51 Amendments of Charles GOERENS related to 2022/2046(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Regrets that the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) lacks a sufficiently endowed Heading 6 and, therefore, the available margins have been very limited and shrinking since the first year, including an early depletion of the cushion, while the cushion is being used even beyond responding to emerging challenges and priorities, and the need to use the single margin also to cover commitments under Heading 6; is deeply concerned that the MFF is already pushed to its limits and it is not fit to continue addressing the multiple internal and external crises in a sustainable manner; Stresses the role of the European Union as a global player, especially regarding development policy and humanitarian aid, where it is a crucial actor providing stability and collectively the biggest donor in the world; emphasises that this role can only be fulfilled with the appropriate financial means, which must be increased due to the shifted geopolitical realities to allow the EU to be a reliable development partner and prevent further influence of other geopolitical actors in many developing countries; highlights that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is having global consequences and is generating unprecedented needs for EU external action, both in neighbouring countries and worldwide, as a result of ; stresses that these consequences have exacerbated the already existing vulnerabilities of economies in developing countries and generated, among other, food, energy and economic crises, which are, intertwined with the deteriorating security situation, impact of climate change and the economic recession due to the COVID-19 pandemic are exhausting resources of partner countries and undermining progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals; worldwide;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to adopt, in early 2023, anconduct an in-depth review of the functioning of the current MFF and proceed with a legislative proposal for a comprehensive and ambitious MFF revision proposal that substantially increases the resources for Heading 6; urges the Member States to agree to a significant increase in ceilingsof the MFF as soon as possible, and not later than the first quarter of 2023, that substantially increases the resources for Heading 6 to address the current challenges of EU external action where a common EU response has an added value; urges the Member States to agree to a significant increase in ceilings under Heading 6 including for aid and reconstruction in Ukraine; calls on the Commission to create an effective crisis response mechanism to tackle the new challenges without jeopardizing priorities established under co-decision in the relevant programmes, in particular as regards climate and development aid;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Highlights that only seven years are left to achieve Agenda 2030 and regrets that according to the SDG Report 20221a, the global average of the SDG index decreased slightly for the second consecutive year; emphasises the urgent need to achieve the SDGs, especially SDG 1 (“No Poverty”) and SDG 10 (“Reduced Inequalities”), given their strategic importance for the implementation of the other goals; underlines that inequalities between countries and people are dramatically increasing, making the need to transform economies and infrastructures in a just and sustainable way even more imperative; notes with deep concern the estimated annual SDG financing gap of USD 3,7 trillion; reiterates that the EU should play a crucial role in the implementation of the SDGs and support partner countries in their efforts; insists that the MFF revision needs to contribute to a wider plan to finance the SDGs and include clearly defined quantifiable indicators allowing for the monitoring of SDG-related spending under the EU budget; reaffirms that the increased financial needs to reach the SDGs cannot be covered only by funding from the MFF and from EU Member States; _________________ 1a https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/Th e-Sustainable-Development-Goals- Report-2022.pdf
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the global humanitarian funding gap continues to grow; stresses that the humanitarian aid instrument must receive significantly more funding in the revised MFF to match the EU’s ambition to be a leading humanitarian donorwas the highest it has ever been in 2022 at USD 36.9 billion, and continues to grow while the unpredictability and the impacts of climate and human-induced disasters continue to arise; underlines that the numerous top-ups of the EU’s annual humanitarian budget in recent years have proven that the initially allocated funding has never been sufficient to cover the humanitarian needs for the entire year; stresses that the humanitarian aid instrument must receive significantly more funding in the revised MFF to match the EU’s ambition to be a leading humanitarian donor, to play a more visible role and to lead by example in encouraging other donors to increase their financial contribution to humanitarian aid; recalls that providing humanitarian assistance to one crisis should not come at the expense of funding to other humanitarian operations, nor should humanitarian aid funds be diverted to other budget lines during the annual budgetary procedure unless the needs have decreased;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that the sudden emergence of severe European-wide crises, such as the pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and their detrimental economic spillover, have tested the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and underlined the need for the MFF to be strengthened and managed in a more flexible, yet sustainable, manner; therefore sees a need for thea structural revision of the MFF and calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth review of the functioning of the current MFF and to proceed with a legislative proposal for comprehensive MFF revision as soon as possible, and no later than the first quarter of 2023;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Urgently calls for a more coherent application of the humanitarian- development-peace nexus approach and for investments in disaster risk reduction to address the growing number of protracted crises, prevent shocks and crises in the short, medium and long term;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the need for flexibility mechanisms to have sufficient funding to respond to crises, without hampering efforts to achieve transparency and democratic accountability; is concerned by the uneven mobilisation of the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR); notes that a disproportionate amount of SEAR resources are used for internal purposes; calls for an overall increase of the resources allocated to SEAR; calls for more predictability in meeting internal and external emergency needs by separating the SEAR into a Solidarity Reserve for needs within the EU and an Emergency Aid Reserve for external action, or by ring- fencing the share dedicated for external crises for the entire year; insists that the resources available under SEAR should be allocated when they are required, on a strict needs basis;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that under the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 20201 , where a proposal for a new MFF or for a substantial revision has been presented, the institutions have committed to seeking to determine specific arrangements for cooperation and dialogue between them throughout the procedure leading to its adoption; reaffirms its commitment to this Agreement and expresses its readiness to engage with the other institutions to devise and implement ambitious and future-proof budget solutions; _________________ 1 Point 15 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources (OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 28)
Amendment 7 #
5. Calls for the MFF revision to provide additional funds to the humanitarian aid instrument as well as to the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) – Global Europe instrument, particularly to reinforce the budget lines most in demand recently and to meet the additional needs caused by the Russian war against Ukraine, including those used to counter climate related disasters impacting developing countries and to anticipate and prevent similar situations in the future, and those budget lines used to meet the additional needs caused by the Russian war against Ukraine, notably addressing current food insecurity, and financing of cross-sectoral efforts to increase capacity for diversified local and regional food production, without diverting money from other geographic regions and thematic lines;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the vital role played by the European Parliament in the preparation, review and scrutiny of the MFF; reiterates its view that any future decisions on the budgetary architecture of the Union should safeguard the community method and ensure that the Parliament is fully involved in the decision-making process; recalls that all elements of the MFF package must be implemented in accordance with the principle of mutual sincere cooperation, as laid down in Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union; regrets the use of instruments to advance legislation without European Parliament’s consent or influence;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the comprehensive and ambitious MFF revision shouldmay have to be accompanied by the necessary legislative changeadjustments to the NDICI – Global Europe Regulation. to enhance flexibility, efficiency and clarity and transparency of programming cycles, funding decisions and implementation and to reinforce engagement of civil society and local actors and reflect the changed international environment;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls for securing adequate financing for the NDICI-Global Europe geographic and thematic programmes, particularly the “Global Challenges” thematic programmes, in order to help developing countries invest in climate adaptation measures to better prevent impacts of climate change, in particular to help implement anticipatory and medium to long-term locally-led climate adaptation actions to compensate for climate change induced loss and damage; encourage their transition towards more self-sufficient food production systems, supporting sustainable agriculture, with agro-ecology and agro-forestry as well as fisheries to increase food security, particularly in terms of small scale family farming while prioritising financing for training and education for young people; as well as to support access to inclusive and quality education for all, vocational and technical training, particularly in fragile environments; highlights that access to quality education and vocational training for young people in developing countries is a necessary precondition for economic diversification and empowerment as well as for resilience building;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Invites the Commission to propose new own resources ahead of the timeline envisaged in the legally binding roadmap for the current MFF by the end of 2023; points out that these new resources should generate sufficient income to ensure that the common debt can be effectively repaid;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Commission’s proposed revision of the MFF should be aligned with the ‘Fit for 55’ package and with the objectives set on Paris agreement; should take into consideration the main points of the Versailles declaration, notably food security;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, since the adoption of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) in December 2020, the political, economic and social context has changevolved beyond recognition, startincluding with the unprecedented scale and dramatic consequences of the continued COVID-19 pandemic, which is far fromnot over yet;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that the Conference on the Future of Europe has proposed strengthening the Union budget through new own resources2 and that the European Parliament should decide on the Union budget as it is the right of parliaments at national level3 ; calls in that regard for the European Parliament to be more closely associated with the Commission and the Council in the process of adopting new own resources; stresses that the Conference provided additional momentum for a revision of the current MFF; _________________ 2 Conference on the Future of Europe proposal 16. 3 Conference on the Future of Europe proposal 39.4, third bullet.
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomesTakes the view that the Recovery and Resilience Facility has been an effective and critical tool in times of crisis, supporting economic convergence between Member States and enabling the financing of strategic cross-border projects with European added value; takes note of the application by the Commission of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation5 laying down the rules necessary for the protection of the Union budget in the case of breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States which affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a sufficiently direct way; regrets the delay in the enforcement of the Rule of Law Conditionality mechanism and calls on the Commission to strengthen its oversight of the milestones and targets to be met by the Member States; underlines that funds cannot be disbursed if Member States do not uphold the rule of law and comply with all relevant ECJ rulings; _________________ 5 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1).
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Calls the Institutions for a rise on the budget allocated in third countries for food security;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas citizens rightly expect thea bigger EU budget to respond effectively to evolving needs and to better support them in crises;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Reiterates its call for the activation of the passerelle clause provided for in Article 312(2) TFEU so as to allow the Council to adoption the MFF Regulation by qualified majority; recalls its proposals that the ordinary legislative procedure be applied for the adoption of the MFF Regulation; calls for Article 311(3) TFEU to be amended so as to allow the European Parliament to give its consent in the process of adopting new own resources.
Amendment 27 #
10 a. calls on the Commission to initiate a work on the third-countries financial contributions and to better coordinate these with the priorities of the multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the combined effect of multiple crises and, low MFF ceilings and cumbersome rules applying to any MFF review or revision has given rise to a ‘galaxy’ of ad hoc instruments beyond the EU budget, as well as greater use of external assigned revenue not subject to the budgetary procedure, most notably in the case of NextGenerationEU; whereas, as one arm of the budgetary authority, Parliament should play a full role in this new budgetary environment in order to ensure democratic accountability and transparency;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the MFF revision should be accompanied by the necessary legislative changesadjustments and flexibility to the NDICI – Global Europe Regulation.
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the central role that the EU budget must plays in delivering on the Union’s political priorities, including making a success of the green and digital transitions, fostering an inclusive and social recovery, promoting growth, strategic autonomy and energy independence, providing support for small and medium-sized enterprises, fostering sustainable development that leaves no one behind and ensures cohesion and upward convergence, ensuring a more robust European Health Union in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, promoting the rule of law, EU values and fundamental rights, contributing to greater opportunities for all, and ensuring a stronger Union for its people and in the world;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Asks therefore the Commission to consider putting forward a legislative proposal establishing a temporary instrument outside the MFF for the mutualisation of war-related costs ("Ukrainian crisis Adjustment Reserve"), that would be aimed to support the most affected Member States;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that essential new policy initiatives put forward since the adoption of the current MFF have come with proposals to shift money away from key EU policies and objectives that actually pay for the collateral damages of the recent crises; considers that recurrent redeployments are not a viable way to finance Union’s priorities;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points to the extensive use made of the special instruments in the first two years of the MFF; notes that the Flexibility Instrument was mobilised for Heading 6 spending in 2022 and points to the proposal that it beCommission’s proposal in the Amending Letter 1/2023 that it will be significantly mobilised for spending under both Headings 62b, 5 and 76 in 2023; points out that, under the defence proposal of July 202218 , further appropriations are to be mobilised via special instruments in 2023 andalso in 2024; _________________ 18 Proposal of 19 July 2022 for a regulation on establishing the European defence industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act (COM(2022)0349).
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights that the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR) was almost exhausted in 2021 and is projected to be fully exhausted in 2022 after having provided a combination of humanitarian aid and support to Member States for tackling natural and man-made disasters; points out that the extension of the scope of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to include public health emergencies, coupled with the increased scale and frequency of natural disasters, the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the resulting arrival of large numbers of refugees in the EU, has placed the SEAR under extreme strain; expects, further, that the dramatic consequences of the unprecedented wildfires in the summer of 2022 will require significant financial support, including from the SEAR;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises, therefore, that the 2021-2027 MFF is already being pushed to its limits less than two years after its adoption, a situation aggravated by the unforeseeable events of 2022; points out that it is simply not equipped, in terms of size, structure or rules, to respond to a multitude of crises of this scale, nor to adequately finance new shared EU policy ambitions and the swift implementation of the requisite EU-wide solutions; is very concerned, in this regard, about the ability from the European Union to respond to any future unknown crises that might happen by 2027;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that the MFF is increased annually on the basis of a 2 % deflator applied to 2018 prices; underlines that spiralling energy prices and extreme energy market volatility caused mainly by Russia’s decision to cut gas supply have been feeding soaring inflation, with severe impacts on citizens, businesses and consumers; is deeply concerned that such unexpectedly high levels of inflation are placing the MFF under severe strain and reducing its purchasing power further, in a context where its overall level is already lower than previous MFFs in terms of share of the EU GDP; stresses that, in practice, this means that fewer Union projects and actions can be funded, thereby negatively impacting beneficiaries;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Observes the continuing demand for the EU budget to serve as a guarantee for additional necessary macro-financial assistance (MFA), especially for Ukraine; welcomes the EU support in this regard; notes, however, that the higher risks of default and the large amount at stake entail significant contingent liabilities;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines that the unanimity requirement for adoption of the MFF Regulation impedes the necessary decisions in the revision process; calls, in that regard, on the European Council to activate the passerelle clause set out in Article 312(2) TFEU to allow for adoption of the MFF Regulation by qualified majority; recalls its proposals that the ordinary legislative procedure be applied for the adoption of the MFF Regulation;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Strongly supports the use of the Regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the EU budget (the Conditionality Regulation); believes that its entry into force had a general deterrent effect on nationals authorities planning to breach the rule of law with EU funds; regrets its long- overdue application by the Commission in case of Hungary; commits to do whatever it can to ensure the respect of the provisions of the Regulation and their effective implementation; emphasises the clear link between respect for the rule of law and the efficient implementation of the EU budget; notes that any upscaling of the 2021-2027 MFF should aim to reinforce the protection of the rule of law and EU’s financial interests; underlines that the Conditionality Regulation aims first and foremost at protecting the EU budget rather than the rule of law; asks the Commission to assess how the Regulation could be improved to allow the EU to suspend EU funds whenever there are breaches of the rule of law in Member States in order to ensure the full respect of Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Reaffirms its long-standing position that new political initiatives must be financed with additional fresh money and not to the detriment of well-established, pre-existing Union programmes or policies; strongly criticizes the systematic use of redeployments and the relabelling of existing programmes to finance new initiatives(“budgetwashing”);
Amendment 162 #
18. Highlights that many of the policy ambitions recently stated – notably in the fields of energy and strategic and industrial autonomy – and the new policy initiatives since January 2021 (Chips Act, Secure Connectivity, Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority) imply spending under Heading 1; opposes the use of agreed programme envelopes to finance new initiatives and believes that the margins are insufficient to accommodate the greater long-term needs; calls, therefore, for an increase in the ceiling of Heading 1;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Welcomes, in this regard, the announcement made by the Commission President in her State of the Union address on 14 September 2022, calling for the establishment of a European Sovereignty Fund; shares Commission’s concerns over the EU’s dependencies on non-EU countries, as it is the case for energy, critical industrial items, fertilisers, raw materials, chemicals and other key products for the European economy; commits to critically assess any proposal to make sure it responds to real needs and provides fresh means; calls in this regard for the establishment of a new dedicated Fund to secure the strategic autonomy of the Union by financing cross-border energy infrastructure, renewable energy production and energy efficiency, as well as supporting space, cybersecurity, key industrial sectors, the circular economy, food security, new partnerships, production of critical chemicals and raw materials; insists that any such new fund should be established according to the ordinary legislative procedure and function under the full oversight of the European Parliament and with direct management by the Commission; emphasises that its overall amount should be established on the basis of a clear assessment of the costs and investment gaps; asks all of it to be based on lessons learnt from NGEU and be presented with the upcoming MFF revision in 2023;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Regrets that, contrary to Parliament’s position, it was decidedcalls that the costs of EURI borrowing and the repayment of debt bare included as a budget line under Heading 2b, alongside flagship programmes such as Erasmus+, EU4Health, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values; stresses nevertheless that interest costs and debt repayment depend on market developments, are not discretionary spending, do not follow the logic of caps on spending and should never compete with programmes under the same ceiling; recalls that any activation of the Emergency Support Instrument also depends on the availability of an unallocated margin under the ceiling of this heading; reminds that this decision was taken for the 2021-2027 period only, without prejudice to future negotiations; insists, therefore, that the status quo presents significant risks to programme spending and that the repayment line be removed from Heading 2b and counted over and above the MFF ceilings;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Reiterates its position that the Social Climate Fund must be fully incorporated into the EU budget and within the MFF, without negatively impacting other programmes and funds under this heading, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring food security and delivering on the Green Deal; calls for the ceiling of Heading 3 to be adjusted accordingly; calls on the Council to move forward with the targeted MFF revision as soon as possible to integrate the Social Climate Fund into the MFF; reminds the other arm of the budgetary authority its obligation to respect budget unity;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Highlights that the necessary spending to enhance defence cooperation and investment cannot solely be covered within the ceiling of Heading 5; calls for the ceiling to be increased in line with needswelcomes the Commission’s upcoming proposal for a European defence investment programme (EDIP) in view of introducing joint procurement and life cycle management of military capabilities; calls for the ceiling to be increased in line with needs; considers, in this regard, that savings could be made thanks to a mutualisation of defence spending between the Member States at the EU level;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Deplores the fact that, even prior to the war against Ukraine, funds available under Heading 6 were woefully inadequate and that pressure has since increased substantially; underlines that the continued funding for the needs of refugees from Syria, Iraq and other countries was not factored into the MFF or NDICI-Global Europe negotiations and should therefore have been financed by fresh appropriations with a corresponding increase in the ceiling of Heading 6; highlights that, owing to the risk of default on MFA loans provided to Ukraine, a far higher rate of provisioning than the standard 9 % is likely to be required as further loans are rolled out, rather than redeployments; highlights that a far higher rate of provisioning than the standard 9 % is required for MFA loans provided to Ukraine as further loans are rolled out following the higher risk of default due to the war imposed by Russia; underlines that additional needs in Ukraine must not lead to money being diverted away from other geographic regions in need; insists, therefore, on an increase in the ceiling for Heading 6 to fully cover the current and projected future needs of the Union’s external action, which have dramatically increased both in neighbouring countries, especially in Ukraine, and worldwide as a result of the food, energy and economic crises;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses that the MFF revision must not lead to any downwards revision of the pre-allocated national envelopes; emphasises the fact that the late agreement on the MFF for 2021-2027 and on the cohesion policy package, coupled with the COVID-19 crisis, led to a slow start to the programming process, but not because of the policy itself even though more administrative simplification is strongly needed; underlines that the delayed start does not in any way call into question the pivotal role and added value of cohesion policy as the essential Union investment policy and convergence instrument;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that payment appropriations flow directly from commitments and recalls, therefore, that any increase in the ceilings for commitments per heading will have to be accompanied by a correspondinglative increase in the ceiling for payments for the same or subsequent years;
Amendment 250 #
29. Stresses that, while crisis response measures are necessary and useful, cohesion policy is not a crisis response tool; is concerned that cohesion policy is increasingly being used to reinforce other policies and to make up for shortcomings in budgetary flexibility or crisis response mechanisms in the MFF; emphasises that cohesion policy is one of the priorities of the Union, has long-term investment objectives linked to the EU’s strategic agenda, in particular the European Green Deal and the Digital Agenda, and should not be used to replenish funding for other policies; calls, therefore, for cohesion funding levels to be preserved in the budget along with common agricultural policy;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Calls for annual appropriations for the Flexibility Instrument to be increased from EUR 915 million to EUR 2 billion; calls, in addition, for the SEAR to be split into two strands – the EAR and the EUSF – and for annual appropriations to be increased from EUR 1.2 billion for the SEAR overall to EUR 1 billion for each strand in 2018 prices; considers that this will provide vital additional resources to respond to current and emerging needs;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Insists that, beyond a reinforcement of the existing special instruments, it is necessary to establish a permanent fiscal capacity for the Euro Area and common crisis instrument as an additional permanent special instrument over and above the MFF ceilings so that the EU budget can better adapt and quickly react to crises and their social and economic effects;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Insists that decommitted appropriations should remain in the budge, fines not used for EU programmes top-ups in 2021-2027 and penalties should accrue to the crisis instrument so as to provide additional budgetary flexibility; underlines the need for corresponding changes to the Financial Regulation;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Underlines that many of the shortcomings and inadequacies in the current MFF are inherent in its logic and design, where predictability of spending drives decisions on structure and amounts and curbs flexibility; regrets the high tensions the MFF negotiations trigger due to its nature;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37 a. Regrets the decrease of the EU budget in terms of percentage to the EU GDP over the last decades; considers that capping the EU budget at roughly 1% of the EU GDP as a rule impedes the EU from fulfilling its increasing tasks; calls on the Member States to take decisions based on needs instead of dogmas;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Deplores, however, the repeated use of off-budget instruments, in particular under Article 122 TFEU, which runs counter to citizens’ interests, as this frustrates oversight, accountability and the transparency of public spending; considers, in that regard, than an annual plenary debate in Parliament on all EU finances, including off-budget instruments, will be an important step towards enhancing transparency and accountability;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Stresses, in this context, that the trend towards increased use of external assigned revenue is not a satisfactory solution as it weakens the role of the budgetary authority (Parliament and the Council), thereby negatively impacting democratic scrutiny and reducing the transparency of the EU’s finances; demands legally sound solutions that allow for targeted, one-off or needs-based top- ups that display the same advantages as earmarkxternal assigned revenue (i.e. not counted against the ceilings), but that are at the same time subject to full control of the budgetary authority; reminds its strong commitment to the universality principle;
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Calls on the Commission, furthermore, to begin a longer-term reflection on the EU budget post-2027 in the light of evolving spending needs and building on the work of the Conference on the Future of Europe with respect to own resources and the budget; insists that the successor to the current MFF be equipped to deal fully and flexibly with a range of policy priorities and spending needs and to ensure resilience in the event of crises; asks the Commission to review the whole architecture of the MFF, including through an assessment of the suitability of a long-term programming framework for all EU programmes and of the duration of programming periods of seven years;