8 Amendments of Paul TANG related to 2014/2249(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has strengthened European policies and created new areas of responsibility for the European Unionhas put the European Parliament on equal footing with the council in the annual budget procedure;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital C (new)
Recital C (new)
C. Whereas under the Lisbon Treaty, the budget procedure has to be concluded under a very strict time table, with a yearly deadline for the submission of the draft budget by 1 September and a 21 day term to reach agreement with the council once the parliament has decided on the budget; whereas the conciliation processes of 2011, 2013 and 2015 have failed;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the European budget is based principally on national contributions and not on genuine own resources as provided in European treaties since the Treaty of Rome; calls on the Council to return to the letter and spirit of the Treaties; stresses the role of the Mario Monti group on own resources to reach consensus on this issue;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Condemns the accumulated delays in the settlement of commitments due to the insufficiency of payment appropriations from which the European budget suffers in contravention of Articles 310 and 323 of the TFEU, thus endangering the authority of the Union; regrets that the unsustainable situation is a symptom of mutual lack of understanding and repeats the need for a shared problem analysis;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that unforeseen payment needs, are more likely to arise since payment ceilings are held artificially narrow by the council; calls therefore on the council to accompany any of its decisions that have a budgetary impact with a detailed budgetary justification;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes the current budget mechanism partly underlies the embedded conflict of interest between the two arms of the budget authority; Reiterates the MFF review/revision offers a chance to reinvigorate the discussion on the flaws in the EU budget mechanism; Notes that the working approach of the High Level Group on Own Resources can serve as a template to tackle other EU issues that know a lot of disparity in positions among their stakeholders, including the MFF revision;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Deplores the fact that even member states with high budgetary receipts do not necessarily prioritise the funds under heading 1a; regrets the ensuing vulnerable position of the funds under heading 1a during budget negotiations and intermediary mobilization proposals of the EU budget (i.e. EFSI); calls on the Commission to come up with a task force to map the EU added value of the different headings within the EU budget that publishes its results well before the review/revision of the EU multi-annual financial framework and by early 2016 the latest; Stresses in this light the need for a debate on how public investments, national and European, effectively contribute to EU 2020 goals;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls for a better balance between compliance and performance in the expenditures within the framework of the EU budget; Memorizes the fact that article 30.3 of the financial regulations stipulates the obligation of specific, measurable achievable, relevant and timed objectives for all sectors of activity covered by the EU budget; underlines furthermore that TFEU 318 ask the Commission to draft an annual report on the evaluation of the finances of the Union based on the results achieved;