BETA

46 Amendments of Lajos BOKROS

2013/0190(NLE)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Latvian Government to maintain its prudent fiscal policy stance, together with its overall stability-oriented policies, anticipating potential future macroeconomic imbalances and risks to price stability; notes that the price stability in Latvia is very dependent on potentially rising commodity prices due to the country’s low energy efficiency and the composition of its consumer basket; calls on the government to make improvements in this regard;

2013/06/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0190(NLE)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes that the scope for further productivity improvements is limited and future growth will also be dependent on the Latvian government’s progress towards improving the business environment;

2013/06/19
Committee: ECON

2013/0190(NLE)

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Latvian Government to address structural deficiencies in the labour market by appropriate structural, tax and educational reforms;

2013/06/19
Committee: ECON

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

~~1 Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom (OJ L 278, 8.10.1976, p. 1, as amended by Council Decision 93/81/Euratom, ECSC, EEC (OJ L 33, 9.2.1993, p. 15)~~Ba. whereas there are no clear provisions on the way in which seats in the European Parliament are to be distributed when a new Member State joins the Union, and whereas it is necessary to take into account the fact that further expansion of the Union is expected, which will raise new questions on the representation of each Member State within the European Parliament and bythe Council ~~Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom (OJ L 283, 21.10.2002, p. 1).~~of the European Union, Or. en

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas the current allocation of seats in the European Parliament is not proportional and is thus in contradiction with the Treaty on European Union, and whereas the representation of each Member State in the European Parliament cannot be discussed separately from representation in the Council of the European Union,

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

~~C. whereas the demographic changes that have occurred since the last elections to the European Parliament should be taken into consideration,~~deleted

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS, Marietta GIANNAKOU

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas, given that the problem of truly degressive proportional representation in the European Parliament and the Council can be definitively solved only by changes to the Treaty on European Union, a temporary solution must be found pending the resolution of that question by changes to the Treaty,

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

~~1 See note "The allocation between the EU Member States of the seats in the European Parliament - Cambridge compromise" by Parliament's Policy Department C (PE 432.760).~~ Ca. whereas those demographic changes of a temporary nature, caused by economic cycles, that have affected Member States which, by remaining committed to the agreements under the EU Balance-of- Payments financial assistance programmes, have implemented demanding economic adjustment measures and maintained fixed exchange rates, thus helping to ensure financial stability and confidence across the Union, should not be taken into consideration,

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS, Marietta GIANNAKOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out that the only possible temporary solution, in order not to distort the balance of representation of the Member States within the Union, is to temporarily increase the number of seats in the European Parliament from the 2014- 2019 parliamentary term, pending changes to the Treaty;

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS

Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Recital 4

(4) This Decision ~~must~~should have respected the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union, namely representatives of the Union's citizens not exceeding seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President, that representation being degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State and no Member State being allocated more than ninety-six seats,

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS

Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Article 1 – introductory part

In the application of the principle of degressive proportionality provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the following principles sh~~all~~ould have been respected as far as possible:

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS

Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Article 1 – indent 1 a (new)

– the number of seats is not reduced for those Member States which under the EU Balance-of-Payments financial assistance programmes have implemented demanding adjustment measures and maintained fixed exchange rates, thus helping to ensure financial stability and confidence across the Union;

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS

Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Article 3

Pursuant to Article 1, the number of representatives in the European Parliament elected in each Member State is hereby set as follows, with effect from the beginning of the 2014-2019 parliamentary term: Belgium 212 Bulgaria 178 Czech Republic 212 Denmark 13 Germany 969 Estonia 6 Ireland 112 Greece 212 Spain 54 France 74 Croatia 112 Italy 73 Cyprus 6 Latvia 89 Lithuania 112 Luxembourg 6 Hungary 212 Malta 6 Netherlands 26 Austria 19 Poland 51 Portugal 212 Romania 323 Slovenia 8 Slovakia 13 Finland 13 Sweden 1920 United Kingdom 73

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2012/2309(INI)

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Roberts ZĪLE, Lajos BOKROS, Ivars GODMANIS

Proposal for a Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament
Article 4

This Decision shall be revised sufficiently far in advance of the beginning of the 2019- 2024 parliamentary term with the aim of establishing a system which in future will make it possible, before each fresh election to the European Parliament, toremain in effect until such time as new principles are laid down for the reallocat~~e the~~ion of seats between the Member States in an objective manner, based on the principle of degressive proportionality set forth in Article 1, taking account of any increase in their number and demographic trends in their population as duly ascertained, as well as voting rights in the Council.

2013/02/01
Committee: AFCO

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Acknowledges that if the EU budget is to contribute to the collective effort of Member States in times of austerity this effort should be commensurate with its size, specific features and real economic impact; reminds the Council that under EU Treaty provisions the EU budget cannot run a deficit and that cuts to it, given its limited size, will have no significant long-term impact in addressing the urgent issue of accumulated national public deficit, which amounted in 2009 to EUR 801 billion for the EU as a whole;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Highlights the fact that the proposed figures in the 2012 EU annual budget are consistent with the profile of EU expenditure set in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013; emphasises that any increase (or decrease) compared to Budget 2011 must therefore be assessed bearing in mind its impact on the delivery of the multiannual programmes; stresses that this is a question of institutional credibility and coherence of the EU project when EU responsibilities and commitments keep on growing; deeply regrets from this point of view that the Commission did not propose endowing policies and new competencies established at EU level following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with meaningful and visible financial capacity;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes the proposed increase in PA of 4.9% compared to 2011; is convinced that the Commission is proposing such figures on the basis of a careful and critical analysis of forecasts provided by Member States, which themselves co-manage 80% of the EU budget; notes that the bulk of this increase is linked to legal needs arising in relation to the 7th Research Programme and the Structural and Cohesion Funds; is convinced that the proposed level of payments represents the bare minimum required to honour EU legal commitments made in previous years and that it is the EU’s duty to comply with the legal obligations deriving from these commitments; strongly urges the Council, therefore, to refrain from cutting the proposed level of payments;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Regret~~Notes, however, that most of the increases foreseen under this heading for 2012 do not go beyond the mere yearly breakdown of multiannual global amounts agreed to by both Parliament and Council when these programmes and actions were adopted; underlines therefore that the Commission does not generally propose to boost – beyond what was originally planned – the support for investments urgently needed to implement the seven flagship initiatives, and notes that it is regrettably inclined to postpone the necessary big leap in terms of common financial effort to the post-2013 MFF; is convinced that this attitude will seriously endanger the achievement of the headline goals by 2020;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Underlines that, with the DB 2012 and the updated financial programming for 2013, the total amount of funds committed by 2013 for key programmes for the achievement of the EU 2020 strategy, such as the 7th EC Framework Research Program (EC FP7), anti-pollution measures, Marco Polo II, PROGRESS, Galileo and GMES, would be less than the reference amount agreed by Parliament and Council when these programmes were adopted; notes that, on the contrary, these reference amounts would be slightly exceeded in the case of the following key Europe 2020 programmes: the Competiveness and Innovation Framework programme (CIP), Trans-European Transport Network, Trans-European Energy network, Erasmus Mundus and Lifelong Learning; ~~regrets, however, that these proposed increases are well below the 5% legislative flexibility allowed under Point 37 of the IIA~~asks for assessment of the programmes;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Notes with concern, in addition to the proposed EUR 100 million redeployment for ITER, the extra cuts of EUR 64 million made to EC FP7 as compared to the financial programming; regrets that the Commission is not proposing to use all the savings (amounting in total to EUR 190 million) to be made in 2012 thanks to re-assessment of staffing needs and the reduced financial contributions to some Joint Undertakings for the benefit of operational expenditure under the EC FP7;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Recalls that the bulk of the new EU competences introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, in the areas of energy, tourism and space, falls within the remit of Heading 1a; expresses its disappointment that no extra funding for these new policies is proposed by the Commission in the third year after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; underlines that neither Galileo nor GMES – the two main EU space programmes – is to benefit from extra funding by the end of the current MFF and that the Galileo funding is decreasing between 2011 and 2012; reiterates the need to introduce some specific, visible measures in support of tourism, given the economic relevance of this sector, which represents the third industry in Europe in terms of size and revenue, and regrets that the Commission is not proposing a new legal basis to replace the three preparatory actions in this field which cannot be extended in 2012;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to include in the DB for the second consecutive year payment appropriations (EUR 50 million) for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF); underlines the fact that this not only gives higher visibility to the fund but also avoids transfers from other budget lines pursuing different aims and covering different needs; eagerly awaits the presentation of the mid-term review of the EGF Regulation by the Commission as a means of identifying ways to speed up the procedure for mobilising the fund and of simplifying its management rules;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Stresses therefore that this level of payments ~~is a bare minimum and~~ complies fully with realistic budgeting, taking due account of the general payment profile over the period, the Member States’ available forecast in respect of payment claims to be sent to the Commission, and the need to fill the gap between commitments and payments; underlines the fact that these cash flows will also help accelerate the recovery of the European economy and contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy in the regions; will therefore strictly oppose any possible decrease in the level of payments compared to the one proposed by the Commission in its Draft Budget, particularly in view of Council’s early 2011 reluctance to honour its formal commitment of December 2010 to providing fresh appropriations in case of need;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Observes that these increases are above all the consequence of continuous phasing- in of direct payments to new Member States and additional needs for rural development; ~~underlines the fact that market interventions remain almost stable compared with Budget 2011, while price volatility and the instability of certain markets continue to affect the agricultural sector;~~

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Notes that these increases are mostly linked to three of the four Solidarity and Management of Immigration programmes: External Borders Fund (+38%), European Return Fund (+43%) and European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (+24%); emphasises, however, that the increases foreseen under this heading for 2012 are simply the result of the yearly breakdown of multiannual global amounts agreed upon by both Parliament and Council when these programmes and actions were adopted;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Very much wonders, therefore, whether the DB presented by the Commission constitutes an appropriate and updated answer to the current challenges facing the EU, not least in the context of the ongoing events in the Southern Mediterranean; rRecalls its strong call for an appropriate and balanced answer to these challenges, in full respect of internal protection rules and human rights; highlights in particular the role and support of the European Refugee Fund, including emergency measures in the event of mass influxes of refugees, and greatly regrets that the Commission did not propose any increase for this fund beyond what was initially foreseen in the financial programming;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Regrets that similar efforts are not being proposed for programmes such as MEDIA and Culture 2007, although they contribute greatly to the richness and diversity of European culture and give support to actions which would not be funded by Member States alone;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

53. Is astonished that the Commission has not proposed in its Draft Budget 2012 any specific programme in favour of sport, although this is now a fully-fledged competence of the Union deriving from the Treaty of Lisbon; finds this attitude all the more surprising since some funding – though of limited magnitude – was available in Budgets 2009, 2010 and 2011;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. Notes that the commitment and payment appropriations requested in the DB 2012 have increased by 2.9% and 0.8%, as compared to the 2011 Budget, to EUR 9 009.3 and EUR 7 293.7 million respectively (account being taken of the Emergency Aid reserve); ~~points out that these increases remain below the increase proposed by the Commission for the Budget as a whole;~~

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65

65. ~~Not~~Welcomes the letter from the Commissioner for Financial Programming and Budget of 3 February 2011 committing to an increase in Heading 5 expenditure below 1% and no new staff as compared to 2011 and calling upon all institutions to follow the same approach as regards the evolution of their budgets and expresses its determination to follow this example;

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67

67. ~~Acknowledg~~Welcomes the Commission’s great effort to freeze its own administrative expenditure in nominal terms; notes that this was rendered possible through the offsetting of the increases linked to statutory and contractual obligations against other drastic cuts in other administrative expenditure; is nevertheless ~~concerned about~~determined to analyse the possible consequences of the latter, for instance those related to training (-11%) and publications (-17% and -2.1% for the Publication Office);

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68

68. Stresses that any further cut to 2012 administrative appropriations within Section III, including to the administrative support expenditure lines (former BA-lines), might have an adverse impact on the implementation of programmes, in particular in view of the new EU tasks following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; insists that the savings resulting from reduced administrative support expenditure remain within the corresponding programmes’ financial envelopes for enhanced delivery on the ground; emphasises, furthermore, that while EU competences keep on increasing, this trend is not sustainable in the long term and will have an adverse impact on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69

69. Acknowledges the Commission’s efforts not to request any additional posts, but views with scepticism its commitment to meet all its needs, including those relating to new priorities and to the entry into force of the TFEU, merely by means of internal redeployment of existing human resources; wonders in particular where the 230 additional posts for the monitoring of Member States’ economic and financial situation within DG ECFIN are to be redeployed from and what the impact of 70 fewer posts for administrative support and programmes management will be, following redeployments within specific Directorates-General;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2019(BUD)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71

71. Takes the view that the European Schools should be adequately funded in the interests of addressing the specific situation and needs of the children of agents of the EU institutions; will carefully scrutinise the proposed overall 1.7% increase as compared to 2011, which is below that foreseen in the financial programming, as well as each of the European Schools’ budget lines, and make, during its reading, any modification it considers appropriate in this respect;deleted

2011/05/24
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Reaffirms that the Parliament should show budgetary responsibility and self- restraint by staying around the inflation rate and finding additional savings; following the interinstitutional line, enlargement-related needs are to be integrated either by a letter of amendment or an amending budget; the needs for the 18 new MEPs following the Lisbon Treaty will be also integrated by a letter of amendment or an amending budget;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Considers that the ongoing efforts to modernise and rationalise the administration and the proposals for 2012 should contribute to a reduction in the external provision of services and expects significant savings to be made here so as to achieve a level of expenditure comparable at least to that of 2010;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Cut~~Keeps the contingency reserve ~~by X million EUR.~~at the level for 2011;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Keeps the funding for European political parties at the level of 2011 while allowing for an adjustment according to the inflation rate;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the Secretary General's proposal to continue to implement Parliament's environmental policy, to start- up an information campaign, to provide support for the multi-annual ICT strategy and to continue to modernise and rationalise the administration; would further welcome that the continued modernisation and rationalisation include that: - the library services provide expertise in all three working languages, - that the medical service continues to be adequately funded with an increase of 15%, - that exchanges with national parliaments continue to be adequately funded and kept at the level of 2011;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Lajos BOKROS, Helga TRÜPEL, Miguel PORTAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Notes that Members' travel costs could be significantly reduced if MEPs and staff were obliged, for flights within the Union, to travel economy class;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Anne E. JENSEN, Helga TRÜPEL, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Considers that efforts to modernise and rationalise the administration must also include the security of the parliament; requests a reserve of EUR 3 million, which would be lifted upon presentation of a viable concept for improvements and costs-plan;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2011/2018(BUD)

Miguel PORTAS, Lajos BOKROS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Considers that the above-mentioned ICT modernisation should engender significant savings with regard to the provision of external ICT services, allowing for the spending level of 2011 to be maintained; considers further that more competitive conditions might be negotiated with regard to the cleaning and maintenance costs of the Parliament in order to keep them at the level of 2011, which may further contribute to reducing the EP's environmental footprint; considers that in this context, EP's paper - related costs can be reduced by at least 10%;

2011/03/17
Committee: BUDG

2010/0035(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 4 a (new)

(4a) The reliability of statistics made available by the Commission (Eurostat) at Union level directly depends on the reliability of statistical data collected by Member States at national level.

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/0035(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 4 b (new)

(4b) Ensuring institutional independence of all national statutory statistical bodies is crucial to avoid any undue pressure on them from their respective governments.

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/0035(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 5

(5) In this connection, the Commission (Eurostat) should have additional rights of access to a widened scope of information for the needs of data quality assessment. It is essential that the data received from the Member States is shared in due time with the European Central Bank's Directorate General for Statistics.

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON

2010/0035(NLE)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EC) No 479/2009
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

The European Central Bank may verify the information received, in particular where such information emanates from Member States in the euro area.

2010/06/09
Committee: ECON