9 Amendments of Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL related to 2015/2052(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the clarification ofs regarding the application of specific provisions of paragraphs 1 and 6 of Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that reprogramming is anything but easy and quick to do and that it would be very expensive and difficult to manage for national administrations and local and regional authorities, judging from the experience of the past five years as described in the Sixth Report on cohesion, which refers to the substantial outlay of human resources entailed for the eight Member States concerned and for the Commission;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers that the two-month time- frame allowed for Member States to submit their reprogramming proposals will rule out the necessary involvement of regional authorities and the partners specified in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013; believes, therefore, that a reprogramming procedure would amount to recentralisation of cohesion policy, returning it to central government control and to that extent negating not only the decisions taken by some Member States to regionalise ESI Fund management, but also the subsidiarity and partnership principles at the heart of cohesion policy;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Thinks it highly unlikely that partnership agreements and operational programmes will need to be reprogrammed before 2019, given that they have just been adopted in agreement with the Commission according to the letter and the spirit of the EU 2020 strategy; believes that any decision entailing reprogramming, which would be burdensome and costly from the administrative point of view, would indirectly call into question the quality of the work done by the Commission departments responsible for the relevant policy;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Points out that the regions, on average, implement a third of public spending in the EU and play a key role in providing public services and expenditure leading to growth; considers it particularly counter-productive to suspend payments to Member States whose finances are already in deficit; believes that such a measure would only worsen the economic situation in those countries and cause macroeconomic instability within the wider area;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4e. Maintains that if the EU were to suspend payments to Member States already facing economic difficulties, its image would be further marred;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to use the procedure under the first strand of Article 23 as a last resort and only in exceptional situations where the benefits of the proposed changes clearly outweigh their costs; considers that support measures and measures enabling regions to invest, as proposed in Article 24 of the regulation, are more credible and effective ways to bring about a return to growth in Member States experiencing economic difficulties;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Warns, in particular, that any suspension of payment appropriations could disrupt financial planning at programme level and, more generally, undermine the predictability and planning of investments, with a potentially greater impact on economically vulnerable Member States, whose public investment relies more heavily on ESI funding; believes, as a matter of principle, that when the Member States concerned are economically vulnerable, suspension of payments should not be enforced;