Brussels, 01/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - MEPs were heavily critical, on Monday 28 February, of the way the EU is financed and they called for the own resources system to be overhauled. Many of the members of the “special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013” criticised the EU's VAT-based revenue system and several wanted to reduce dependence on contributions in line with countries' GNI (gross national income), which currently accounts for three quarters of the budget. Differences appeared over how this was to be replaced.
Rapporteur Salvador Garriga Polledo (EPP, Spain) pointed out that the European Parliament (EP) was calling for a revision of the own resources system principally because some member states are seeking to reduce their contribution to the EU. Traditional own resources are in crisis, the VAT-based resource no longer responds to objectives, so other options have to be found, was what he said in substance. He stated that a large number of national parliaments are of the view that there was no need for new own resources but for improvement of those which exist. In this context, how might new own resources be raised, he asked the European Commission. He said that the majority opinion in the EP was for an end to correction mechanisms and rebates (including the United Kingdom's). Furthermore, the EP felt that there was a difference between the annual ceiling on expenditure and the ceiling on own resources (1.24% of EU GNI) which had to be taken into account in the EU budget.
Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski noted the weaknesses of the system, such as its complexity and lack of coherence with EU objectives. Simplification, he said, was the most promising avenue to explore. He suggested, too, that the VAT-based resource was not of great use and that ending this system would mean the financing system could be made simpler. He accepted that new own resources formed the most sensitive area, as it impinged on member states' budgetary sovereignty. He pointed out that unanimity among member states was required to be able to bring in new revenue for the budget. The Commission has proposed several new resources to gradually phase out national contributions: a European tax on the financial sector, revenue from the auction of greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading, a European duty on air transport, a European VAT, a European energy tax and a European companies tax. The Commission, which will make its proposals on the next financial framework around the month of June, is examining the political and technical feasibility of each of these options. Lewandowski said that he was not in a position to say which of the options would be selected. He indicated that one or two possibilities, one or two own resources were being sought. The income from the new resources would be taken directly by the EU - that is to say, it would not come through member states' budgets - the commissioner said. He added that account had to be taken of the net position and sectoral development in each member state. In terms of corrections, the Commission currently uses the lever of expenditure (agricultural spending under cohesion policy) to adjust the relative positions of the member states, the commissioner said.
Jean-Luc Dehaene (EPP, Belgium) called for a “more transparent, simpler” and neutral system. Ending the VAT resource “might contribute to improving this transparency”. Resources had to be the EU's own, without having to repay them to member states, Dehaene argued, adding: “The EU has to have independent funding that allows member states' contributions to be reduced in a way that is clear”.
Eider Gariazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain) called for new taxes to be put in place - she said that a tax on financial transactions was an attractive proposition for the S&D, and spoke too of a carbon tax or a levy on calls from mobile phones - but only if they were effective. “It must not be possible to get out of paying these taxes, nor should payment be directly from citizens” (so no direct levies), she said.
Carl Haglund (ALDE, Finland) asked the Commission for more information on “just how much of the budget would come from own resources”. “100% at least”, he suggested. It was naïve to speak about “neutral” own resources, Haglund added. “Even if citizens are not taxed, it will ultimately affect how much citizens contribute, even if it is a tax on financial transactions”. He called on the Commission to carry out an impact study on the options selected. Isabelle Durant (Green/EFA, Belgium) stressed the need for “budgetary neutrality”. It had to be a viable plan which eased things for member states.
Richard Ashworth (ECR, UK) was not convinced of the merits of the options for the new revenue (such as a carbon tax or a tax on financial transactions). “We don't want to give Europe fiscal independence”, he said.
Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL, Portugal) reproached the Commission for not bringing anything new to the debate. The current systems, he said, is “absurd” in that member states want to contribute as little as possible while getting as much good as possible from the European budget. (L.C./transl.rt)