BETA

36 Amendments of Jörg MEUTHEN related to 2018/2033(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas, according to the Commission’s forecasts, the GDP growth rate for the euro area was 2.4 % in 2017 and will dip slightly to 2.3 % in 2018 and to 2 % in 2019; whereas economic growth is still fragile and is expected to slow down in the face of many challenges such as higher oil prices and unwillingness of Member States to effect the necessary structural reforms;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Takes note of the Commission’s 2018 country-specific recommendations (CSR); welcomes that the Commission cannot force Member States to comply with its CSR;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Suggests that every Member State should bear all the consequences of the economic policy it has chosen; calls therefore for the introduction of an insolvency procedure for Member States of the euro area;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates the urgency of carrying on the fight against ~~the inequalitie~~over indebtedness of banks, states, and private actors that hampers economic growth;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Takes note of the fact that the current high level of NPLs on banks' balance sheets is a bad sign for the state of the Eurozone’s financial stability; considers that a lack of financial stability is endangering the Eurozone as a whole; calls for a significant reduction of NPLs; insists that taxpayers will not be made liable to bail out banks during the next crisis;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that ~~growth-orientate~~sound fiscal policies are needed at the European level, alongside a~~n appropriat~~ restrictive monetary policy, in order to strengthen the European economy;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Suppor~~Rejects flexibility in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact as proposed by the Commission in 2015; considers that much more flexibility is required to boost investment and growth in the EU; calls, therefore, for a reform of the Stability and Growth Pact and the introduction of an aggregate euro area fiscal stance;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls for a revival of the no- bailout clause which is a safeguard for financial stability of Member States; recalls that the SGP has been designed as a self-enforcing contract, employing the risk of state bankruptcy as a disciplinary tool to limit the volume of debt a Member State will issue;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that ~~the development of new budgetary tools aimed at stabilisation and~~ convergence in the euro area would be extremely important for the economic ~~governance~~success of the Eurozone in order to avoid, as far as possible, the re- emergence of events already experienced during the years of the financial crisis;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Rejects a budget for the Eurozone; rejects the proposed European Investment Stabilisation Function; rejects the European Unemployment Insurance; rejects the Structural Reform Support Program; rejects the EFSI and InvestEU;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the Commission’s commitment to integrate the implementation of the SDGs within the European Semester; regrets the fact that this dimension is missing from the 2018 country-specific recommendations;deleted

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Recalls the importance of access to quality public services endowed with sufficient resources;~~deleted

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls for the euro area to be transformed into a club, which Member States should be able to leave without leaving the Union; calls on the Commission to come up with a proposal that creates the necessary legal framework; reminds the Commission that having the proper procedures in place is preferable to a chaotic exit that may happen any time when there is financial turmoil;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that ~~the fight against aggressive tax planning strategies is essential to ensure the fair treatment of taxpayers, safeguard public finances, preserve social cohesion and fight inequalities~~internal tax competition is essential for an economically successful euro area;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Welcomes the Commission recommendation to review the tax systems of a number of Member States which are exploited by multinationals engaged in aggressive tax planning; insists on the need to implement an ambitious pCBCR (public country-by-country reporting) and CCCTB (common consolidated corporate tax base);deleted

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Encourages ~~stronger~~less coordination and harmonisation of taxation ~~with the objective of reducing the differences among Member States over a ten-year period, thus making any possible company relocation unattractive~~, thereby increasing tax competition between Member States;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Welcomes the Council recommendation and the Commission’s efforts to encourage Members States with large current account surpluses to promote faster wage growth, strengthen investment and thus foster economic expansion; highlights the fact that real wage growth has, in recent times, lagged behind productivity growth, while improvements have occurred in the labour market; stresses, against this background, that there could be room for wage increases in certain sectors and areas to ensure good standards of living, taking into account the need to tackle inequalities and boost growth;deleted

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Stresses that the persistent current account surpluses are the logical consequence of forcing very different economies into a common currency; suggests that these imbalances would exist, but over time be ameliorated in a system of flexible exchange rates that allows for adjustments by currency devaluations; considers that current account deficits in the euro area demonstrate the need for internal devaluation and reform in Member States with current account deficits; reminds Member States with current account deficits that they would probably already be bankrupt if the ECB would not engage in an accommodating fiscal policy, which is a violation of its mandate; notes that current account surpluses signal that a Member State is consuming less than it could, thereby harming its consumers; rejects any mechanism that foresees transfers from Member States with surpluses to other Member States;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Notes with concern that TARGET 2 imbalances are rising in the euro area again, despite a narrowing in trade imbalances, indicating continued capital outflows from the euro area periphery; calls for TARGET 2 balances to be safeguarded with appropriate collateral;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)

14c. Rejects employing the ESM as backstop for the SRF; reminds that the ESM is a fiscal institution as it is guaranteed and funded by taxpayers' money via the budget of its Member States; rejects any fiscal backstop in the Banking Union in order to avoid recourse to publicly-funded bank bailouts;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)

14d. Rejects the Commission’s proposal to transform the European Stability Mechanism into a European Monetary Fund; recalls that there is no suitable legal base to incorporate the ESM into the Union legal framework; recalls that the ESM is based on the unanimity principle, which guarantees a veto right for every member of the ESM; calls, instead, for the ESM to be phased out as soon as possible;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 e (new)

14e. Points out that there are ongoing discussions regarding the appropriate legal basis for the establishment of EDIS as well as the proposed European Deposit Insurance Fund; notes that Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is not a suitable legal basis for adopting EDIS; reminds that the profitability of banks is dependent on the Member States' economic, tax, and fiscal policy, which is even today mostly determined by national parameters; considers the importance of banks profitability for the safety of deposits; rejects EDIS as it would lead to moral hazard;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 f (new)

14f. Rejects using ECB profits from seigniorage as one of the possible new own resources for the EU budget; stresses that turning these profits into an EU own resource would require a change to the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB, as well as adjustments to accommodate the specific situation of non-euro area Member States;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes ~~with concern~~ the recent rise in oil prices which generally weakens growth and raises inflation; ~~stresses that, rather than relying on seasonal factors for its recovery, the only way to make the European economy an area of prosperity is to encourage public investment and promote domestic demand;~~

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Insists on the need for the CSR to take due account of the 20 key principles and rights to support fair and well- functioning labour markets outlined in the European Pillar of Social Rights, which should serve as a compass for a renewed process of upward convergence towards better working and living conditions in the European Union;deleted

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Recalls the need for stronger surveillance of the employment and social situation in Europe and appropriate and constant follow-up at every step of the European Semester in order to boost quality job creation and thus achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;deleted

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Shares the Commission’s concerns regarding developments in the housing market in some Member States; stresses that rising interest rates and housing prices are having an impact on household private debt; underlines that this debt plays a role in the stability of the euro area; ~~calls on the Commission to take initiatives in this area in line with recommendation 19 of the social pillar~~stresses that the ECB's misguided zero-interest rate policies have contributed to the foreseeable trouble in the housing market;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Reminds the Member States currently engaged in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) that their economic and monetary well-being is dependent on the fate of the euro area; considers that various imbalances in these Member States, e.g. housing bubbles, have their root causes in the fixed exchange rate against the euro;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3

~~Investments and cohesion fund~~Structural reforms

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Deeply regret~~Welcomes the proposed cuts in cohesion policy as set out by the Commission in its MFF proposal; insists on the fact that a decrease in structural funding runs counter to the EU’s objective of strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion, puts at risk the key importance of the ESIF in stimulating public and private investment, and would send a negative signal to citizens; recalls that the EU cohesion policy has a direct impact on citizens’ livesfurther and deeper cuts; recalls that the EU cohesion policy is misguided and in need of great reforms including a reduction of its volume;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

~~21. Regrets the fact that the Commission makes part of the allocation of European funds conditional on the European Semester and economic governance;~~deleted

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses the key importance of structural ~~funds for the stimulation of public investment, taking into account their strong multiplier effect~~reforms;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Warns that the longer the current savpendings-oriented policy ~~– primarily focused on making spending cuts – continues without an effective investment plan to generate revenue through growth, social cohesion and solidarity~~with deficits in almost all Member States – primarily focused on avoiding necessary spending cuts and structural reforms – continues, the clearer it will become that ~~Europe’s economic~~the euro area's integration and prosperity is at risk from growing ~~social inequaliti~~imbalances;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

24. Takes note of the proposed InvestEU programme which focuses on four key priorities for the EU (sustainable infrastructure; research, innovation and digitisation; small and medium-sized businesses; and social investment); requests that the focus of the InvestEU programme be placed on efficient resources and decarbonisation projects, and stresses the need to guarantee a more balanced budget allocation among Member States and regions;deleted

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Recall~~Welcomes that the completion of the EMU requires strong political commitment, ~~efficient~~which is non-existent; warns that ever more regulation and governance based on the Community method ~~and~~lacks democratic accountability, and ~~better use of the available financial resources~~is ignorant of economics, thereby increasing the likelihood of chaotic dissolution of the euro area;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Underlines the need ~~to strike the right balance betwee~~for sovereign fiscal responsibility ~~and solidarity~~; is concerned by the lack of ~~ambition in determining the solidarity instruments needed for the sustainability~~responsibility shown by the governments of the Member States of the EMU;

2018/07/16
Committee: ECON