Activities of Marco VALLI related to 2018/0166R(APP)
Shadow reports (1)
INTERIM REPORT on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 – Parliament’s position with a view to an agreement PDF (1 MB) DOC (289 KB)
Amendments (26)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the MFF 2021-2027 should facilitate a true European added value budget with sufficientappropriate funding to achieve its ambitions, and a strengthened focus on performance and results, leading to better spending and increased accountability and transparency in relation to the Union’s funds;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that the funding for policies and projects should be in line with climate and energy objectives and the commitments made under the Paris Agreement; recalls, therefore, that at least 340 % of the EU’s expenditure should contribute to the climate objectives and agrees that this is best done by mainstreaming climate spending across all EU programmes;
Amendment 21 #
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the 2021-2027 MFF must guarantee the Union’s ability and responsibility toefficiently and effectively respond and meet emerging needs and challenges and attain itsthose political priorities and objectives; points to the serious problems linked to the underfinanc which allow a real added value for EU citizens; stresses the need to carry out a spending review ing of the 2014-2020 MFF and declares the necessity to avoid a repetition of previous mistakes by securing from the outset a strong, ambitious and crediblerder to provide a comprehensive and a judicious evaluation aimed to demonstrate the real added value of each programme for delivering a credible and optimized EU budget for the exclusive benefit of the citizens over the next seven-year period;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22 – introductory part
Paragraph 22 – introductory part
22. WelcomesTakes note of the fact that the Commission has carried out a spending review covering all major programmes under the current MFF, and that this review should have aimed to combine:
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Regrets that the above mentioned spending review has not provided a comprehensive evaluation aimed to demonstrate the real added value of the programmes;
Amendment 26 #
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines thatTakes note of the Commission proposal regarding the global level of the next MFF that sets at 1,11 % of the EU-27 GNI (1,08% after deducting the European Development Fund), represents, in terms of GNI percentage, a reduction in real terms compared to the current MFF; considers that this proposal will notmay allow the Union to deliver on its political commitments and respond to important challenges ahead and, therefo; recalls, in this context, the necessity to review the EU budget expenditures, cannot be accepted as suchin particular the administrative ones, with the aim to try to reduce the Member States’ contributions and to ensure that the EU budget is exclusively spent genuinely and in favour of EU citizens’ needs;
Amendment 33 #
Paragraph 4
4. Declares, moreover, its opposition to anythe reduction in the level of key EU policies, such as the EU cohesion policy andproposed by the Commission on the level of funding for some key EU policies, such as the common agricultural policy (CAP); is particularly opposed to any radical cuts that will adversely impact on the very nature and objectives of these policies, such as the cuts proposed for the Cohesion Fund or for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development; opposes, in this context, the proposal to reduce the European Social Fund despite its enlarged scope and the integration of the Youth Employment Initiative; calls therefore to increase the level of the European Social Fund in comparison with the EC proposal, since it may allow Member States to implement minimum income schemes in favor of EU citizens in poverty;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission's proposal of the three new categories of own resources that include a share of the common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB), a 20 % share of the revenue generated by the emissions trading scheme and a national contribution calculated on the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste in each Member State; recalls in this context that the proposed own resources system should not increase the overall fiscal burden for the EU taxpayers and it should lead to a proportional reduction of the Member States' contribution to the EU budget;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Encourages the Commission to make additional proposals for new own resources in order to achieve a self- sustaining EU budget in the medium term; calls in this context for the establishment of a new own resource, introducing a tax on CO2 emissions for multinationals;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. SupportsTakes note of the Commission’s proposal to reduce the percentage of customs duties retained by Member States as ‘collection costs’ to 10 %;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Notes with concern that the legislative proposal on the CCCTB has still not been adopted and that there is no time estimate for when it will be agreed on in the Council; is of the opinion that the CCCTB cannot be considered as a true own resource for the next programming period for that reason; urges the Council to reach an agreement in this context, considering the importance of the CCCTB in order to tackle the problem of tax avoidance by multinationals;
Amendment 66 #
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Recalls the necessity to provide a new MFF with a real added value for EU citizens, that will not constitute an additional burden to Member States contributions; stresses the necessity of a mandatory spending review in order to provide savings where possible; believes that the national contributions of the Member States should be deducted from the calculation of the national deficit level;
Amendment 87 #
Paragraph 13
13. Reconfirms its formal position thatWelcomes the Commission’s proposal regarding the levels of the 2021-2027 MFF should be set at EUR 1 324,1 billion in 2018 prfunding for some programmes for the 2021-2027 MFF but stresses the need to ensure an appropriate level of funding for key EU policies, representing 1,3 % of the EU-27 GNI, in order to ensure the necessary level of funding for key EU policies that will enable them to fulfil their mission and objectisuch as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the ESF+; believes that an ambitious and realistic new MFF can be also provided without asking for an higher contribution to the Member States; believes that the national contributions of the Member States should be deducted from the calculation of the national deficit levesl;
Amendment 90 #
Paragraph 14 – point ii
ii. IncreaseTakes note of the level of funding for transport infrastructure through the Connecting Europe Facility programme (CEF-Transport) proposed by the Commission; recalls that the assessment of infrastructural projects should take into account social, economic and environmental factors, especially with respect to the effects that they have on local communities, in order to understand whether real added value is delivered to EU citizens;
Amendment 100 #
Paragraph 14 – point vi a (new)
vi a. Calls to increase the level of the European Social Fund in comparison with the EC proposal, in order to provide a strong fight against poverty with the aim to allow Member States to implement minimum income schemes for an effective action against poverty;
Amendment 106 #
Paragraph 14 – point x
x. Maintain the financing of the common agricultural policy (CAP) for the EU-27 at the level of the 2014-2020 budget in real terms; stresses the importance of the CAP as a key policy both for EU economy and above all for EU farmers;
Amendment 113 #
Paragraph 14 – point xv
xv. Reinstate at least the 2020 level for all agenciesIs sceptical of the proposal of the Commission concerning the level for the agencies; asks, in this context, to carry out an accurate spending review in order to merge agencies with similar tasks and to reduce the related expenditure;
Amendment 126 #
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Regrets the deteriorating situation of human rights and fundamental freedom in Turkey and calls for the annulation of the pre-adhesion assistance to this country;
Amendment 134 #
Paragraph 16
16. Intends to defend the Commission proposal on securing a sufficient level of funding for a strong, efficient and high- quality European public administration at the service of all Europeans; recalls that, during the current MFF, the EU institutions have implemented a 5% reduction in staff and believes that they should not be subject to any further reduction that would jeopardise directly the delivery of Union policieBelieves that the European public administration should be completely revised since all administrative expenditures related to the EU Institutions should be reduced as much as possible, in order to provide savings and to avoid any waste of taxpayers' money; takes note that, during the current MFF, the EU institutions have implemented a 5% reduction in staff and believes that further reductions may be possible in order to provide savings;
Amendment 167 #
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses that the MFF ceilings should not obstruct the financing through the Union budget of the policy objectives of the Union; expects, therefore, that an upwards revision of the MFF ceilingsdistribution will be ensured whenever it is necessary for the financing of new policy objectives, without having recourse to intergovernmental financing methods;
Amendment 187 #
Paragraph 31
31. Welcomes, in this context, asRecognizes that the Commission’s set of proposals adopted on 2 May 2018 on a new system of own resources may represent an important step towards a more ambitious reform, the Commission’s set of proposals adopt; recalls, in this context, that the proposed own 2 May 2018 on a new system of own resourcesresources system should not increase the overall fiscal burden for the EU taxpayers and it should lead to a proportional reduction of the Member States' contribution to the EU budget;
Amendment 212 #
Paragraph 36
36. Calls on the introduction of other revenue of which the allocation to the EU budget cannot be put into question: - fees linked to the implementation of mechanisms in direct relation with the EU, such as the ETIAS system; - fines paid by companies for breaching the Union’s rules or fines for late payments of contributions; - Seigniorage, for the purpose of financing a new investment stabilisation mechanism;
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Rules should be laid down for other situations that may require the MFF to be adjusted. Those adjustments may be related to the delayed adoption of new rules or programmes under shared management, or to measures linked to sound economic governance or to the protection of the Union’s budget in the case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States adopted in accordance with the relevant basic acts;
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 2 – Article 7 – title
Chapter 2 – Article 7 – title
Adjustments related to measures linked to sound economic governance or to the protection of the Union’s budget in the case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 2 – Article 7
Chapter 2 – Article 7
In the case of the lifting, in accordance with the relevant basic acts, of a suspension of budgetary commitments concerning Union funds in the context of measures linked to sound economic governance or to the protection of the Union’s budget in the case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, the amounts corresponding to the suspended commitments shall be transferred to the following years and the corresponding ceilings of the MFF shall be adjusted accordingly. Suspended commitments of year n may not be entered in the budget beyond year n+2.
Amendment 286 #
Part 3
Section B - paragraph 25
25. Before presenting a proposal for the creation of a new agency, the Commission should produce a sound, complete and objective impact assessment, taking into account, inter alia, the critical mass of staff and competencies, cost-benefit aspects, subsidiarity and proportionality, the impact on national and Union activities, and the budgetary implications for the expenditure heading concerned. On the basis of that information and without prejudice to the legislative procedures governing the setting up of the agency, the European Parliament and the Council commit themselves, in the framework of budgetary cooperation, to arrive at a timely agreement on the seat and the financing of the proposed agency. The following procedural steps shall be applied: – firstly, the Commission shall systematically present any proposal for setting up a new agency to the first trilogue following the adoption of its proposal, and shall present the financial statement accompanying the draft legal act proposing the creation of the agency and shall illustrate the consequences thereof for the remaining period of the financial programming, – secondly, during the legislative process, the Commission shall assist the legislator in assessing the financial consequences of the amendments proposed. Those financial consequences should be considered during the relevant legislative trilogues, – thirdly, before the conclusion of the legislative process, the Commission shall present an updated financial statement taking into account potential modifications by the legislator; this final financial statement shall be placed on the agenda of the final legislative trilogue and formally endorsed by the legislator. It shall also be placed on the agenda of a subsequent budgetary trilogue (in urgent cases, in simplified form), in view of reaching an agreement on the seat and the financing, – fourthly, the agreement reached during a trilogue, taking into account the Commission’s budgetary assessment with regard to the content of the legislative process, shall be confirmed in a joint declaration. That agreement shall be subject to approval by the European Parliament and the Council, each in accordance with its own rules of procedure. The same procedure would be applied to any amendment to a legal act concerning an agency which would have an impact on the resources of the agency in question. Should the tasks of an agency be modified substantially without an amendment to the legal act setting up the agency in question, the Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council by means of a revised financial statement, so as to allow the European Parliament and the Council to arrive at a timely agreement on the financing of the agency.