Activities of Ernest MARAGALL related to 2016/2047(BUD)
Plenary speeches (2)
2017 budgetary procedure: joint text (debate) ES
General budget of the European Union for 2017 - all sections (debate) ES
Shadow reports (1)
Report on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017 PDF (809 KB) DOC (162 KB)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017
Amendments (14)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2016 on ''Preparation of the post- electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament's input ahead of the Commission's proposal''1a, __________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309.
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that budget 2017 has to be considered in the wider context of the mid- term revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF); stresses therefore that budget 2017 has to be in line with the EU2020 targets, especially the social and environmental ones;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that the Union is currently facing a number of serious emergencies and is convinced that the necessary financial resources need to be deployed from the Union budget, in order to meet the political challenges and allow the Union to deliver answers and effectively respond to those crises as a matter of utmost urgency and priority; stresses that the Union ratified the COP 21 agreement and needs to dedicate part of its financial resources to respect its international commitments; considers therefore that climate-related spending must be significantly increased in order to reach, at least, 20% of the Union budget for the period 2014-2020; considers that a strong political commitment is needed to secure fresh appropriations in 2017 and until the end of the programming period for this purpose;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its conviction that theStrongly rejects the plan to use EUR 80 million of Union budget shouldresources to fiund ways of financing new initiatives which are not to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies and is disappointed that the Preparatory Action for defence research, which will amount to EUR 80 million in the next three years will be squeezed undera Preparatory Action for defence research which should lead, under the next MFF, to a multi-billion EUR EU defence research budget line; reminds that such a step will have many far reaching consequences for what is thus far a civilian Union budget and would represent a paradigm shift which will deeply affects the nature of the Union; stresses that important structural and political pre-conditions for such a decision are not fulfilled such as a change of the cpurrent budget of the MFF; is convinceely intergovernmental structure of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and thate with an already underfinanced Union budget, additional efforts for operations, administrative costs, preparatory actions and pilot projects in relation to the common security and defence policy also need additional financial means by thellingness of Member States to seriously pool and share national resources in the field of defence; recalls that national defence administrations in Member States dispose of around EUR 200 billion of combined defence budgets, but are since 2007 unable to meet a 20% target for collaborative research and development of national defence budgets which was agreed at Council level and is regularly monitored by the European Defence Agency (EDA); underlines that for Member States; considers that the current MFF mid-term review/revision should be used by the Member States in that respecllaborative defence research has no priority as the 2013 data generates a 8% instead of the 20% target according to a study commissioned by the European Parliament;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Delivering on the commitment taken in June 2015 to minimise to the maximum the budgetary impact of the creation of the EFSI on Horizon 2020 and CEF in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure, decides to fully restore the original pre-EFSI profile of the Horizon 2020 and CEF lines that were cut for the provisioning of the EFSI Guarantee Fund; demands the corresponding additional commitments appropriations of EUR 1,24 billion above DB to be made available in the framework of the MFF revision; points out that EFSI should be improved in order to be fully efficient and effective by ensuring that the additionality principle is respected, by improving the geographical and sectorial balances and by improving the transparency in the decision-making process;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Is concerned about possible further delays and additional costs of the ITER programme as well as the related potential repercussions on the Union budget, especially for other R&D programme funded by the Union; proposes to put appropriations into reserve, to be released only if the updated project plan provides sufficient evidence that Parliament's recommendations have been properly taken into account;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Underlines the huge discrepancy between funding for nuclear activities in the Union budget and support for future- oriented renewable energy; believes therefore that abandoning the ITER project would free up much needed resources, which could be used for investing into already working renewable energy technologies;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15 c. Believes that the Euratom budget line on Nuclear fission and radiation protection should be reoriented towards the decommissioning of nuclear power plants; in the same vein, considers that the appropriations for nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre should be used only for activities necessary for implementing safeguards;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the Commission has not proposed any commitment appropriations for the Youth Employment Initiative in 2017 as a result of its frontloading in the years 2014-2015; decides,reiterates its strong support to the continuation of the YEI and that it should receive at least the same level in commitment appropriations until the end of the current MFF as the one allocated annually to the programme during the first two years of this period (EUR 6 billion frontloaded in 2014-2015); decides as a first step and in line with the Regulation on the European Social Fund7 which foresees the possibility of such a continuation, to increase the Youth Employment Initiative with additional EUR 1 500 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 500 million in payment appropriations to provide an effective response to youth unemployment; notes that, in line with Parliament’s requests, these new appropriations should be financed by the use of all financial means available under the current MFF Regulation and through the MFF mid-term revision; urges the Member States to do their utmost to speed up the implementation of the Initiative on the ground, for the direct benefit of young Europeans; __________________ 7 Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 470).
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23 b. In line with its EU2020 targets and with its international commitments to tackle the climate change, decides to propose an increase above the level of the DB for LIFE + programme;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 d (new)
Paragraph 32 d (new)
32 d. Welcomes the creation of a budget line for supporting the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) which is a newly created instrument aiming at involving the citizens' role in the Union decision- making process and deepening our European democracy; is of the opinion that the level of commitment appropriations as proposed in the DB is too low; decides to increase the budget line;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that, in the light of the ongoing refugee crisis, the Union’'s external action is faced with ever growing funding needs which largely exceed the current size of Heading 4; therefore, underlines that the Heading 4 ceilings are vastly insufficient to provide for appropriate funding for the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis; is disappointed that the Commission did not use the opportunity to adjust the ceilings, particularly of Heading 4 accordingly; deplores, that in order to fund new initiatives such as the FRT, the Commission chose in its DB to cut other programmes such as the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) which is against the principle that humanitarian distress must go in parallel with the development processes,; rejects these decisions as they shift important financial resources from two instruments which amongst other things address root causes of migratory flows; recalls that the primary objective of the Union's development policy must remain poverty reduction; regrets also that appropriations for humanitarian aid and for the Mediterranean strand of the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) are below those approved in the 2016 budget, despite their obvious relevance in tackling the large number of external challenges; disapproves, finally, the irresponsible cuts made by the Council, in particular on DCI and support expenditure lines;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Looks forward tois aware of the Commission’s budgetary proposals to finance the new Migration Partnership Framework and the External Investment Plan; expresses its concerns for the creation of potential new ''satellites'' outside the Union budget; reiterates the need to keep full parliamentary scrutiny over the Union budget; strongly insists on the respect for the principle of the unity of the budget; is convinced that the new priority should not be financed to the detriment of the Union projects; expects to have a favourable approach to mobilising further flexibility in order to endow them with fresh appropriations, but warns against undermining Parliament’s amendments;