Brussels, 18/02/2013 (Agence Europe) - The gloves were off at the European Parliament on Monday 18 February, with the warning that the Parliament will not be able to accept the agreement of the European Council on the financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 in its current state. At a conference of the Presidents of the groups of the Parliament extended to all members, the MEPs laid down their conditions to be able to accept the deal: negotiate to obtain a revision clause in two or three years' time to allow the new Parliament to review the budget; genuine budgetary flexibility; and new own resources to ensure that the European budget is not systematically held hostage.
Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council, sought to defend the compromise achieved at the European Council on 8 February. He argued that the compromise is a “good agreement for Europe as a whole”. Following the criticism of the MEPs, he called on them to think twice before rejecting the budget and moving towards annual budgets.
Giovanni Pittella (S&D, Italy), the vice-president of the European Parliament, said that he was disappointed by the results of the European Council on the financial framework 2014-2020. The compromise does not seem up to the challenges facing us, he said, arguing in favour of a modern, ambitious budget which would help to put an end to the economic and social crisis. However, we are a long way from that objective, Pittella lamented. The fact that the budget is down in 2014-2020 is a step backwards which has no logic, he added. The Parliament will not be able to accept the agreement as it stands today, Pittella warned.
Joseph Daul, President of the EPP group, compared the latest European Council to a meeting of carpet salesmen. He said that the result is that we have ended up with the lowest budget in the history of the EU. He added that as it stands, this budget is not acceptable. The financial framework proposed to us goes against the treaty, because the European Council has overstepped its authority by going against the competent parliamentary committees: this is a violation of the legislative powers of the EU, Daul stated. Laying down payment appropriations at a level which is €52 billion less than the commitment appropriations is called making a deficit, and this runs counter to the rule laid down in the treaties (obligation of budgetary balance), he added. After a summit of this kind, Europe is going in the wrong direction, he stated. He argued that nobody took account of the Parliament's position in the negotiations between heads of state. He called on Van Rompuy to provide him with detailed figures on the arrangement of the last European Council. Daul stressed that the Parliament now had to negotiate, and he called for a realistic and fair budget. This budget must not move towards deficits, he said. If the members of the European Parliament do not have the power to review the budget, then I wonder why we are holding European elections in 2014, he concluded.
Austria's Hannes Swoboda, President of the S&D group, also stated that we cannot accept the budget as presented today, saying there will not be a majority in this Parliament to approve it. He added that we need an anti-cyclical budget. He said that the guarantee for young people laid down in it is important, but asked whether we will manage to face the explosion in youth unemployment in Europe with €6 billion. He added that the expenditure earmarked for the European Social Fund will not be sufficient to eradicate the social crisis. Why is the globalisation adjustment fund so “slim”, he also lamented. He went on to raise the issue of migration due to poverty in Bulgaria and Romania, amongst others. Even in Germany, the number of people living in poverty is rising, he pointed out. He argued in favour of funds to invest in the poorest areas to avoid migration. He criticised the fact that the budget is laid down for seven years. He said that the revision clause is a sine qua non condition for us to start negotiations with the Irish Presidency.
Guy Verhofstatdt, on behalf of the ADLE group, stated that the agreement is a “copy-paste” of the 2005 agreement on the MFF (2007-2013). There were 31 rebates and derogations in the current framework, there will now be 53 for 2014-2020 “to buy the support of the member states”. The level of unpaid commitments (deficit of the EU) will be €300 billion, he warned. We are widening the gap with the next MFF, but instead we should be returning to a balance between commitments and payments.
In the view of Isabelle Durant (Greens/EFA, Belgium), the agreement is anything but a budget. What is more, there was she said zero agreement on own resources at the European Council. She proposed that the Parliament wait until 2014 to hold its real debate on the European budget, to coincide with the European elections. She criticised cuts of €90 billion over seven years, saying that the revision clause is necessary, but is not the instrument which will allow us to give our agreement to the MFF as a whole.
Martin Callanan, the President of the “Conservatives and Reformists” group, was the only one to support the agreement, which he described as a “pragmatic balance; a compromise between contributor countries demanding better spending, and those who understandably want to protect their net positions”. However, he said that the priority of French President François Hollande was to put in place not a growth strategy for Europe, but a “growth strategy for French cows. Without this intransigence, we could have reduced CAP expenditure, made it fairer for newer member states and redirected billions more euros into the competitiveness agenda.” (LC/transl.fl)