29 Amendments of Pervenche BERÈS related to 2014/2005(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that the 2011 figures at constant prices proposed by the Commission as the basis for the negotiation did not reflect the reality ofin Member States, especially in terms of employment and social regression;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that elements pertaining to legislative proposals have been discussed and decided upon by the European Council instead of being negotiated and agreed on at the level of the appropriate Council formation and the committee responsible; stresses that the Council has ignored the European Parliament in his role as co- legislator in particular with regard to the Youth Employment Initiative;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets that where the co-legislators agreed to extend the scope of the proposed financial programmes this could not be matched by corresponding increases in financial allocations nor decreases could be prevented; regrets in particular that ESF allocation has constantly been decreased since its foundation despite the fact that the scope of the Fund was extended over time; deplores the fact that the proposed ESF envelope of 25 % of cohesion policy funds could not be maintained in the negotiations for 2014- 2020; deplores also the fact that EGF annual ceiling has been disproportionally reduced compared to other financial instruments;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets that despite obvious time pressure stemming from the upcoming expiry of the MFF and the European elections, the negotiations on the EGF and the FEAD were substantially delayed, resulting in very tight timetables for reaching timely agreements; regrets the fact that the Commission proposal for FEAD came well behind the schedule;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out, based on the experience of EaSI, the difficulty of individually negotiating horizontal elements which are similar to several multiannual programmes in different policy areas thus leading to diverse outcomes and preventing uniform approach;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the problematic dependency of the negotiations concerning legislative proposals, in particular with regard to ESF, on the progress made in the negotiations on the global framework of the MFF;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets that, despite the Treaty provisions, the Council decided to negotiate legislative proposals only on the basis of partial general approaches or general approaches without a mandate from the amendments proposed by Parliament. which led to delays and blockages in the negotiations in particular with regard to ESF, EGF and FEAD;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasizes that one of the aims of the reform of the Lisbon Treaty was to democratise the process of establishing the Union's financial framework and regrets that, in this context, and in relation to the legislative proposals for the 2014-2020 period, the opportunity to act fully in line with the spirit of the Treaty has not been properly used;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Regrets that the European Parliament decided not to make full use of the possibilities provided by the ordinary legislative procedure in the negotiations with the Council on the legislative basis; considers, in this context, that special attention should be given to the cases where a legislative proposal has been recognised to fall in the competences of more than one committee; is of the view that in these special cases, the mandate for negotiations with the Council should be obtained from the plenary in order to assure broad support, strengthen the EP negotiation position and guarantee transparency;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Considers that, while agreements negotiated with the Council should be given the possibility of a smooth adoption in plenary, this cannot be at the price of preventing plenary of any possibility to amend the agreed texts; is of the view that such procedures could only be applied when a very broad political consensus has been found on the agreed text; calls, therefore, on its competent committee to examine the possibility to apply the provisions of Rule 138 of the EP Rules of Procedure to first and second reading agreements;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Recalls that margins left available below the MFF ceilings for commitment appropriations for the years 2014-2017 shall constitute a Global MFF Margin for commitments to be calculated by the European Commission and to be made available above the ceilings established in the MFF for the years 2016 - 2020 for policy objectives related to growth and employment, in particular for the Youth Employment Initiative;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Suggests, if the Treaty remains unchanged, that in the next MFF negotiations the European Parliament should approach the MFF regulation and legislative proposals of the different multiannual programs as a whole package like it did it successfully in case of the Supervision System Mechanism;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 f (new)
Paragraph 8 f (new)
8f. Invites the next European Commission and the next European Parliament to carefully look at the achievements of the EU 2020 strategy, especially at the employment-related targets, and to use the review clause to add financial resources to boost the Strategy, taking into account that the negative impact of the ongoing crisis has jeopardised it;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 g (new)
Paragraph 8 g (new)
8g. Recalls that the foreseen revision of the MFF shall not have a downward impact on any pre-allocated national envelopes for cohesion policy and in particular on ESF allocations;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 h (new)
Paragraph 8 h (new)
8h. Calls on the next European Commission to tackle the issue of youth unemployment by proposing a substantial increase of the Youth Employment Initiative budget in the framework of the MFF revision process;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 i (new)
Paragraph 8 i (new)
8i. Brings the attention of the next European Commission and European Parliament to the fact that the Regulation on the European Social Fund foresees, on top of the MFF revision process, that 'the resources for the YEI may be revised upwards for the years 2016 to 2020 in the framework of the budgetary procedure in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 1311/2013';
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 j (new)
Paragraph 8 j (new)
8j. Is deeply concerned with the fact that any budgetary debate in the Council has been for many years poisoned by the logic of 'fair returns' and stresses that this situation is largely due to the current system of EU financing, whereby some 85 % of revenues stem from national contributions instead of genuine own resources, as foreseen in the Treaty of Rome;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 k (new)
Paragraph 8 k (new)
8k. Notes that the European Council took a top-down approach in deciding the overall size of the MFF 2014-2020, which in turn demonstrates a worrying discrepancy between EU political commitments which the European Council has been making and its reluctance to adequately finance them; underlines that the European Parliament has underestimated the ability of the European Council to evaluate the impact of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty regarding the EP powers on the MFF adoption and to maintain this approach;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 l (new)
Paragraph 8 l (new)
8l. Is convinced that any decision on the financial framework should be preceded by – and based on – a genuine political debate on the role, function and added value of the EU budget and on its compatibility with the political strategy adopted by the Union and operational objectives assigned to the Union;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 m (new)
Paragraph 8 m (new)
8m. Points out that the conclusions of the European Council are to be seen as negotiating instructions for the Council; deeply regrets the fact that this problem marked the negotiations on EU multiannual programmes, notably regarding the European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is deeply concerned atwith the fact that any budgetary debate in the Council has been for many years poisoned by the logic of ‘'fair returns’' ; stresses that this situation is largely due to the current system of EU financing, whereby some 85 % of revenues stem from national contributions instead of genuine own resources, as foreseen in the Treaty of Rome; considers that such a system places disproportionate emphasis on net balances between the Member States and has led to the progressive introduction of complex and opaque rebates and other correction mechanisms for the financing of the EU budget;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the European Council took a top-down approach toin deciding the overall size of the MFF 2014-2020, which in turn demonstrates a worrying discrepancy between EU political commitments which the European Council has been making and its reluctance to adequately finance them; believes, on the contrary, that this decision should be based on a bottom-up process, resulting from a thorough assessment of EU financial needs and political objectives as set out in EU multiannual programmes and policies defined by the legislator; underlines that the European Parliament has underestimated the ability of the European Council to evaluate the impact of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty regarding the EP powers on the MFF adoption and to maintain this approach;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is, therefore, convinced that any decision on the financial framework should be preceded by – and based on – a genuine political debate on the role, function and added value of the EU budget and on its compatibility with the political strategy adopted by the Union and operational objectives assigned to the Union; considers that, in order to bridge the gap between divergent visions on what the EU budget stands for and what it can achieve, this debate should be organised in due time and involve the three EU institutions and all national parliaments, but also engage the highest political level in the Member States;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Invites the next European Commission and the next European Parliament to carefully look at the achievements of the EU 2020 strategy, especially at the employment-related targets, and to use the review clause to add financial resources to boost the Strategy, taking into account that the negative impact of the ongoing crisis has jeopardised it;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Points out that the conclusions of the European Council are to be seen as negotiating instructions for the Council and that they in no case constitute red lines which cannot be negotiated with Parliament; deeply regrets the fact that this problem marked the negotiations on EU multiannual programmes, notably regarding the European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund; calls for a standard formula recalling the provisions of Article 15(1) TFEU to be included in the conclusions of the European Council;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Regrets that the European Parliament decided not to make full use of the possibilities provided by the ordinary legislative procedure in the negotiations with the Council on the legislative basis; considers, in this context, that special attention should be given to the cases where a legislative proposal has been recognised to fall in the competences of more than one committee; is of the view that in these special cases, the mandate for negotiations with the Council should be obtained from the plenary in order to assure broad support, strengthen the EP negotiation position and guarantee transparency;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Considers that, while agreements negotiated with the Council should be given the possibility of a smooth adoption in plenary, this cannot be at the price of preventing plenary of any possibility to amend the agreed texts; is of the view that such procedures could only be applied when a very broad political consensus has been found on the agreed text; calls, therefore, on its competent committee to examine the possibility to apply the provisions of Rule 138 of the EP Rules of Procedure to first and second reading agreements;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Suggests, if the Treaty remains unchanged, that in the next MFF negotiations the European Parliament should approach the MFF regulation and legislative proposals of the different multiannual programs as a whole package like it did it successfully in case of the Supervision System Mechanism;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Recalls that the foreseen revision of the MFF shall not have a downward impact on any pre-allocated national envelopes for cohesion policy and in particular on ESF allocations;