Brussels, 18/02/2013 (Agence Europe) - In an assessment, published on 18 February, of the European Council agreement on the 2014-2020 financial framework, Sylvie Goulard MEP (ALDE, France) deplores the fact that this “lite” EU budget “is not completed by the creation of a eurozone budget (or eurozone and countries due to join it), enabling an optimal monetary zone to be made (labour mobility policies, investments, financial transfers) or contra-cyclical measures to be taken”. In Goulard's opinion, the discussion launched by Herman Van Rompuy has been short-lived. Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France), the chair of the Parliament's budgets committee, believes that the subject of the own budget for the eurozone will be taken up again when the German elections are over (see EUROPE 10785).
“We are far from anything that might resemble the New Deal of the American president Roosevelt during the Great Depression - a period when the United States federal budget became unstuck, starting from earlier orders of magnitude similar to those of the current EU, to exceed 20% of the national wealth. Yet an increase like this could be made without chaos by reducing the national budgets in parallel thanks especially to economies of scale”, Goulard writes.
Revenue which is not European. The only chance to put an end to the absurd budgetary discussions - where unanimity and the existence of “national contributions” and “rebates” sharpens rivalries - would have been to “give the EU own resources”, Goulard underlines. She recalls that the leaders refuse this, however. Once more, the occasion has been lost to give the EU modern and sustainable funding. As to the length of the agreement - planned to cover seven years - this poses both a problem of democracy (the next European Parliament legislature will therefore have nothing to say?) and common sense (who knows where we will be with this in seven years' time?) As Guy Verhofstadt said in the plenary session, even the USSR marked its planning out for five years.
Choice of the past. Despite the gravity of the crisis, it is inertia which has won the day, Goulard states: “This budget is not an exit-from-the-crisis budget. It largely perpetuates choices from the 1980s last century (priorities to the common agricultural policy, cohesion spending for the countries of the South and East with barely an inventory, and rebates of all types.) The British rebate has no justification, for example. It is unique because it no longer compensates a lag of the country that benefits from it.” The CAP remains the biggest item (€373 billion); which could be conceivable if it became a strategic tool. Yet if it is partly re-oriented towards “green” production, and less focused on direct payments, “there is no European capping of direct aid, which perpetuates one of the previous injustices”.
The European Parliament is barking but will it bite? The Lisbon Treaty gives MEPS a right of approval on the financial perspectives, for the first time. The presidents of the four main parliamentary groups at the European Parliament have stated, through a joint press release, that they would reject this agreement. A negative vote would enable priority to be given back to the European perspective - in other words, having a European budget instead of centring around the so-called national interests (which, moreover, are sometimes those of the powerful lobbies of some countries). If the budget is rejected, it is the previous financial perspectives that would continue to be applied - on an annual basis - until a new agreement is found.
However, the Parliament - which is coming to the end of its legislature - might also hesitate to exercise its right. Continuing the previous financial perspectives does not answer the objection of finding a better response to the crisis. A negative vote would only therefore be a first step - one which is necessary but not in itself sufficient. The leaders emphasise that certain policies should be protected (for example, Erasmus or aid to the deprived) but “it will need to be checked that the Council regulation, which is required to formally receive the approval of the Parliament, is in accordance with the good intentions. A solution could be to accept this budget for two or three years, while negotiating a possibility for revision, from the flexibility margin, or even own resources”, Goulard states.
The European Council has put the Parliament into a dilemma. If, in the name of the medium-term and intellectual rigour, MEPs reject the budget, they would doubtless be caricatured as irresponsible. If they accept the budget, they would once again favour what - in the short term - seems reasonable but what - given the current crisis - can also be considered as completely unreasonable.
“For my part, I believe it right to say no. Budgetary procedures leading to results that are so little adapted to our times, in such an opaque fashion, by encouraging latent nationalism, surely need to be reviewed. And the denounced lack of vision of the European leaders”, Goulard concludes (our translation throughout).
The European Council agreement provides €960 billion in commitment appropriations and €908 billion in payment appropriations for 2014-2020. This budget represents 1% of the collective wealth, -3.4% in comparison with the previous financial perspectives, or -8% compared with the European Commission's initial proposals. (LC/transl.fl)