Activities of Marta ANDREASEN related to 2012/2016(BUD)
Plenary speeches (1)
2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
Amendments (15)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that in its resolution of 14 March 2012 the European Parliament hassought to put the promotion of growth and jobs at the centre of its priorities, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, pledging in particular for the concentration of resources in policies and programmes that are proven toit believes may be instrumental in achieving those objectives, notably in support of SMEs and youth; welcomnotes that the Commission's Draft Budget 2013 goes in the same direction in terms of identified priorities to be reinforshares these lofty intentions but is sceptical on the question of whether EU action can bring them about in practiced;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recognises the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation; reiterates, however, its conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member Statbelieves that these constraints should inform the EU budgetary process, does not believe that economic growth can be triggered by the diktat of a supranational organisation, that notion having been tested to destruction and beyond by the former Council for Mutual Economic Assistance; believes that job creation is best triggered by economic growth and competitiveness; stresses that, despite its limited size that does not exceed 2% of total public spending in the Union,believe that competitiveness is best achieved by allowing firms to compete and theat EU budget has had a real economic impact and successfully complemented so far Member States‘ recovery policiesover-regulation and micromanagement achieve the very opposite of this intention;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Intends, therefore, to strongly defend an adequate level of resources for next year's budget, as definWould like to see strong restraint exercised in next year's budget, and sees the level of increase proposed in the current Draft Budget, and to oppose any attempt to cut down the resources especially for policies delivers unrealistic; believes that the idea that genuinge growth and employment; believes that the EU budget, which cannot run can be delivered by the EU budget is fallacious; notes that the statement that the EU budget cannot run a deficit, which is often used to support increased spend at EU level, is tendentious as deficit, should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national levels thus created are transferred in their entirety to the Member States; deplores the tendency to blame the crisis on alleged unsuccessful economic policies at national level when these policies have been enabled and facilitated by the hasty and unconsidered introduction of a single currency; notes that whilst in 2012 several Member States armay be increasing the size of their national budgets others are having to make deep and painful cuts in difficult circumstances;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Understands that the Commission, at the end of the programming period, puts the accentemphasises the payments side onf the side of payments, as it intendsbudget in an attempt to expend the unused resources it has available, to also provide a solution to the ever more growing level of RALs; while sharing this approach, is particularly concerned by the proposed freezing of commitment appropriations at the level of the estimated inflation rate for next year; stresses the importance of commitments for determining political priorities and, thus, ensuring that the necessary investments will eventually be put in place to boost growth and employment; does not believe thatever-growing level of RALs and calls for commitments to be capped at 2% below those of the fpreezing of commitment appropriations can be considered as an acceptable strategy to keepvious year as a first step towards bringing the level of RAL under control;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers the proposed increase of 6,.8% in PA compared to 2012 as an initial response to Parliament's request for a responsible and realistic budgeting; notes that the increases in payments are concentrated in the areas of competitiveness and cohesion, due to a greater level of claims expected by running projects in these fields; fully endorses such increase that results not only from past commitments that need to be honoured but also from the actual implementation of programmes that is expected to reach at the last year of the current MFF a cruising speedto be irresponsible and unrealistic;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Takes note of the overall margin of EUR 2,4 billion in CA in the DB 2013 and is determined to make full use of it - as well as of the other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA - wheneleaver it proves to be necessary in order to finance objectives and priorities deriving from shared political commitments and decisions, namely those on the Europe 2020 strategyuntouched;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. WelcomNotes in particular the increases for FP7-EC (+6,1%), CIP (+7,3%) and TEN-T (+6,4%) programmes, which are among the main deliverers of the Europe 2020 objectives; regrets, however,notes that with the amounts proposed by the Commission, two flagship programmes such as FP7 and TEN-T will effectively devote less CA than foreseen in their legal bases (FP: EUR -258,8 million and TEN-T: EUR: -122,5 million) for the last year of the current MFF;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. RegretNotes that appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5,3 million compared to the Financial programming and practically brought back to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far; deplores that not even in the last year of the current MFF the Commission has seized the opportunity to; welcomes that the Commission has not reinstated to this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility, to what it had committed in 2010;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. RegretNotes that appropriations for the PROGRESS programme have been reduced by EUR 5,3 million compared to the Financial programming and practically brought back to the 2012 levels, despite the good performance of this programme so far; deplores that not even in the last year of the current MFF the Commission has seized the opportunity to reinstate to this programme the EUR 60 million redeployed in favour of the Progress Microfinance Facility, to what it had committed in 2010;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. RegretNotes that the contribution to Youth on the Move Flagship Initiative is slightly reduced compared to last year; highlights in this context the added value of the Lifelong Learning, Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus programmes which, against a modest financial dimension, have a great return in terms of effective implementation and positive image of the Union vis-à-vis its citizens; opposes therefore to the proposed reduction by EUR 10,2 million as compared to the Budget 2012 for Lifelong Learning and, in line with its established position in the last budgetary procedures and the excellent performance rates of this programme, intends to reinforce commitment appropriations for the corresponding budget line;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Stresses that the TEN-T programme plays a central role in the attainment of the objectives of competitiveness and employment in the Europe 2020 Strategy by creating the missing infrastructure, removing bottlenecks and ensuring the future sustainability of the EU transport networks; welcomnotes the Commission's proposed increase by ca. EUR 85 million compared to the Budget 2012 but asks for further clarifications on the proposed reduction by EUR 118 million as compared to the Financial programming;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. DeplorNotes the Commission's proposed decreases for the European Supervisory Authorities compared what originally foreseen in the Financial programming; considers the current level of appropriations insufficient to allow these agencies to cope efficiently with their tasks; expresses therefore the intention to reinstate appropriations at least at 2012 level for the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) as well as to further reinforce the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) due to the new tasks entrusted to it;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Is however worriedWelcomes the fact that for the first time the Commission proposes to cut the budgetary requests of almost all agencies, which were in line with Financial programming amounts overall, including of those agencies which belong to Parliament's priorities, for a total amount of some EUR 44 million; will carefully analyse the methodology, rationale and possible impact of such cuts; Underlines once more that EU agencies‘ budget allocations are far from consisting in administrative expenditure alone, but instead contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 goals and EU objectives in general, as decided by the legislative authority;