorism are expected also tomight necessitate additional funding to back up reinforced action at EU levelso as to step up coordination between the Member States; is of the firm opinion that, even with the mobilisation of the small margins available under Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) and existing flexibility provisions, the resources available willmight not be sufficient to tackle the increased needs under this heading; calls, therefore, for significant reinforcements for the AMIF and the Internal Security Fund, as well as for the Union agencies operating in the field, as well as other initiatives that can be undertaken; considersonsiders therefore that an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3 ismight be required, to be offset through cuts elsewhere;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Expects that concerted action to effectively respond to the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis will intensify over the coming years, and will be accompanied by increasedbetter allocation in response to requests for funding under Heading 4 (Global Europe); underlines that such requests for additional funding should not be deployed to the detriment of the EU’s existing external action, including its development policy; calls, therefore, for a significant reinforcement of appropriations under this heading;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Expects, therefore, that any new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompaniedat least be offset by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations, including an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessary; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; believes that a joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Attaches particular importance to the Contingency Margin, as a last-resort instrument for reacting to unforeseen circumstances; stresses that, according to the Commission, this is the only special instrument that can be mobilised only for payment appropriations and thus to prevent a payment crisis in the EU budget as in 2014; deplores the fact that, contrary to the previous period, a compulsory offsetting of the appropriations is stipulated in the MFF Regulation; is of the firm opinion that this requirement creates an unsustainable situation with regard to the MFF ceilings of the last years of the period; stresses that the Contingency Margin is in any event a last-resort instrument, whose mobilisation is jointly agreed by the two arms of the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the rule of compulsory offsetting to be lifted immediately with retroactive effect;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Believes that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system and possible priority areas; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 43 – subparagraph 1 (new)
calls on the European Commission and Member States to decide in which cases programmes can be funded and implemented more effectively at European level and in which cases measures at national level are more reasonable and more in line with the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Underlines that an essential element of the difficulties in agreeing on a multiannual financial framework between Member States is their primary focus on net balances; reiterates its position that the Union budget is notought not to be a simple zero-sum game but, rather, the expression of common policies which could create collective added value; urges the Member States, therefore, to change their perception of and approach to the Union budget, in order to ensure that the outcome is not another stalemate that will only further disconnect the Union from its citizendicating clearly the priorities they wish to support, committing themselves fully and consistently to the development and implementation thereof, and taking care to avoid any dangerous drift towards payment arrears;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Underlines the need for a fully- fledgedto examine the possibility of a reform of the own resources system, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; is therefore expecting an ambitious final report from the High Level Group on Own Resources by the end of 2016, as well as an equally ambitious legislative package on own resources as of 2021 from the Commission by the end of 2017;
Amendment 315 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Stresses the need to reduce the share of the GNI contributions to the Union budget in order to exit the ‘juste retour’ approach of Member States; underlines that this would reduce the burden on national treasuries and thus make the resources concerned available for Member States’ national budgets; recalls that the current VAT own resource is over-complex and is in essence a second GNI contribution, and therefore calls for this own resource either to be substantially reformed or to be scrapped altogether; considers it necessary, however, to keep the GNI contributions as an element of the budget, given the need for its function as a balancing contribution; stresses that changes affecting Union budget revenue should not have any adverse impact on citizens;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Calls for the possible introduction of one or several new own resources, ideally with to indicate a clear link to European policies that create added value; notes that a large number of possible new own resources have already been discussed by the High Level Group, and eagerly awaits its recommendations;
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 57 – subparagraph 1 (new)
rejects the idea of a specific budget for the euro area, since this would confirm a significant divide between countries using the euro and those retaining their own currencies and lead to further surrender of democratic national sovereignty to technocratic formations;