EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better | Nieuws | Europees Parlement

Huidige taal: NL - Nederlands  
 

EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 

Persbericht 
 
 
  • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
  • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
  • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 

Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

“We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



 
Huidige taal: NL - Nederlands  
  • Direct naar de inhoud van de pagina (druk op "Enter") 
  • Direct naar de inhoud van de pagina (druk op "Enter") Direct naar de inhoud van de pagina (druk op "Enter") 
  • Rechtstreeks naar talenmenu (druk op "Enter") 
  • Rechtstreeks naar talenmenu (druk op "Enter") Rechtstreeks naar talenmenu (druk op "Enter") 
  • Rechtstreeks naar zoekmenu (druk op "Enter") 
  • Rechtstreeks naar zoekmenu (druk op "Enter") Rechtstreeks naar zoekmenu (druk op "Enter")  Europees Parlement  Europees Parlement  Nieuws  Nieuws  
    Navigatiebalk (Menu)  
    Navigatiebalk (Menu)  
    Navigatiebalk (Menu)   Navigatiebalk (Menu) Navigatiebalk ()  Navigatiebalk (Menu)   Navigatiebalk (Menu) Navigatiebalk () 
    1. Nieuws  Nieuws 
    2. Pers  Pers 
    3. Agenda  Agenda 
  • Nieuws  Nieuws 
  • Nieuws  Nieuws 
    Nieuws Nieuws Nieuws Nieuws 
    Startpagina  Startpagina  Categorie:Europese zaken  Categorie:Europese zakenCategorie:  Categorie:Wereld  Categorie:WereldCategorie:  Categorie:Economie  Categorie:EconomieCategorie:  Categorie:Maatschappij  Categorie:MaatschappijCategorie:  Categorie:Veiligheid  Categorie:VeiligheidCategorie:  Menu sluiten  Menu sluiten 
  • Pers  Pers 
  • Pers  Pers 
    Pers Pers  Pers  Pers 
    Startpagina   Startpagina Accreditatie Accreditatie Contact Contact Close(Pers) Close(Pers)(Pers) 
  • Agenda  Agenda 
  • Agenda  Agenda 
    Agenda Agenda  Agenda  Agenda 
    Hoogtepunten Hoogtepunten Wekelijkse agenda Wekelijkse agenda Briefing Briefing Menu sluiten Menu sluiten  Veelgestelde vragen  Veelgestelde vragen  #EuropeanenTegenCovid19  #EuropeanenTegenCovid19  Sluit de navigatiebalk(Menu)  Sluit de navigatiebalk(Menu)Sluit de navigatiebalk()   
    Naar het zoekveld   Naar het zoekveld Search 
    Zoekopdracht starten  Sluit het zoekveld   Sluit het zoekveld 
    Huidige taal: NL - Nederlands  
    Huidige taal: NL - Nederlands  
    Huidige taal: NL - Nederlands  
    Huidige taal: NL - Nederlands  
    Taal kiezen 
    Huidige taal: NL - Nederlands  
    Huidige taal: NL - Nederlands  
    Huidige taal:NL - Nederlands Selecteer 
    Andere websites 
    Andere websites bekijken  Andere websites bekijken 
    Andere websites 
    Andere websites  Andere websites bekijken  Andere websites bekijken  Andere websites bekijken  Andere websites bekijken 
    1. Nieuws 
    2. Leden 
    3. Over het Parlement 
    4. Plenaire vergadering 
    5. Commissies 
    6. Delegaties 
    7. Andere websitesMeer 
      View Andere websitesMeer  Andere websitesMeer 
  • Nieuws 
  • Nieuws  Nieuws 
  • Leden 
  • Leden  Leden 
  • Over het Parlement 
  • Over het Parlement  Over het Parlement 
  • Plenaire vergadering 
  • Plenaire vergadering  Plenaire vergadering 
  • Commissies 
  • Commissies  Commissies 
  • Delegaties 
  • Delegaties  Delegaties 
  • Andere websitesMeer 
    View Andere websitesMeer  Andere websitesMeer 
  • Andere websitesMeer 
    View Andere websitesMeer  Andere websitesMeer 
    Andere websitesMeer 
    Andere websitesMeerAndere websitesMeer View Andere websitesMeer View Andere websitesMeerView Andere websitesMeer Andere websitesMeer Andere websitesMeerAndere websitesMeer 
    1. Multimedia Centre 
    2. Webpagina van de Voorzitter 
    3. Secretariaat-generaal 
    4. Think tank 
    5. EP Newshub 
    6. Tot uw dienst 
    7. Bezoeken 
    8. Legislative train 
    9. Contracten en subsidies 
    10. Registreren 
  • Multimedia Centre 
  • Multimedia Centre Multimedia Centre 
  • Webpagina van de Voorzitter 
  • Webpagina van de Voorzitter Webpagina van de Voorzitter 
  • Secretariaat-generaal 
  • Secretariaat-generaal Secretariaat-generaal 
  • Think tank 
  • Think tank Think tank 
  • EP Newshub 
  • EP Newshub EP Newshub 
  • Tot uw dienst 
  • Tot uw dienst Tot uw dienst 
  • Bezoeken 
  • Bezoeken Bezoeken 
  • Legislative train 
  • Legislative train Legislative train 
  • Contracten en subsidies 
  • Contracten en subsidies Contracten en subsidies 
  • Registreren 
  • Registreren Registreren Andere websites verbergenAndere websitesMeer Andere websites verbergenAndere websitesMeerAndere websites verbergenAndere websitesMeer  Andere websites verbergen  Andere websites verbergen 
    Pers   > Huidige pagina: EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better  
    Pers   > Pers  Pers > Huidige pagina: EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better   Huidige pagina: EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better   Huidige pagina:EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better  Pers  Pers >
     

    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 

    Persbericht 
     
     
    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



     
     

    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 

    Persbericht 
     
     

    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 

    Persbericht 
     
     
     

    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 

    Persbericht 
     

    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 

    Persbericht 
     

    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 

    Persbericht 
     

    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 

    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 
    EU recovery and long-term budget: Leaders must do better 
    Persbericht 
     
    Persbericht 
    Persbericht  BUDG  BUDGBUDG 
     
     
     
    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



     
     
    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



     
     
     

    Deel deze pagina: 

    Deel deze pagina: 
    Deel deze pagina: 
  • Facebook Facebook 
  • Twitter Twitter 
  • LinkedIn LinkedIn 
  • Whatsapp Whatsapp 
    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 
    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 
    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 
    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 
    • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 
  • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
  • President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
    President Michel’s recovery proposals come at the cost of some key priorities 
  • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
  • EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
    EU’s long-term objectives should not be sacrificed for short-term recovery 
  • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 
  • Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 
    Lack of binding commitment to new Own Resources risks burdening next generations with repayment of recovery debt 

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.

    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.


    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866



    “We have read the draft European Council conclusions (‘negotiating box’) presented by President Charles Michel on Friday very carefully.

    presented by President Charles Michel on Friday

    We appreciate that President Michel has taken on board the size and balance of the Recovery instrument as proposed by the Commission, and we urge the European Council members not to water it down. The grants are an essential part of this instrument and a decrease would be unacceptable.


    However, we regret that this comes at the cost of some fundamental elements of the package.


    Firstly, we cannot accept the very low level proposed for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ceilings for 2021-2027. While the European Commission already downsized its original proposal by 35 billion Euros last May, this proposal is slashing it even further by cutting another 25 billion Euros from key programmes such as Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and migration. This is unacceptable and another step away from Parliament’s position. The European Union’s long-term objectives have not disappeared with the COVID-19 outbreak and should not be sacrificed for the sake of short-term recovery. Nevertheless, we welcome the new climate target of 30% and its application to both the MFF and the Recovery Instrument.


    Secondly, we deplore backward-looking proposals on the revenue side. An outdated mechanism of financial corrections (“rebates”) would immediately be re-established for five countries, and a further type of correction would be built into the new plastic-based contribution. Yet when it comes to setting up a modern basket of new own resources, any decision is postponed to later, without any commitment on the part of the Member States. We should not leave the next generations with the choice of refinancing common debt either through additional national contributions or through reduced investment capacities. We need a clear and binding calendar for the introduction of new own resources, with a basket of new ones as of 1 January 2021. It remains one of the European Parliament’s conditions for its consent on the expenditure side.


    Finally, several provisions proposed by President Michel could jeopardise the effective implementation of the programmes (notably those under the Recovery instrument) as well as Parliament’s democratic oversight. The Parliament will ensure that its power of control is respected when negotiating with the other institutions over this issue, as proposed in President Michel’s negotiating box. Furthermore, the way in which the rule of law mechanism is enforced is key. We ask for a proper negotiation, respecting the rules laid down in the treaties. Our values cannot be an adjustment variable for a deal.


    We recall that Parliament will provide its consent to the new MFF Regulation only if it is satisfied with the overall MFF, own resources and recovery package. Furthermore, many of the elements contained in the draft European Council conclusions are governed by legislative acts that are to be co-decided on an equal footing between Parliament and the Council.


    We therefore urge the European Council to be ambitious and substantially improve the proposal, by taking on board Parliament’s views and finally opening the way for long overdue inter-institutional negotiations. We need sufficient financial means to overcome challenges that are clearly identified by the European Union and its Member States. We must meet the citizens' expectations.”


    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

    Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

    Johan Van Overtveldt

    Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

    Jan Olbrycht

    Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

    Margarida Marques

    José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    José Manuel Fernandes

    Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

    Valérie Hayer

    Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

    Rasmus Andresen

    Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866

    Follow them on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866





    Contact: 

    Contact: 
    Contact: 
  • Armin WISDORFF 

    Armin WISDORFF Armin WISDORFF 
    Press Officer 
    Press Officer Press Officer 
    Contactgegevens: 
    Contactgegevens: 
  • Telefoonnummer: (+32) 2 28 40924 (BXL) 
  • Telefoonnummer: (+32) 2 28 40924 (BXL) Telefoonnummer: (+32) 2 28 40924 (BXL)Telefoonnummer: (BXL) 
  • Telefoonnummer: (+33) 3 881 73780 (STR) 
  • Telefoonnummer: (+33) 3 881 73780 (STR) Telefoonnummer: (+33) 3 881 73780 (STR)Telefoonnummer: (STR) 
  • Mobiel telefoonnummer: (+32) 498 98 13 45 
  • Mobiel telefoonnummer: (+32) 498 98 13 45 Mobiel telefoonnummer: (+32) 498 98 13 45Mobiel telefoonnummer:  
  • E-mail: armin.wisdorff@europarl.europa.eu 
  • E-mail: armin.wisdorff@europarl.europa.eu E-mail: armin.wisdorff@europarl.europa.euE-mail:  
  • E-mail: budg-press@europarl.europa.eu 
  • E-mail: budg-press@europarl.europa.eu E-mail: budg-press@europarl.europa.euE-mail:  
  • Twitteraccount: @EP_Budgets 
  • Twitteraccount: @EP_Budgets Twitteraccount: @EP_BudgetsTwitteraccount:  
     
     

    Further information 

    Further information 
    Further information 
  • Committee on Budgets  Committee on Budgets 
  • “EP negotiators: recovery plan crucial, but do not trade long-term for short-term” (Negotiating team statement from 27.05.2020)  “EP negotiators: recovery plan crucial, but do not trade long-term for short-term” (Negotiating team statement from 27.05.2020) 
  • “Parliament: EU27 need €2 trillion recovery package to tackle COVID-19 fallout” (EP press release on MFF resolution of 15.05.2020)  “Parliament: EU27 need €2 trillion recovery package to tackle COVID-19 fallout” (EP press release on MFF resolution of 15.05.2020) 
  • Find all statements and speeches by EP President David Sassoli on the EU budget and recovery on this webpage  Find all statements and speeches by EP President David Sassoli on the EU budget and recovery on this webpage 
  • Letter by five EP groups' Presidents from 18 June to Heads of State or Government on the MFF/recovery package   Letter by five EP groups' Presidents from 18 June to Heads of State or Government on the MFF/recovery package  
     
     
     
     
     

    Productinformatie 

    REF.:  20200709IPR83011 

    Productinformatie 

    Productinformatie 
    Productinformatie 
    Productinformatie 
    REF.:  20200709IPR83011 
    REF.:  20200709IPR83011 
    REF.: REF.:REF.: 20200709IPR83011 20200709IPR83011 

    Deel deze pagina: 

    Deel deze pagina: 
    Deel deze pagina: 
  • Facebook Facebook 
  • Twitter Twitter 
  • LinkedIn LinkedIn 
  • Whatsapp Whatsapp Aanmelden voor e-mailupdatesAanmelden voor e-mailupdatesPdf-versie Pdf-versie 

    Footer 

    Footer Nieuws  Bekijk het menu: nieuws  Bekijk het menu: nieuws 
    Het Parlement in uw land 
  • Brussels  
  • Brussels   Brussels 
  • Den Haag  
  • Den Haag   Den Haag Tools 
  • Wetgevingsobservatorium  
  • Wetgevingsobservatorium   Wetgevingsobservatorium 
  • Multimedia Centre  
  • Multimedia Centre   Multimedia Centre 
  • EbS  
  • EbS   EbS 
    De Voorzitter van het Europees Parlement 
  • Webpagina van de Voorzitter van het Parlement  
  • Webpagina van de Voorzitter van het Parlement   Webpagina van de Voorzitter van het Parlement  Menu verbergen: Nieuws   Menu verbergen: Nieuws Europees Parlement  Menu bekijken: Europees Parlement   Menu bekijken: Europees Parlement 
  • Nieuws 
  • Nieuws  Nieuws 
  • Leden 
  • Leden  Leden 
  • Over het Parlement 
  • Over het Parlement  Over het Parlement 
  • Plenaire vergadering 
  • Plenaire vergadering  Plenaire vergadering 
  • Commissies 
  • Commissies  Commissies 
  • Delegaties 
  • Delegaties  Delegaties Menu verbergen: Europees Parlement Menu verbergen: Europees Parlement  

    Het Parlement in de sociale media  

    Het Parlement in de sociale media 
  • Facebook  
  • Facebook   Facebook 
  • Twitter  
  • Twitter   Twitter 
  • Facebook  
  • Facebook   Facebook 
  • LinkedIn  
  • LinkedIn   LinkedIn 
  • YouTube  
  • YouTube   YouTube 
  • Instagram  
  • Instagram   Instagram 
  • Pinterest  
  • Pinterest   Pinterest 
  • Snapchat  
  • Snapchat   Snapchat 
  • Reddit  
  • Reddit   Reddit Informatieve links 
  • Contact 
  • Contact Contact 
  • RSS 
  • RSS RSS 
  • Sitemap 
  • Sitemap Sitemap 
  • Juridische mededeling - Privacybeleid 
  • Juridische mededeling - Privacybeleid Juridische mededeling - Privacybeleid 
  • Toegankelijkheid 
  • Toegankelijkheid Toegankelijkheid