30 Amendments of Paulo RANGEL related to 2013/2277(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the conditions for financial assistance are jointly agreed between relevant EU institutions, the ESM and the IMF, but the final decision is always taken by the ESM board, according to a MoU previously negotiated with the Member State concerned;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital Ba (new)
Recital Ba (new)
Ba. whereas the Troika was an ad-hoc solution adopted under considerable time pressure in an emergency context arising from the economic crisis, to support countries in greatest difficulties, to avoid a disorderly default and the contagion of the crisis to other Member States, to stop speculation on sovereign debt, and to prevent the melt-down of the euro area;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the MemorandumoU signed by euro area countries seeking financial assistance affects fundamental rights and the social situation of those countries, buhave negative impacts on citizens' social rights, being, in this context, of the utmost importance to ensure that the development and implementation of actionthe financial assistance programmes are not subject to democratic scrutinyan appropriate democratic accountability both at European and national level;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that the current situation is damaging the imageTroika was justified as a backup and emergency solution to save euro area project and its countries economic and financial solidity, but, from now on, a permanent approach and mechanism focused ofn the European Unobjectives of sustainable growth and financial stability, should exist to prevent and deal with similar situations; calls for a Treaty change in order to create a single financial assistance instrument within the Community framework for all EU Member States;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the troika was a solution that was adopted under enormous time pressure, in the context of an emergency marked by the need to support those countries facing the greatest difficulties and avoid the breakup of the single currency;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1a (new)
Paragraph 1a (new)
1a. Considers that the current analysis of the Troika work on Programme Member States should be used as an important source of information to get lessons from the past and adopt new approaches on the new mechanisms that should be created to prevent high level of corrective costs on European economies in the future;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1b (new)
Paragraph 1b (new)
1b. Notes that, while the MoU negotiations and the Troika's mandate have been perceived as lacking some transparency, the national voters of the programme countries had the opportunity to express their approval to the general lines of the adjustment programmes;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Insists that European institutions involved in decisions regarding financial assistance to EU Member States must be accountable to the European Parliament and that relevant decisions must be voted on by the European Parliament; takes the view that, where necessary,such accountability requires them to be heard in the European Parliament before taking up its duties and to be subject to regular reporting to and regular scrutiny by the European Parliament; underlines the need to ensure democratic accountability of the Troika at national level and takes the view that national parliaments should be involved in the economic dialogueprocess;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that some ofattention should be given to alleviating the negative impact of adjustment strategies in the programme countries and that the conditionalities set by the Troika violate certainhave to respect fundamental rights. and should aim to contribute to the improvement of citizens' quality of life;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)
Paragraph 5a (new)
5a. Calls for all decisions related to the Economic and Monetary Union to be taken within the framework of the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, since any departure from the Community method and increased use of intergovernmental agreements would divide and weaken the Union.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the economic situation and recent developments in some Member States have compromised the quality ofcrisis and subsequent developments in the economic situation in some Member States have affected employment, and social protection stand health and safety standardards in various respects;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas, despite the alleged lack of transparency which suggests that some pressure was brought to bear on the bailed-out Member States during the negotiations to accept more stringent measures, it should be pointed out that voters in those countries had an opportunity to express their views while being aware of the broad lines of the adjustment programmes;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the programmes were in the short run primarily meant to avoid a disorderly default and stop speculation on sovereign debt; whereas the medium term aim was to ensure that the money that was lent would be reimbursed, thus avoiding a large financial loss that would rest on the shoulders of the taxpayers of the countries which are providing the assistance and guaranteeing the funds; whereas this also requires the programme to deliver sustainable growth and effective debt reduction in the medium and long term; whereas the programmes were not suited to comprehensively correcting macroeconomic imbalances which had accumulated sometimes over decades;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas the short-term objectives of the troika intervention have been achieved but we must now focus on a long-term vision and solutions, geared to the targets of sustainable growth, debt reduction and the correction of accumulated macroeconomic imbalances;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, at the beginning of the EU- IMF assistance programme, the Portuguese economy had suffered from low GDP and productivity growth for a number of years, and that this lack of growth, combined with the impact of the global financial crisis, had resulted in a largeincreasingly high levels of fiscal deficit and a high debt levelpublic debt, driving up Portugal’s refinancing costs in capital markets to unsustainable levels; notes in this context that in 2007 Portugal’s growth rate reached 2.4%, its fiscal deficit 3.1%, its debt level 62.7% and its current account deficit 10.2% of GDP, with the unemployment rate standing at 8.1%;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes in this context that in 2007 Portugal’s growth rate reached 2.4%, its fiscal deficit 3.1%, its debt level 62.7% and its current account deficit 10.2% of GDP, with the unemployment rate standing at 8.1%; notes that in 2011, when assistance was requested, the growth rate stood at -2.2%, fiscal deficit had reached 5.9%, the debt level 101.7% and the current account deficit 12.7% of GDP, with the unemployment rate standing at 12.2%;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes that the economic data used by the Portuguese Government responsible for the negotiations with the troika were subsequently revised downwards, which worsened the results and the impact of the ongoing economic measures, leading to a sharp rise in the social and economic costs of implementing the corresponding adjustment programme;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Points out, further, that financial intervention in Portugal came at a late stage, which has exacerbated the negative consequences of the programme's implementation;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the initial agreement between the Portuguese authorities on the one side and the EU and IMF on the other was adopted on 17 May 2011 in the relevant MoUs containing the policy conditionality for EU-IMF financial assistance; further notes that the Portuguese programme has since been reviewed regularly, leading to the combined eighth and ninth quarterly reviews of Portugal’s economic adjustment programme, which suggest a successful conclusion to the Portuguese programme;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Deplores the unpreparedness ofNotes that the EU and international institutions, including the IMF, were not prepared for a sovereign debt crisis of a large magnitude inside a monetary union, which was also due to the unique nature of the immense challenge the Troika faced and which led to the crisis, as a result of the poor state of regulation of financial services, large macroeconomic imbalances, and the fact that a number of instruments such as external devaluation were not available due to the constraints of monetary union; notes, moreover, that time was running out, legal obstacles had to be cleared, fear of a melt-down of the euro area was palpable, political agreements had to be reached, the world economy was in a downturn, and a number of countries which were intended to contribute financial support had seen their own public and private debt increase in alarming ways;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Deplores that recommendations contained in MoUs mark a departure from the thinking initiated by the Lisbon strategy and the Europe 2020 strategies); points out however that this can be partly explained, even if not fully justified, by the fact that programmes had to be implemented under considerable time pressure, in a difficult political environment and in unexpected and extremely adverse economic conditions;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. RegretMaintains that the programmes for Greece, Ireland and Portugal comprise a number of detailed prescriptions for health systems reform and expenditure cuts; regrets that the programmes are not bound byconditions imposed under the adjustment programmes must be fully in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Treaties, including Art. 168(7) TFEU;
Amendment 446 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that adequate economic models are necessary in order to produce credible and efficient adjustment programmes; deplores that adequate statistics and information were not always available; points out that in Greece large- scale fraud was happening in this respect in the years preceding the setting up of the programme; notes that in Portugal, the economic indicators underlying the negotiations and the terms of the MoU were incorrect, a fact which has adversely affected the implementation of the adjustment programme;
Amendment 467 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that financial assistance achieved in the short run the avoidance of a disorderly default on sovereign debt that would have had extremely severe economic and social consequences, as well as spill-over effects for other countries of an incalculable magnitude, and possibly the forced exit of countries from the euro area; further notes that there is no guarantee this will be avoided in the long run; also notes that the financial assistance and adjustment programme in Greece have not prevented an orderly default nor contagion of the crisis to other Member States; deplores the economic and social downturn which became evident when the fiscal and macroeconomic corrections were put into place;
Amendment 558 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that too littlmore attention haswill have to been given to alleviating the negative impact of adjustment strategies in the programme countries;
Amendment 675 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Points to the generally weakinadequate democratic accountability of the Troika in programme countries at national level; notes, however, that this democratic accountability varies between countries, depending on the will of national executive, as far as their broad lines are concerned, the programmes have been scrutinised over the years by the national electorate in the countries receiving assistance and by their parliaments;
Amendment 822 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. DemaRecommends that the Troika take stock of the current debate on fiscal multipliers and consider the revision of MoUs on the basis of the latest empirical results;
Amendment 853 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)
Paragraph 43 a (new)
43a. Calls on the Commission to compile a study on the social impact of the programmes implemented so as to enable the resulting information to be used for future assistance measures;
Amendment 913 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Considers that the analysis of the Troika’s work should be used as a major source of information in order to learn from the past and adjust future approaches as regards the new means that will need to be provided if the high cost of corrective action is, in future, to be averted in European economies;