BETA


2014/2005(INI) Negotiations on the MFF 2014-2020: lessons to be learned and the way forward

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead BUDG DEHAENE Jean-Luc (icon: PPE PPE), KALFIN Ivailo (icon: S&D S&D) JENSEN Anne E. (icon: ALDE ALDE), TRÜPEL Helga (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), ASHWORTH Richard (icon: ECR ECR), MORGANTI Claudio (icon: EFD EFD)
Committee Opinion EMPL BERÈS Pervenche (icon: S&D S&D) Roger HELMER (icon: EFDD EFDD), Marian HARKIN (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion REGI OLBRYCHT Jan (icon: PPE PPE)
Committee Opinion LIBE GÖNCZ Kinga (icon: S&D S&D) Jean LAMBERT (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), Marie-Christine VERGIAT (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion AFCO DUFF Andrew (icon: ALDE ALDE) Ashley FOX (icon: ECR ECR), Alain LAMASSOURE (icon: PPE PPE), Morten MESSERSCHMIDT (icon: ECR ECR)
Committee Opinion FEMM
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052

Events

2014/04/15
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2014/04/15
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 442 votes to 170, with 39 abstentions, a resolution on negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020: lessons to be learned and the way forward.

Parliament recalled that the overall level of the next MFF (EUR 960 billion in commitments, EUR 908 billion in payments at 2011 prices). This represented a cut of 3.5% in commitments and 3.7% in payments compared to the 2007-2013 financial framework , despite the growing EU competences following the Lisbon Treaty and the enlargement of the Union to 28 Member States. Parliament noted that this level fell short of EU political goals and commitments, in particular in relation to the Europe 2020 strategy.

It also recalled that the EU annual budget would continue to represent approximately 1% of EU GNI, a level well below the own resources ceiling of 1.29% of EU GNI, as decided in 1992.

Parliament stressed that, faced politically with the impossibility of changing the overall MFF figures decided by the European Council, it had focused on improving the implementation of the MFF by successfully negotiating the inclusion of new provisions that will help to make the new financial framework and the new EU annual budget more operational, consistent, transparent and responsive to the needs of EU citizens. These provisions concerned, in particular, the new arrangements relating to the MFF revision, flexibility , the unity and transparency of the EU budget, along with a further engagement on reforming the EU’s own resources .

However, in general terms, Parliament regretted the fact that both the procedure leading up to the agreement on the MFF 2014-2020 and the political debate surrounding these negotiations demonstrated a clear lack of shared vision as regards the EU budget and political priorities , showed that there are very divergent approaches among the EU institutions, and fell short of Parliament’s increased role and prerogatives under the Treaty of Lisbon .

Accordingly, Parliament wanted to draw the necessary political and institutional lessons, which could serve as a basis for the preparation of future negotiations.

Political considerations: whilst acknowledging the need for fiscal consolidation in Member States, Parliament pointed out that the EU budget was primarily an investment budget for enhancing national efforts made to regain growth, stimulate competitiveness and generate employment in the whole EU. It was concerned at the fact that budgetary debates in the Council had been for many years poisoned by the logic of ‘fair returns’ instead of being driven by the logic of the European added value. Parliament considered that, while this debate had already existed before the introduction of a GNI-based resource, the situation had seriously intensified due to the current system of EU financing, whereby some 74 % of revenues stemmed from national contributions based on GNI instead of genuine own resources. This logic also prevailed in the way the MFF agreement was struck by the European Council on 8 February 2013. Parliament criticised, in particular, the increased number of special allocations and ‘gifts’ granted in the course of negotiations between Heads of State and Government, which are not based on objective and verifiable criteria, but rather reflect the bargaining power of Member States, which denoted a lack of transparency. Parliament underlined that the European added value should prevail over national interests .

Parliament strongly rejected this purely accounting vision of the EU budget, and regretted the fact that some Member States seemed to regard national contributions to the EU budget purely as a cost to be minimized.

It also considered that:

· any decision on the financial framework should be preceded by – and based on – a genuine political debate on the role, function and added value of the EU budget;

· the EU should have a system of genuine, clear, simple and fair own resources, which would reduce the share of GNI-based contributions to a minimum.

Institutional considerations: Parliament recalled that it was the first EU institution to present its vision on the MFF 2014-2020 and the need to reform the financing of the EU budget. It considered it regrettable that: (i) prior to the European Council agreement on the MFF of 8 February 2013, no meaningful negotiations were held between Parliament and the Council ; (ii) despite Parliament’s strong objections, all successive ‘negotiating boxes’ presented by different Council presidencies and, ultimately, the European Council MFF agreement of 8 February 2013 contained a significant number of legislative elements that should have been decided under the ordinary legislative procedure.

Drawing lessons from these observations, Parliament calls for:

· it to be able to use all means available to strengthen its influence on the spirit, calendar and content of the negotiations with the Council;

· a more constructive attitude on the part of Council negotiators instead of forcing Parliament to struggle, including at the highest political level, in order to engage in negotiations on every article of the MFF Regulation / IIA;

· a significant improvement in the modalities of any future MFF negotiations, in order to avoid deadlocks and save valuable time and resources in the course of negotiations.

Parliament also called for a shift towards qualified majority voting for the MFF Regulation and stated the unanimity rule in the Council means that the agreement represented the lowest common denominator, based on the need to avoid the veto of a single Member State. The general passerelle clause (Article 48(7) TEU) could be deployed by the European Council to make the shift towards qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure for the own resources and MFF decisions.

MFF 2014-2020: the way forward: Parliament declared its intention to ensure that all new provisions that were successfully incorporated into the MFF Regulation and IIA were utilised in full in the annual budgetary procedure, particularly the new rules on flexibility. It stressed, in this context, that the accumulated RALs had reached a critical level that might eventually lead the EU budget into structural deficit.

It also recalled that the next Commission was due to launch a compulsory review and revision of the MFF 2014-2020 by the end of 2016, at the request of Parliament. In this context, it stressed the need for the next Parliament to reflect in good time on political priorities, to identify areas for which more investments will be deemed necessary in the second half of the MFF 2014-2020, focussing on areas of proven added value of EU spending.

At the same time, Parliament strongly believed that a five-year MFF cycle would enhance democratic legitimacy by running in tandem with Parliament’s legislature.

Moreover, the Commission’s proposals for the MFF revision should take full account of the latest macroeconomic projections and include a thorough assessment of the operation of all special instruments, in particular the global margins in commitments and payments. Parliament reiterated its intention to make the compulsory MFF revision a key demand in the investiture of the next Commission . The next European Parliament was called upon make the election of the proposed candidate for President of the Commission conditional upon a strong and non-ambiguous commitment to implementing the post-electoral review/revision clause and engaging in a genuine and deep political dialogue on its content.

The issue of own resources: lastly, Parliament recalled that debate on Own Resources represented a unique opportunity to overcome the deadlock that has arisen over the reform of the current own-resources system. It recalled that the High Level Group on Own Resources had a mandate to examine all aspects of the reform of the own resources system. It stated that Parliament was firmly committed to working intensively at all stages of this process and counted on the Council’s equal commitment to this process.

It should be noted that two motions for resolution tabled by the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL political groups respectively were rejected in plenary.

Documents
2014/04/15
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2014/04/14
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2014/03/26
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Budgets adopted the joint report by Jean-Luc DEHAENE (EPP, BE) and Ivailo KALFIN (S&D, BG) on negotiations on the MFF 2014-2020: lessons to be learned and the way forward . The Committee on Constitutional Affairs exercising its prerogatives as an associated committee in accordance with Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure , was also consulted for an opinion on the report.

Members recalled that the overall level of the next MFF (EUR 960 billion in commitments, EUR 908 billion in payments at 2011 prices). This represented a cut of 3.5 % in commitments and 3.7 % in payments compared to the 2007-2013 financial framework , despite the growing EU competences following the Lisbon Treaty and the enlargement of the Union to 28 Member States. Members stated that this level fell short of EU political goals and commitments, in particular in relation to the Europe 2020 strategy.

The committee also recalled that the EU annual budget would continue to represent approximately 1% of EU GNI, a level well below the own resources ceiling of 1.29% of EU GNI, as decided in 1992. It stressed that, faced politically with the impossibility of changing the overall MFF figures decided by the European Council, Parliament had focused on improving the implementation of the MFF by successfully negotiating the inclusion of new provisions that will help to make the new financial framework and the new EU annual budget more operational, consistent, transparent and responsive to the needs of EU citizens. These provisions concerned, in particular, the new arrangements relating to the MFF revision, flexibility, the unity and transparency of the EU budget , along with a further engagement on reforming the financing of the EU budget.

In general terms, Members regretted the fact that both the procedure leading up to the agreement on the MFF 2014-2020 and the political debate surrounding these negotiations demonstrated a clear lack of shared vision as regards the EU budget and political priorities , showed that there are very divergent approaches among the EU institutions, and fell short of Parliament’s increased role and prerogatives under the Treaty of Lisbon.

Accordingly, Members wanted to draw the necessary political and institutional lessons, which could serve as a basis for the preparation of future negotiations.

Political considerations : whilst acknowledging the need for fiscal consolidation in Member States, the committee pointed out that the EU budget was primarily an investment budget for enhancing national efforts made to regain growth, stimulate competitiveness and generate employment in the whole EU. It was concerned at the fact that budgetary debates in the Council had been for many years poisoned by the logic of ‘fair returns’ instead of being driven by the logic of the European added value. Members considered that, while this debate had already existed before the introduction of a GNI-based resource, the situation had seriously intensified due to the current system of EU financing, whereby some 74 % of revenues stemmed from national contributions based on GNI instead of genuine own resources. This logic also prevailed in the way the MFF agreement was struck by the European Council on 8 February 2013. Members criticised, in particular, the increased number of special allocations and ‘gifts’ granted in the course of negotiations between Heads of State and Government, which are not based on objective and verifiable criteria, but rather reflect the bargaining power of Member States, which denoted a lack of transparency. The report underlined that the European added value should prevail over national interests . Members strongly rejected this purely accounting vision of the EU budget, and regretted the fact that some Member States seemed to regard national contributions to the EU budget purely as a cost to be minimized.

They also considered that:

· any decision on the financial framework should be preceded by – and based on – a genuine political debate on the role, function and added value of the EU budget;

· the EU should have a system of genuine, clear, simple and fair own resources, which would reduce the share of GNI-based contributions to a minimum.

Institutional considerations : the committee recalled that Parliament was the first EU institution to present its vision on the MFF 2014-2020 and the need to reform the financing of the EU budget. It considered it regrettable that: (i) prior to the European Council agreement on the MFF of 8 February 2013, no meaningful negotiations were held between Parliament and the Council; (ii) despite Parliament’s strong objections, all successive ‘negotiating boxes’ presented by different Council presidencies and, ultimately, the European Council MFF agreement of 8 February 2013 contained a significant number of legislative elements that should have been decided under the ordinary legislative procedure;

Drawing lessons from these observations, Members wanted:

· Parliament to use all means available to strengthen its influence on the spirit, calendar and content of the negotiations with the Council, by making the Council better acknowledge Parliament’s arguments and positions;

· a more constructive attitude on the part of Council negotiators instead of forcing Parliament to struggle, including at the highest political level, in order to engage in negotiations on every article of the MFF Regulation / IIA;

· to significantly improve the modalities of any future MFF negotiations, in order to avoid deadlocks and save valuable time and resources in the course of negotiations.

Members also called for a shift towards qualified majority voting for the MFF Regulation and stated the unanimity rule in the Council means that the agreement represented the lowest common denominator, based on the need to avoid the veto of a single Member State. The general passerelle clause (Article 48(7) TEU) could be deployed by the European Council to make the shift towards qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure for the own resources and MFF decisions.

MFF 2014-2020: the way forward : Members declared their intention to ensure that all new provisions that were successfully incorporated into the MFF Regulation and IIA were utilised in full in the annual budgetary procedure, particularly the new rules on flexibility. They stressed, in this context, that the accumulated RALs had reached a critical level that might eventually lead the EU budget into structural deficit.

They recalled that the next Commission was due to launch a compulsory review and revision of the MFF 2014-2020 by the end of 2016, at the request of Parliament. In this context, Members stressed the need for the next Parliament to reflect in good time on political priorities, to identify areas for which more investments will be deemed necessary in the second half of the MFF 2014-2020, focussing on areas of proven added value of EU spending.

At the same time, Members strongly believed that a five-year MFF cycle would enhance democratic legitimacy, and improve the prioritisation of budgetary means.

The report underlined that the Commission proposals for the MFF revision should take full account of the latest macroeconomic projections and include a thorough assessment of the operation of all special instruments, in particular the global margins in commitments and payments. Members reiterated their intention to make the compulsory MFF revision a key demand in the investiture of the next Commission . The next European Parliament was called upon make the election of the proposed candidate for President of the Commission conditional upon a strong and non-ambiguous commitment to implementing the post-electoral review/revision clause and engaging in a genuine and deep political dialogue on its content.

The issue of own resources : lastly, Members recalled that debate on Own Resources represented a unique opportunity to overcome the deadlock that has arisen over the reform of the current own-resources system. They recalled that the High Level Group on Own Resources had a mandate to examine all aspects of the reform of the own resources system. Members stated that Parliament was firmly committed to working intensively at all stages of this process and counted on the Council’s equal commitment to this process.

Documents
2014/03/19
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2014/03/12
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2014/03/05
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2014/02/26
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2014/02/24
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2014/02/13
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2014/02/12
   EP - GÖNCZ Kinga (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2014/02/11
   EP - OLBRYCHT Jan (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI
2014/02/06
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2014/02/06
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2014/01/16
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2013/12/17
   EP - DUFF Andrew (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
2011/10/05
   EP - BERÈS Pervenche (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in EMPL
2011/09/28
   EP - DEHAENE Jean-Luc (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2011/09/28
   EP - KALFIN Ivailo (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG

Documents

Votes

A7-0254/2014 - Jean-Luc Dehaene et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 1

2014/04/15 Outcome: -: 572, +: 69, 0: 31
LU LV MT CY SI EE EL FI DK LT AT PT IE HR BE SK SE BG HU CZ NL FR RO ES PL GB IT DE
Total
6
7
4
5
6
6
10
12
11
11
17
16
11
11
20
13
20
15
18
22
26
68
28
46
44
65
57
96
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
56

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Sweden Verts/ALE

4

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

Latvia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

Abstain (2)

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

Austria NI

Abstain (1)

4

Ireland NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

1

Spain NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

2
icon: EFD EFD
26

Greece EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

France EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
52

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
75

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2
3

Denmark ALDE

3

Lithuania ALDE

2
3

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
173

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1
2

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Finland S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Bulgaria S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: PPE PPE
232

Luxembourg PPE

3

Malta PPE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

2

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Greece PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Belgium PPE

3

Czechia PPE

2

A7-0254/2014 - Jean-Luc Dehaene et Ivailo Kalfin - Am 2

2014/04/15 Outcome: -: 583, 0: 57, +: 35
EL MT CY LV LU EE SI PT IE HR LT DK FI SK AT CZ BG HU BE SE NL RO FR PL ES IT GB DE
Total
10
4
5
8
6
6
6
16
11
11
11
11
12
13
17
22
15
18
20
20
26
29
69
44
47
57
65
95
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
56

Latvia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Abstain (2)

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Sweden Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

5
icon: NI NI
27

Ireland NI

Against (1)

1

Austria NI

4

Hungary NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Spain NI

Against (1)

1

Italy NI

2
icon: EFD EFD
27

Greece EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

France EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
51

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Italy ECR

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
74

Latvia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2
3

Lithuania ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3
3

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
174
2

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Ireland S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Bulgaria S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: PPE PPE
234

Greece PPE

2

Malta PPE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Belgium PPE

3

A7-0254/2014 - Jean-Luc Dehaene et Ivailo Kalfin - § 2

2014/04/15 Outcome: +: 472, -: 179, 0: 18
DE ES IT PL RO HU BG LT SK FR IE PT HR BE SI AT NL LU EE EL MT CY DK LV SE FI CZ GB
Total
95
44
57
43
28
18
14
11
13
69
11
16
11
20
6
16
26
6
6
10
4
5
11
8
20
12
22
66
icon: PPE PPE
233

Belgium PPE

Against (1)

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
169

Bulgaria S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
75

Italy ALDE

Against (1)

3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

Abstain (1)

4

Finland ALDE

For (1)

3
icon: NI NI
26

Spain NI

1

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Hungary NI

Against (1)

1

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
3
icon: EFD EFD
27

Bulgaria EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Croatia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
51

Italy ECR

Against (1)

2

Lithuania ECR

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
56

Portugal Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

A7-0254/2014 - Jean-Luc Dehaene et Ivailo Kalfin - § 4/1

2014/04/15 Outcome: +: 567, -: 83, 0: 20
DE FR IT ES RO HU PT PL BE BG NL AT IE EL LT SE FI SK HR LV LU SI EE CZ CY MT GB DK
Total
94
69
57
46
29
18
16
44
20
15
25
16
11
10
11
19
11
13
11
8
6
6
6
21
5
4
67
11
icon: PPE PPE
233

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2
2

Malta PPE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
173

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Finland ALDE

Against (1)

3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2
3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
55

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

5

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
27

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Bulgaria EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Spain NI

1

Hungary NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Austria NI

3

Ireland NI

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
51

Italy ECR

Against (1)

2

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

A7-0254/2014 - Jean-Luc Dehaene et Ivailo Kalfin - § 12/1

2014/04/15 Outcome: +: 570, -: 77, 0: 23
DE FR ES IT RO PL SE HU BG PT BE NL AT IE LT FI HR SK LV LU SI EE EL CZ CY MT GB DK
Total
94
69
47
57
28
44
19
18
15
15
20
26
16
11
11
12
11
13
8
6
6
6
10
22
4
4
66
11
icon: PPE PPE
233

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1

Malta PPE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
171

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
75

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2
3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
55

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
30

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
26

Spain NI

1

Italy NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Hungary NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Austria NI

3

Ireland NI

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
27

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFD

Abstain (1)

3

Bulgaria EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
52

Italy ECR

Against (1)

2

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

A7-0254/2014 - Jean-Luc Dehaene et Ivailo Kalfin - § 16/1

2014/04/15 Outcome: +: 534, -: 114, 0: 22
DE IT ES PL FR RO HU BG SE PT LT SK IE HR BE AT FI SI EL NL LV DK CY LU EE MT GB CZ
Total
96
57
47
44
68
28
17
15
20
16
11
13
10
11
20
16
11
6
10
25
7
11
5
6
6
4
67
22
icon: PPE PPE
234

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1
2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
173

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
74

Sweden ALDE

Abstain (1)

4

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
27

Poland EFD

3

France EFD

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Slovakia EFD