Brussels, 21/11/2012 (Agence Europe) - With German Chancellor Angela Merkel raising the possibility of a new European Council in early 2013 on the financial framework 2014-2020, the MEPs largely showed scepticism over the chances of the EU leaders reaching a compromise on this dossier by the end of the week. Many of them also criticised the turn taken by these negotiations at member states level, particularly on calculations of the net balance (difference between what a country pays into the budget and what it takes out) and on the budgetary cuts to be carried out.
Under conditions such as these, is it really necessary to convene a summit at the end of the week? asked Joseph Daul (EPP, France), stressing that the positions are diametrically opposed. There is no need to meet in order to reduce the budget, he said. On the one hand, there are those who want a long-term budget, which is able to face the challenges which await it. And there are others who want a lower budget, to make short-term savings. With a budget below 1% of the gross national income of the EU, we won't be able to do anything, Daul warned. He pointed out that 16 heads of government, the “friends of cohesion”, support the European Parliament's stance in calling for a reinforced budget. He said that his group was convinced that the EU needs a solid financial framework, because with the crisis, it is the only way some member states will be able to make investments. Daul added that the proposed cuts of €400 million to the programme of aid to the poorest people in the EU was unacceptable.
“50 billion less, no, 80, 100, 200 billion less! Can we cut it further? This is what it feels like we are hearing from the European governments. It's a Dutch auction”, said the President of the S&D group, Hannes Swoboda of Austria. He lamented the fact that the countries never talk about objectives, as if the European budget was just an accountancy game (what I give, what I get…). He feels that this game of calculating the net contributors wanting to spend less should be stopped. Swoboda described wanting to cut credit from the EU budget as the politics of weakness, and of cowardice. He also criticised the fact that the countries of the EU have failed to agree on a single seat for the European patent court. “It will have to have three seats. Is this the best way to spend the European taxpayer's money?” he asked.
In the view of Guy Verhofstadt (ADLE, Belgium), 1 % of the gross national income (GNI) of the EU for the budget is not enough. The budget of a country such as Germany or France is eight to ten times higher than the European budget: the budget of the EU is €140 billion, less than the budget of Belgium or Austria, compared to €6,300 billion for the budget of all the member states. The day-to-day contribution of the citizens to the European budget is 67 cents a day, Verhofstadt explained. In the USA, the federal budget is 24% of GNI. In Switzerland, it is 12% of GNI. Between 2000 and 2010, the national budgets rose by 62%, or twice the level of increase of the European budget. Verhofstadt concluded that a strong European budget is the only way of overcoming the budgetary problems of the member states. He called on the Parliament to stand firm and be ready to block an agreement if the Commission's proposal was not retained.
Helga Trüpel (Greens/EFA, Germany) said that Merkel was wrong when she told the Parliament two weeks ago that the 27 countries of the EU had decided to invest 3% of GNI in research and development, when she leads the net contributor countries in favour of cutting investments in research and development by 12%. Trüpel favours the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT), the revenue from which would be paid into the EU budget (2/3 for the EU and 1/3 for the countries of the EU, as proposed by the Commission). We'll be prepared to say “no” if the Council refuses our demands: enough credit, proper own resources and flexibility in the budget, Trüpel concluded.
Martin Callanan (ECR, UK) criticised those who, like the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, “believe every problem can be solved by more Europe.” He dismissed the idea that the EU budget was an investment budget, noting that 40% of it goes on farm subsidies and 6% on administrative overheads. Eight countries of the EU have written to Barroso to point out that €2 billion for European civil servants' pensions in the future was aberrant, he pointed out. “This letter was ignored”, Callanan lamented. He believes that 5% of the EU budget is spent irregularly (€5 billion), refering to the latest report of the Court of Auditors (see EUROPE 10724). Callanan argues that the budget should not simply be frozen, but reduced, as various socialists have also called for. The leader of the Conservatives said that funding earmarked for the new member states should be kept in place as they need it the most, because it is “absurd” that 40% of the structural and cohesion funds go to the richest countries of the EU. Lastly, Callanan took position in favour of a renationalisation of these redistribution policies to allow EU money to benefit the poorest countries which genuinely need it.
“It's mission impossible”, said David Cameron, who wants the budget to be frozen, which still corresponds to an “outsize” budget, according to Nigel Farage, speaking on behalf of the ELD group. The EU talks of “taking another €1 trillion from EU taxpayers, despite the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for 18 years in a row,” he said, adding that if the EU was a company, “the directors would all be in prison”. He went on to stress that two thirds of British people want the United Kingdom to leave the EU and never pay it “a single penny” again.
Andreas Mavroyiannis, the Cypriot Minister responsible for European affairs, said that the Presidency wished to reach an agreement at the end of this week on the financial framework. “This is vital for the credibility of the EU”, he stressed. The draft on the table proposes a cut of €75 billion on the Commission's proposal (and €6 billion on the instruments outside the financial framework), he stressed, whilst the Parliament wants to maintain the level of expenditure initially proposed by the Commission. “Even though I regret the fact that this has not been possible, we have to be realistic. Europe has experienced one of the most serious crises in its history and, despite the efforts made at European and national level, the effects of this crisis will continue to make themselves felt for a long time to come. We have no other choice than to reflect this serious situation in the financial framework”, Mavroyiannis said. He feels that the latest proposals “are not far from a place where we can reach an agreement” (cuts under all headings). He added that all of Thursday would be given over to meetings “behind closed doors” between the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission and each of the delegations of the member states, “in order to take the temperature and see if there is a basis on which we could reach a compromise”. The European Council will have to go on for as long as it has to, because Herman Van Rompuy is determined to reach an agreement, he concluded.
“The decisions on the future budgetary framework of the European Union are a key test of our credibility. Because our main instrument to invest in growth and job creation is none other than the European budget”, said José Manuel Barroso, the President of the Commission. “Some suggest making cuts here and there, arguing that at the end of the day, this will not make any difference to Europe”, he stressed. However, every billion withdrawn from the “Horizon 2020” programme “means 4,000 SMEs having to do without funding for innovations generating growth and jobs, it means 600 outstanding researchers and their teams who can no longer continue the work on which our future prosperity depends”. He also reiterated the consequences of cutting the budget of the aid fund to the poorest citizens and calling the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund into question. I am “a friend of cohesion, and also a friend of better spending”, he stressed. He went on to throw an accusation: “I wonder if those who would also like to make deep incisions in the administrative expenditure are genuinely concerned about efficiency, in other words concerned about optimising the resources to be implemented, or whether they mainly hope to weaken the institutions, such as the Commission and the European Parliament”. Barroso concluded by saying that the point of negotiations was to reach compromises: “the Commission goes to the meeting of the European Council with a spirit of compromise, but, and let's be very clear about this, compromises which must be constructive. Compromises which must strengthen Europe and not help to destroy Europe”. (our translation throughout) (LC/transl.fl)