21 Amendments of Miguel VIEGAS related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls that the adoption of the last multiannual financial framework (MFF), covering the period 2014-2020, involved less than 1% of Member States' gross national income and represented a sharp reduction from the previous MFF, which belies any priority given by the EU to economic and social cohesion and any idea of solidarity within the EU;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out that the economic and social crisis that hit the Member States in 2007/2008 is far from being at an end and that social, economic and territorial divergences persist; considers that cohesion policy’s share of the total EU budget should be increased significantly post-2020, as the Cohesion Fund plays a fundamental role in combating asymmetries between and within Member States;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Reiterates Parliament’s call to integrate the European Development Fund into the EU budget in Strongly rejects any attempt to reduce the budget earmarked for cohesion; rejects the intention to increase funding earmarked for der to be able to control and tackle the root causes of excessive migration in a better way, and one that is in line with Union policies and strategifence and external action by, inter alia, the transfer of cohesion funds; reiterates the need to tackle the root causes of excessive migration in the best possible way, with resources earmarked to provide social and humanitarian support for refugees, using tools and methods deriving from the Union’s budgetary competence; considers that common European challenges in development policy could be better mastered through common administration from the EU budget;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Rejects any proposal that the future MFF should maintain the link with macroeconomic conditionality and economic governance and national reform plans as part of the European Semester, which is continuing to give priority to financial instruments and public-private partnerships; considers that the future MFF should instead promote increased public investment, supporting productive and strategic sectors and their modernisation and sustainability, focusing on job creation, the fight against poverty, social exclusion and inequalities, environmental protection, and action to exploit the full potential of each country and region;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Rejects any proposal, as put forward in the Reflection Paper on the Future of EU Finances, that the next MFF should strengthen the link between the disbursement of cohesion funds and the implementation of structural reforms, economic governance and the European Semester or the rule of law in the Member States;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Encourages the Commission to examine the possibility of changing the structure of the EU expenditure in the Cohesion Policy since a majority of the original Union objectives can be considered achieved, and since more efficient results could be gained with emphasis on natural competition on development and modernisation, instead of sustaining the current framework for, and practices of, mere redistributive financial support; is, however,Is of the opinion that the economic, social and territorial Cohesion Policies of the Union cshould still provide support for the less developed regions, and for better cross- border cooperation, but should focus even morefocusing on growth, innovation, mobility, climate change, energy and environmental transition, while applying the same criteria to the whole of the EU;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to continue defending farmers and to fund information campaigns on the CAP budget since the amount of aid publicised can be misleading, given that the public is unaware of the fact that the bulk of the CAP is financed at EU level and replaces national spending; stresses that the CAP delivers good quality products at affordable prices to Europeans; rejects any attempt to force Member States to co-finance the CAP;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Takes the view that preference should be given to the gross national income basis, with the unanimity rule being maintained, as a guarantee of an EU budget that will be positive for all the Member States and not just for some of them, which may be the minority but which have the majority of the votes;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Brexit will have a projected impact of between EUR 3.8 and EUR 4.1 billion a year on the CAP, and calls therefore on the Commission to find alternative forms of financing, for example by increasing Member States’ contributions as a percentage of gross national income, in keeping with the principles of solidarity and redistribution and without punishing the poorest Member States; stresses the need to increase funding in line with responses to the various cyclical crises in sensitive sectors such as milk, pork, fruits and vegetables, and to create instruments that can mitigate price volatility; notes that state measures to regulate supply could save on the vast volume of resources allocated to compensating farmers for losses suffered as a result of market instability;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Asks the Commission and the Member States to significantly modernise and redesign the EU budget along the principles of pernecessary form ance-based budgeting in order to fit the new priorities that have been agreed on at the EU-27 level, and to back up a fiscal stabilisation function for the euro area using own resourc effective redistributive policy that will enable disadvantaged countries and regions to move closer to the richest and most developed ones;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that in its resolution accompanying the discharge 20156, Parliament called on the Commission to fundamentally reconsider the design and delivery mechanism for the ESIFs and to foresee, for the next programming period, more manageable and measurable performance indicators; insists that all future expenditure should focus on programmes, with proven EU added value, designed to deliver results at minimum cost, and that performance should be at the centre of the next generation of all programmes and schemes; __________________ 6 See paragraph 190 of the resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Points out that the EU-27 should consider halting commitments, or doing less, in domains where the Union is perceived as having limited added value, or as being unable to deliver on promises, in line with the stated objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion referred to in the treaties, should intervene; believes, however, that there should be a clearly stated link between the aims and the allocated funds, that where ambitious aims are set, sufficient funds should be allocated, and that where new goals are set, new resources should be presented; stresses that taken altogether, EU finances should be able to meet the financing needs of new priorities, such as countering terrorism, managing migrthat further the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, such as increased public investment, supporting productive and strategic sectors and their modernisation and sustainability, focusing on job creation, through border controls,e fight against poverty, social exclusion and minimising the effects of the possible financial gap resulting from Brexitequalities, environmental protection, and action to exploit the full potential of each country and region;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Considers that while the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the Union is an unfortunate event that will have a negativen influence on the future of the lives of citizens in the UK and in the remaining Member States, but it also creates an opportunity to redefine and reform the EU- 27’s political ambitions and the needed budget tools and methods; considers that the EU-27 should be ambitious in its budget reform and aim to maintain an annual EU budget similar in size to that of the EU-28;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Believes that those policy fields likely to suffer most significantly from the budget gap resulting from Brexit should be protected from major setbacks in order not to destabilise in an excessive way any current economic, social or administrative framework; points in particular to the need to secure the Union’s resources in the field of research, development and innovation in order to enhance the Union’s global leadership; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to examine carefully the consequences of different Brexit scenarios when preparing the MFF proposal and its impact assessment;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Emphasises, in particular, the need to omit the unnecessaryat the fixation on the 1 % ceiling of EU GNI, put in practice for the current MFF 2014-2020, is not sufficient to achieve the stated objectives of social and territorial cohesion referred to in the treaties, since expenditure is often constrained by this ceiling and makes the budget significantly harder to balance in times of varying circumstances; encourages the Member States to consider flexibilthe objectives of Member State cohesion and solidarity in their budget discussions;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Encourages the Commission to introduce concrete proposals for new resources, which would reduce the share of merely GNI-based national contributions to the EU budget; notes that the new system could end the anti- European accounting view of ‘fair return’, which places disproportionate emphasis on the net balances between Member States and which, regrettably, has dominated the budgetary debates in the Council for many years nowNotes that any EU own resources system should not harm and replace the contributory solidarity principle;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that, for example, the possibility to collect a CO2 levy through carbon pricing (using either taxation or market-based instruments) – as presented by the High Level Group on Own Resources in its report on the future financing of the EU – should be examined by the Commission in the first instance as a way to strengthen the EU-27 budget7; believes that such an instrument could also provide extra added value in Europe, as the levy could function as an incentive to change consumer and producer behaviourthe behaviour of polluting industries in favour of a less carbon- intensive future; considers, however, that any tax-based EU solution should be as neutral as possible for the total tax ratio of a given Member State, and should instead rely on higher contributions from risk actors; __________________ 7 European Commission, ‘Future financing of the EU – Final report and recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources’, 4 January 2017, pp. 41-43.