Brussels, 21/04/2011 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission proposal for the EU budget appears reasonable to the EPP but according to the S&D it is short on both ambition and funding. The Greens/EFA consider that it sometimes misses its target and British Conservatives consider that it does not take the context of austerity into account.
In a press release, Marian-Jean Marinescu (EPP, Romania) welcomes the draft 2012 budget emphasis on growth and cohesion and (the need for) European added value. Next year's budget must take into account current economic realities but it must also be ambitious in achieving the goals the EU has set itself with the EUROPE 2020 strategy.
Marinescu added: “The EU budget has an advantage in that it is more investment focused, a feature that can complement member states' efforts to counter the effects of the economic crisis. For 2012, the Commission was right to propose intensifying investment into growth and jobs and research and innovation.” The EPP Group believes there is also a need to avoid waste and duplication of spending and from that point of view, “we will examine the figures in detail”.
The S&D considers that the Commission proposal makes a “minimal” effort to counter the economic crisis. The S&D Group is calling for a genuine anti-crisis budget for promoting investment, growth and job creation. It is rejecting certain member states' calls for reducing the EU budget. Göran Färm explained that the funding proposed is satisfactory for research but not for action areas linked to growth and jobs, “where there are only a number of small increases and sometimes even reductions”. In the area of cohesion policy, the Commission is increasing payment appropriations but Färm said that this was not enough. He emphasised that “the EU will not be able to pay its bills in the region's structural funds if this is the level of increase”. The S&D Group understands that it is necessary to increase aid to countries experiencing insurrection in North Africa and the Middle East but “unfortunately the Commission is suggesting that to achieve this end, it is necessary to reduce spending in other areas of development aid for poor African and Asian countries. I do not think that this is a good idea.”
Estelle Grelier (S&D, France) considers that this draft budget “does not match the needs for combating economic crisis”. She is deeply disappointed that the European Commission has included at this point the member state demands. “It is for this reason that we are opposing the budgetary cuts sought by member states. We consider, on the contrary, that to find a crisis exit strategy, we need investment, research and development for increasing growth and subsequently creating jobs”. According to Grelier, the populist sentiment expressed by certain governments (those proposing the reduction of European Union spending due to the need to reduce national deficits) “goes against the general European interest. There is genuine added value by pooling some of the resources in an effort to put the economic and social crisis behind us”. She concluded that all the hours that they have spent in fighting for greater resources demonstrates that own resources - such as a tax on financial transactions, a percentage tax on corporations, etc - “now constitute the only way of funding cohesion policy, sustainable energy autonomy, infrastructure, research and development and investing together for creating the wealth and employment of tomorrow”.
The Commission proposals call for an increase in budgetary resources for the ITER nuclear fusion reactor. According to the Greens/EFA Group at the EP, the Commission is proposing the allocation of an additional €750 million in 2012 for ITER (€550 million more than 2013). In exchange, funds for the Community's Seventh Research Framework Programme will be significantly reduced, as well funds for financing the Trans-European Energy Networks, which the Green/EFA Group deplores. Isabelle Durant (Greens/EFA, Belgium), the vice president of the European Parliament and a member of the EP budgets committee, is “concerned” by the Commission proposals. She declared that “it is incredible that the Commission has not learned any lessons from current discussions regarding the future of nuclear energy. On the contrary, the Commission is even daring to mention the renewed interest of member states for nuclear energy! It appears that it is still allowing its policy to be determined by the nuclear lobby”.
In the context of the other sections of the 2004 budget, Durant welcomes several Commission proposals such as the release of additional resources for the EUROPE 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; and the increase in the LIFE+ environmental programme. The MEP concluded that “ultimately, it is regrettable that in the name of budgetary compliance, resources and development aid are being reduced, whereas the EU should do everything possible to help developing countries reach the Millennium Goals in 2015”.
Martin Callanan (ECR, United Kingdom) considers that the budget increase as proposed is “unacceptable at a time the EU should adjust to the mood of austerity sweeping the continent”. In 2011, there has been a 2.9% rise in credit appropriations. According to Callanan, “that was already too high. Yet another inflation-busting rise is outrageous”. He concluded that “the EU needs to do less, do it better and cost less”. Open Europe explains that the Commission proposal would result in the UK's contributions to the EU budget increasing by €769 million, when in fact this money could be used for a lot of other things at a national level. (L.C./transl.fl)