Brussels, 18/01/2012 (Agence Europe) - There was an explosion of criticism of the draft Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union Treaty (aka the Budget Pact) on Wednesday 18 January 2012 during a debate at the European Parliament ahead of the vote on a special resolution (see EUROPE 10533). MEPs are worried that the Budget Pact will not solve the debt crisis because it was foisted on Europe by Germany and the EP (backed by the European Commission) is pulling out the stops to adjust it in order to protect the Community Method and get it incorporated into the full EU treaties as soon as possible. A new draft treaty will be circulated on Thursday before national politicians negotiate at the ECOFIN Council on Tuesday 24 January (see EUROPE 10532).
Elmar Brok (EPP, Germany), one of the EP delegation attending the Budget Pact talks, said that as far as he was concerned, the treaty was not the first choice and it would be better for everything to be proper EU legislation. He said the treaty must protect EU unity, the rights of the Commission and the rights of the European Parliament.
Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, Italy) said it was possible to strengthen budget discipline in EU legislation even though the ink on the updated Stability and Growth Pact is not yet dry. Furthermore, he added, the EU will not be able to get out of crisis if it doesn't take measures to boost growth and solidarity, stating that the four biggest political parties at the EP wanted common management of sovereign debt.
The head of the Liberal Group, Belgium's Guy Verhofstadt, said the deal was dangerous because it could encourage the Council of Ministers to continue down the intergovernmental road in future, hence the importance of restricting the impact of the treaty as far as possible, by which he means the “golden rule” limiting public debt. He lambasted the double standards that would create two types of infringement proceedings, one for deficits and the other for debt, and called for the budget pact to be incorporated in EU legislation within three years, or five at most.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Greens/EFA, Germany) is the most critical of the four MEPs attending the talks, rejecting out of hand what he said was a totally pointless treaty that did not respond to the debt crisis. He said this intergovernmental agree was not needed and it was only there to reassure the markets, while these same markets were demanding political answers about the future European economy. He called for a roadmap on a Financial Transactions Tax and the introduction of eurobonds.
Agreeing with Cohn-Bendit on the pointlessness of the treaty, Martin Callanan (ECR, UK) said that it was a waste of energy and resources and was diverting attention from the real issues, namely Europe's lack of competitiveness.
On behalf of the GUE/NGL, Soren Sondergaard of Denmark said the treaty was the wrong medicine because the crisis couldn't be solved simply by adding more and more austerity. He warned that frog-marching countries into this kind of European integration by austerity without consulting the population would only widen the gap between politicians and voters. British Eurosceptic Nigel Farage said that MEPs were burying their heads in the sand: Europe was on the brink of disaster and were blaming it on others, when it had to drop the euro so countries could devalue their currencies to get out of the crisis.
The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durao Barroso, commented: “The Commission left no ambiguity about the priority to see an agreement that respects a certain number of principles, namely the primacy of European Union law, the necessity of democratic accountability, the importance of the European institutions, and the need to integrate the Agreement into the European Treaties. We are insisting: First, on a correct clause safeguarding primacy of EU law and its full application, in particular that of EU procedures whenever the adoption of secondary law is required. Second, that the Member States express their readiness to support a Commission proposal that would strengthen the Six Pack by introducing, for euro area Member States, a new range for Medium Term Objectives in line with the limits of the Agreement. Third, that the text reflects an adequate openness of Euro Summits to all Member States and recognises the position of the President of this Parliament. And last but not least, that cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament must operate within the European Union Treaties in accordance with Protocol No. 1, avoiding any impression that several competing assemblies at European level will emerge over time, thus weakening the European Parliament.” (MB/transl.fl)