Activities of Giovanni LA VIA related to 2011/2042(BUD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Preparation of 2012 budget (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2012 budget PDF (190 KB) DOC (101 KB)
Amendments (13)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Title before paragraph 1
Title before paragraph 1
A 2012 budget under the auspices of enhanced European economic governance, the European Semester mechanism and Europe 2020 objectives to boost employment
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Strongly believes that the European Semester should aim at improving the coordination and consistency of national and European economic and budgetary policies; takes the view that it should focus on improving synergies between European and national public investments in order better to achieve the EU’s overall political objectives; believnotes the fundamental differences, in this connectione structure of the EU budget and the national budgets; believes, however, that aggregate EU and national public expenditure on thesecommon political objectives should be determined as soon as possible;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers, however, that due to the difficult economic situation across the Union it is more relevant than ever to ensure a proper implementation and quality of spending of the EU budget and an optimal use of the existing community financing;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the opinion that the EU budget brings added value to national public expenditure by initiating, supporting and complementing investments in those policies which are at the core of Europe 2020; believes, moreover, that the EU budget has an instrumental role to play in helping the EU to exit the current economic and financial crisis through its capacity as a catalyst to boost investment, growth and jobs in Europe; takes the view that the EU budget could at least mitigate the effects of current restrictive national budgetary policies; stresses also that, given its redistributive nature, any attempt to limit the level of the EU budget will be detrimental to European solidarity and to the pace of economic development in most Member States; takes the view that thebelieves that a purely ‘net contributor’/’net beneficiary’ approach hadoes no economic rationale, since it disregardst take due account of spill-over effects between EU countries and therefore undermines common EU policy goals;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives will require a huge amount of future-oriented investment in the short, medium and longer term; stresses that the main objective of the Europe 2020 strategy – namely, to promote jobs and high-quality employment for all Europeans – will be achieved only if the necessary investments in education, research and development, innovation, SMEs and green technologies arshould be made now and not delayed any longer; calls for a renewed political compromise combining the reduction of public deficits and debt with the promotion of such investments; expresses its willingness to improve and widen existing instruments enhancing the synergy between the EU budget and EIB actions, in order to support long-term investments;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly opposes, therefore, any attempt to limitreduce budget appropriations in those sectors linked to the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy’s headline targets and seven flagship initiatives; notes that such an attempt would be counter- productive, most likely resulting in the failure of Europe 2020, as was the case for the Lisbon Strategy; takes the view that the Europe 2020 strategy can be credible only if adequately funded, and recalls that the EP has on numerous occasions raised this serious political concern; reiterates its strong request for the Commission to clarify the budgetary dimension of the flagship initiatives and inform the Parliament on the budgetary means necessary for the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes the Hungarian and Polish presidencies’ public commitments to enter into an open and constructive dialogue with the EP on budget matters in 2011; reaffirms its willingness to work in close cooperation with the Council and the Commission in full accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty; expects that the present guidelines will be taken into account fully during the 2012 budgetary procedure;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Title after paragraph 10
Title after paragraph 10
2012 EU BUDGET: budget responsibility should not automatically entail budget austerityat the heart of budget 2012
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Points out that the 2012 budget is the sixth of seven under the current MFF; believes that the two arms of the budgetary authority now have, therefore, a clearer view of the shortfalls and positive developments associated with existing multiannual programmes; notes that the mid-term reviews of most co-decided programmes has already taken place and calls on the Commission to present any budgetary implications resulting from this exercise; emphasises in this connection that the EP is determined – should it prove necessary in order to support EU political priorities, and in close cooperation with its specialised committees – to make full use of, inter alia, Point 37 of the IIA (allowing a 5% margin of legislative flexibility);
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Does not share the Council’s view that leaving sufficient margins below all MFF headings is a proper solution in order to address unforeseen circumstances; points out the recurrent under-financing of certain headings of the MFF as compared to the needs and EU political priorities endorsed by the Member States; is worried by the short-term approach underpinning the Council’s budget guidelines for 2012, which would jeopardise existing actions and programmes should unforeseen events or new political priorities arise; stresses that recent events in several North African countries already point to that direction;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses, in this connection, that keeping commitment appropriations under strict control would require not only significant redeployments and reprioritisation, but also the joint identification of possible negative priorities by the institutions; strongly urges its specialised committees to seriously engage in the process of determining clear political priorities in all EU policy fields; highlights, however, the fact that, to this end, greater budgetary flexibility (mainly between the headings of the current MFF) would be needed in order to align budgetary resources with evolving circumstances and priorities;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Underlines that the strengthening of a number of policies as well as the new competences set at EU level following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty should logically imply additional financial capacity for the EU, which was hardly the case for 2011, the first year after its entry into force; reminds the Council and the Commission of the political declaration annexed to the 2011 budget, whereby the Commission undertakes to consider ways to strengthen the Lisbon Treaty priority areas and thoroughly to assess the needs when preparing the draft budget for 2012; expects the Commission to follow suit by, for example, proposing to transform successful Lisbon-related pilot projects or preparatory actions into multiannual programmes;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. WelcomesTakes due account of the letter dated 3 February 2011 from the Commissioner for Financial Programming and Budget, reaffirming the Commission’s commitment to zero staff increase as well as its endeavour to limit the nominal increase (as compared to 2011) in administrative appropriations under Heading 5; is aware, however, that while EU competences keep on increasing, this trend may not be sustainable in the long term and may have an adverse impact on the swift and effective implementation of EU actions;