Brussels, 08/06/2011 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament has taken the bull by the horns, much to the dismay of most member states (which want a severe EU belt-tightening) and said on Wednesday 8 June that it “is of the firm opinion that freezing the next MFF at the 2013 level, as demanded by some member states, is not a viable option”.
Adopting a report by Salvador Garriga Polledo (EPP, Spain), crystallising the work of the EP's special committee on post-2013 budget challenges, the EP said it was “convinced that at least a 5% increase of resources is needed for the next MFF; challenges the Council, in case it does not share this approach, to clearly identify which of its political priorities or projects could be dropped altogether, despite their proven European added value”.
When it comes to cohesion policy, the EP “stresses that a successful and strengthened cohesion policy needs adequate funding, and that the amounts allocated to it in the current financial programming period should be at least maintained in the next period in order to step up its efforts to reduce development disparities between EU regions; reiterates, in this context, its strong request to ensure that, in the next MFF, the unspent or de-committed resources of cohesion funds remain in the EU budget and not be returned to the member states”. Adopting an amendment tabled by the S&D Group, the EP called on the Commission “to establish an intermediary category for the duration of the next programming period for regions whose GDP per capita stands at between 75% and 90% of EU GDP”. The EP “stresses that these transitional measures for the next programming period for regions coming out of the convergence objective and for regions with per capita GDP between 75% and 90% of the EU average should not be established at the expense of the current convergence (Objective 1) and competitiveness regions (Objective 2) or the European territorial cooperation objective (Objective 3)”.
New resources and phasing out rebates. The MEPs were critical of the current funding system, which has become extremely complex and is based almost exclusively on contributions from the member states. The EP recommends a system based on truly independent EU finance and calls for the scrapping of the current system of rebates, derogations and corrective mechanisms. The MEPs believe unspent funding and cash earmarked but not actually used should be brought together in a single wriggle-room margin in the financial framework
Investing in the future is the real answer to the economic and financial crisis, according to the European Parliament's special committee on post-2013 budget challenges (see EUROPE 10287) and its rapporteur, Salvador Garriga Polledo (EPP, Spain). It will not be possible to have more Europe with less money or to make formal pledges without the proper resources, said Garrigo Polledo, pointing out that the resources had to be used well and this meant ensuring sufficient funding for agricultural policy and the cohesion policy. Investment in areas for the future would also be needed, he said, so cutting the budget was not an option and a 5% rise was the bar minimum if one wanted to make the EU budget a tool that could turn the 27 member states into a genuine union.
European solutions are needed, said the chair of the committee, Joseph Daul (EPP, France) and European solutions mean European finance. He said that the fact people are now calling for the EU to raise its own cash is because they want to relieve pressure on national purses, pointing out that the EU budget had always been balanced and 90% of the cash has been spent on projects that have been of direct benefit to the member states. He said that without EU funding for education and training, the brain drain from Europe to the USA and China would speed up, the battle for growth would be lost and the gaps between regions would grow deeper. Daul said it is better to spend well than to spend little and it is wiser to spend together rather than scattering resources on projects without a future.
The EU cannot aim high without resources, agreed the chair of the S&D Group, Martin Schulz, who said that going down the road of reducing solidarity and sending things back to the member states would not be productive. If everyone only thinks of themselves, then Europe will mean nothing in the world, whether a big country like Germany or a little island like Malta, he explained, saying that people could not desire a Marshall Plan for southern Mediterranean countries or help horticulturists suffering from the E.coli outbreak and yet at the same time cut the EU budget.
The head of the ALDLE Group, Belgium's Guy Verhofstadt, said the British movement's letter about the EU budget was “provocative” and fiscal consolidation in the member states would not be achieved by cutting the EU budget. Quite the opposite in fact, giving the EU a bigger role in some areas would allow savings to be made, he said, such as savings in the diplomatic service and financial policy (where huge savings are possible) and research (where immediate introduction of a European patent would lead to enormous savings).
British Conservative MEP Richard Ashworth, speaking on behalf of the ECR, challenged these arguments, saying he agreed to spend more on research, innovation, education and the single market, but called for a critical assessment of the traditional priorities: “More Europe is not the answer, but a smarter Europe.”
What's needed is a better Europe, said Dutch Green MEP Bas Eikchout, saying this would require a greener budget, making better use of existing resources and, above all, more transparency.
The head of the GUE/Nordic Green Left, Germany's Lothar Bisky, expressed his party's disappointment that expansion of the European social model and solidarity were not given enough backing in the report. Bisky said the priority was to bring about a Social Europe and things like ITER and FRONTEX could wait. It is time, he added, to seriously consider introducing a tax on financial transactions.
Irregularities in the EU budget, money wasted left, right and centre under the Lisbon strategy, a rise in the farm budget of more than 40%, failure of the EU fishing policy and the European diplomatic corps that was costing plenty of money but had not yet justified its raison d'être - such strong criticisms are not surprising because they were made by British Eurosceptic MEP Marta Andreasen on behalf of the EFD Group. Following on from this, non-aligned Dutch MEP Lucas Hartong criticised what he called the “dictatorship of the EU elite” and called for national sovereignty to assert itself.
EU Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski said he shared the vision set out in the social committee report - the EU budget was not a carbon copy of national budgets and increasing it made economies of scale possible, along with synergy. Calling for sufficient funding for “traditional but still relevant” policies like agriculture and the cohesion policy, the commissioner asked people to provide the chance to be successful in tackling the new challenges of mass immigration, energy efficiency, climate change and aiding southern Mediterranean countries. Lewandowski said the EU budget was a tool box that can be used to introduce reforms and new policies alike. He added that EP-Commission cooperation would be crucial to ensure success in the negotiations, which were likely to be tough.
The EU should drum up its own finance (and not require contributions from the member states) said Reimer Boge (EPP, Germany), calling for all cost savings possible to be made, including a debate on possible synergy in cooperation with national parliaments. Swedish Socialist Göran Färm said he was one of the many MEPs who said cohesion should be seen not as an objective, but as a means to reverse the current economic trends. He called for less criticism of the EU budget because it had gone up less than the Swedish budget. We could justify a 5% rise in our own countries, said Carl Haglund (ALDE, Finland), but added that the problems facing the common agricultural policy and cohesion policy would have to be explained better to ordinary people. He said that if people want to cut costs, then they should take a new look at whether the EP should be in Strasbourg. Development of the cohesion policy was called for by Konrad Szymanski (ECR, Poland), who said that expanding own resources would be a waste of time. Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL/Portugal) said the sovereign debt crisis would not have happened if there had been a strong EU budget and a more effective cohesion policy. Venerating austerity as an aim in itself is not the right way to solve the crisis, said Isabelle Durant (Greens/EFA, Belgium) and instead, there should be solidarity and sharing of expenditure in dialogue with national parliaments. Austria's Othmar Karas (EPP) said that if Europe wanted to play a role in the world and to keep its promises, then it would have to break into its savings and own resources would be required as well. A Robin Hood tax on financial transactions is also needed, said Spanish Socialist Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, who said it would provide the EU coffers with between €200 billion and €300 billion. Alexander Alvaro (ALDE, Germany) said a good way of making better use of the available cash was to transfer unspent funding to future-oriented headings. British Conservative James Nicholson agreed that it was important to know where the money was going and called for greater clarity in the statements of assurance about spending. He urged Guy Verhofstadt not to point at any EU country. (L.C/L.G./transl.fl)