Marek BELKA
Marek BELKA
Poland

Date of birth : , Łódź

9th parliamentary term Marek BELKA

Political groups

  • 02-07-2019 / 15-12-2021 : Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament - Member
  • 16-12-2021 / 15-07-2024 : Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament - Vice-Chair

National parties

  • 02-07-2019 / 08-10-2021 : Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej (Poland)
  • 09-10-2021 / 15-07-2024 : Nowa Lewica (Poland)

Member

  • 02-07-2019 / 19-01-2022 : Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
  • 02-07-2019 / 15-07-2024 : Delegation for relations with the United States
  • 14-09-2020 / 19-01-2022 : Subcommittee on Tax Matters
  • 20-01-2022 / 15-07-2024 : Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
  • 20-01-2022 / 15-07-2024 : Subcommittee on Tax Matters

Substitute

  • 02-07-2019 / 15-07-2024 : Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America
  • 09-07-2019 / 19-01-2022 : Committee on International Trade
  • 20-01-2022 / 15-07-2024 : Committee on International Trade

Main parliamentary activities

Contributions to plenary debates

Speeches made during the plenary session and written declarations relating to plenary debates. Rules Rule 204 and 171(11)

Reports - as rapporteur

A rapporteur is appointed in the responsible parliamentary committee to draft a report on proposals of a legislative or budgetary nature, or other issues. In drafting their report, rapporteurs may consult with relevant experts and stakeholders. They are also responsible for the drafting of compromise amendments and negotiations with shadow rapporteurs. Reports adopted at committee level are then examined and voted on in plenary. Rule 55

Opinions - as rapporteur

Committees may draft an opinion to a report of the responsible committee covering the elements linked to their committee remit. Rapporteurs of such opinions are also responsible for the drafting of compromise amendments and negotiations with shadow rapporteurs of the opinion. Rule 56, Rule 57, Annex VI

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products and amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754

01-02-2023 INTA_AD(2023)732760 PE732.760v04-00 INTA
Marek BELKA

OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer credits

04-05-2022 ECON_AD(2022)704756 PE704.756v02-00 ECON
Marek BELKA

Opinions - as shadow rapporteur

Political groups designate a shadow rapporteur for an opinion to follow progress and negotiate compromise texts with the rapporteur. Rule 215

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans

20-02-2024 INTA_AD(2024)758090 PE758.090v02-00 INTA
Helmut SCHOLZ

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020

20-07-2023 INTA_AD(2023)749058 PE749.058v02-00 INTA
Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU

OPINION on EU-Switzerland relations

29-06-2023 INTA_AD(2023)745546 PE745.546v02-00 INTA
Jörgen WARBORN

Other parliamentary activities

Written explanations of vote

Members can submit a written explanation of their vote in plenary. Rule 194

Pandora Papers: implications on the efforts to combat money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance (B9-0527/2021, RC B9-0530/2021, B9-0530/2021, B9-0531/202)

21-10-2021

I voted in favor of the resolution on the Pandora Papers. I truly believe that such a scandal yet again proves that there are too many loopholes in European and global tax legislation, enabling multinational companies and rich individuals to hide money and not pay their fair share of taxes.
Nevertheless, while, overall, I support well-regulated and fair tax competition, I think that with the global deal on taxation being built with challenges, it is symbolically not the time to lobby for tax competition in such a resolution. Hence, I voted against this amendment.
Moreover, supporting a minimum effective tax rate, I do not believe that a rate of 25% – which is 10% higher than the one agreed upon at OECD/global level – is the right way to go. Discussions should be multilateral and take into account the specificities of various jurisdictions. Thus, I voted also against this amendment.

A safety net to protect the beneficiaries of EU programmes: setting up an MFF contingency plan (A9-0099/2020 - Jan Olbrycht, Margarida Marques)

13-05-2020

I fully support the resolution we have voted on. Obviously, it should have been broader in scope but achieving wide support in the European Parliament was more important. This compromise shows the Council and the Commission that we will not only be passive by-standers in the process of re-focusing, re-developing and re-inventing of the European Union.
At the same time, in the Council a similar compromise has to be found. Distinctions between the North and South, East and West, eurozone and non-eurozone countries should be put aside. We are all in this together - this virus does not know borders. Hence, the recovery plan must be available to all Member States of the EU and the Parliament must be involved.
Secondly, knowing that we need an ambitious, revised MFF, we also need a reform of the EU own resources system to finance our pledges. Here all countries - including my own- have to walk the talk that they preach: we need the digital services tax, CCCTB, financial services tax and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. They will strengthen the EU, our internal level playing field and the external competitiveness. The time is now!

Financial assistance to Member States and countries negotiating their accession to the Union that are seriously affected by a major public health emergency

26-03-2020

. – Honourable Members, this situation is like none of the crises that the EU has faced until now. In the times of peace, we have never faced a crisis, which began with a lack of mobility of people, not only in our countries, not only in the EU. Worldwide.
For such special times, we need special responses. We need to forget about the deficits, or limits as we have known them. Still, some rules must apply. I see that the Commission has understood it and has proposed various mechanisms to ease the effects that this virus causes. Understanding that the EU budget is not unlimited, the Commission has done a lot to help national states to find ‘a cure’ for this crisis. Amongst many steps, I welcome the concrete funds, easing the rules for state aid, facilitating the use of flexibility in the Stability and Growth Pact or joint purchases of safety equipment and coordinating bringing EU citizens back home. Also finding the funds to invest in research for a vaccination against COVID should be applauded.
At the same time, I need to stress two issues.
First, as a crucial matter is to guarantee liquidity in order, mainly, to minimise a rapid growth of unemployment, I think that we need to make sure that the support and state aid go to companies that do not fire people. Secondly, from an economic perspective, we cannot allow any solutions on the EU level to distinguish between eurozone and non-eurozone Member States. Our citizens are all European and all of them suffer from this crisis. A crisis in one of our countries will have a spill-over effect on the community as a whole.
Nevertheless, I believe we need to agree a shared framework for quarantine, testing and containment strategies so that we implement it together. Otherwise, we might extend this crisis and the waves of infections might return.
Unity is something we need in the EU now more than ever. If we do not show it, eurosceptics and populists will raise on the smouldering ruins of our economies, foreshadowing the end of our European Community.
The last few weeks have proven that we need more Europe. Maybe this is a lesson to be learned? Let us remember that people do not want to aim for change up until they see a necessity for it. And this necessity for more Europe is now!

Written questions

Members can submit a specific number of questions to the President of the European Council, the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union, for written answer. Rule 138, Annex III

Questions to the Bureau, the Conference of Presidents and the Quaestors

Members can submit questions to the President concerning the Bureau, the Conference of Presidents and the Quaestors as regards their respective duties. Rule 32(2)

Questions to the ECB and concerning the SSM and the SRM

Members can put questions for written reply to the ECB and questions concerning the Single Supervisory Mechanism and the Single Resolution Mechanism. Such questions are first submitted to the Chair of the responsible committee.Rule 140, Rule 141, Annex III

Answers to questions to the ECB and concerning the SSM and the SRM

Reply to members’ questions to the ECB and questions concerning the Single Supervisory Mechanism and the Single Resolution Mechanism. Rule 140, Rule 141, Annex III

Declarations

All declarations below have been signed by the Member, even if the signature is not visible in the online copy.

Meetings

Economic developments in Europe

Member
BELKA Marek
Date, Place:
Ghent
Capacity:
Member
Code of associated committee or delegation
ECON
Meeting with:
JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Economic developments in the EU's retail market

Member
BELKA Marek
Date, Place:
Ghent
Capacity:
Member
Code of associated committee or delegation
ECON
Meeting with:
Revolut Ltd

Economic developments in Europe

Member
BELKA Marek
Date, Place:
Ghent
Capacity:
Member
Code of associated committee or delegation
ECON
Meeting with:
NASDAQ