Brussels, 27/11/2012 (Agence Europe) - European Council President Herman Van Rompuy joined the leaders of the parties in the European Parliament on 27 November to give his views on the failure of the European Summit on 22-23 November at which it was hoped member states would come to an agreement on the EU's multiannual budget for the period from 2014 to 2020. Party leaders may tolerate a first failure but they will expect heads of state and government to do much more to reach agreement next year. They made it crystal clear, above all, that any agreement reached requires Parliament assent and that the Parliament will only approve a budget that makes sufficient provision for growth.
No over-simplification. Just as he did after the unsuccessful summit, Van Rompuy sought to play down the situation, noting the unusual context in which negotiations had taken place. For the first time, the 27 member states had to come to budget agreement, which required Parliament approval, within a context of sluggish growth and with no prior agreement among the member states. Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso stressed, too, that much more is expected of the EU and that it may not have the means to achieve all that has been asked. Van Rompuy warned against any over-simplification, with negotiations not boiling down to a fight between rich and poor, or between the south and the north. Barroso said, however, that he was disappointed that some had been very severe towards the European institutions and the Commission.
No compromise without the EP. Referring to his final proposal, Van Rompuy stated that it was, indeed, a real terms reduction of 2% compared with current levels but that spending on growth had been increased, thus retaining the spirit of the Commission proposal. As a consequence, he remained hopeful: he said he thought it would be possible to find solutions, though perhaps less ambitious. He promised to continue to seek a solution that balanced solidity and solidarity between fiscal consolidation and growth. He assured MEPs that this balanced solution would take account of their concerns: it would, he stated, be a compromise that would stand up to examination that would be put to the Parliament for approval, otherwise all the efforts would be pointless.
Member states in the firing line. EPP leader Joseph Daul (France) was not unhappy at Friday's failure, as any other outcome would have meant a bad agreement. “No agreement is better than a reduction. Reducing the budget by €75 billion amounts to a freeze until 2020. That is a decision that no member state has taken for itself!” he said. He criticised Van Rompuy for this: “It's irresponsible to make such proposals!” He continued to argue for no reduction in the Commission proposal and expects member states to act in a logical manner, rather than as they have until now, “calling for more from the EU while they cut time and again into the budget”. While the Socialist leader Hannes Swoboda (Austria) gave some credit to Van Rompuy, taking the view that he was firm in not accepting an agreement at any price, he, like Daul, was critical in particular of the member states. He felt that it was national concerns and selfishness which reigned at the summit and said that, when it comes time to put your hand in your pocket, everyone disappears. He said acidly that the heads of state do not deserve Europe.
Own resources. Speaking on behalf of the Greens, Daniel Cohn Bendit called for this sham to be brought to an end and asked Van Rompuy to warn the member states that, if this and this were not agreed, they would not get Parliament assent. He argued that the best way of ending this carry-on was for the EU to have its own resources and for national contributions to be reduced. Own resources, from, for example, VAT or the financial transactions tax, was also the war cry from the Liberals. Their leader, Guy Verhofstadt, pointed out that the budget proposals amounted to70 cents per day per European citizen, “and this is still too much for the countries which want reductions”, he said ironically, dismissing the discussion as “absurd”. He said, too, that it was “a lie to say that cuts are the way to save our member states. It is by pooling resources and policies that their deficits will be reduced”, he argued. (MD/transl.fl)