Useful summary. After the mass of controversy and position-taking of which we are all only too well aware, the question is still up in the air - is it preferable for the European Council and the European Parliament to continue their negotiations on the financial framework for the EU for 2014-2020? Or would it be better for the Parliament to reject the current text? The Parliament can't amend the text but it has the option of rejecting it. Before voting, the Parliament is now in the throes of negotiating the conditions of its possible yes. This is normal. Yet there is also the tendency within the Parliament that would, with nothing more ado, have its vote negative. This is a fundamental decision and it would perhaps be opportune to recap and compare the two opposing positions - on which EUROPE reports daily.
The reasons for the 'no'. Let's leave aside some of the extreme positions, which are minority ones anyway. Let's analyse the reasons that Sylvie Goulard (ALDE) gives for reaching the following conclusion - I believe it's right to say no. She believes that the text from the last summit poses both a question of democracy (the new Parliament that will be elected next year will not have any further input) and a problem of economic logic (how is it possible at this moment to define in detail the EU's expenditure for seven years?) Even the USSR limited its planning to five years… Goulard believes that certain aspects of the summit text reflect choices of the past - for example, the CAP stays top of the areas of expenditure and the rebate of the British contribution continues, although a referendum is planned on the UK staying in the EU…
Goulard admits that a solution would be to accept the financial framework for two or three years, while in the meantime negotiating the possibility of revision, the margins of flexibility and the preparation of own resources. But, in her opinion, the outcome of the summit is opaque, it implies the presence of latent nationalism and it lacks vision. This is why her conclusion is for a no.
Improving without rejecting? Nobody believes that the summit text is an ideal document - not even its president, Mr Van Rompuy. But it represents the maximum possible because unanimity was needed, and it is pointless criticising the United Kingdom or any other country. Without everyone's agreement, the financial framework would not exist and there is currently ample debate with the Parliament - even on sensitive issues like budgetary flexibility, which enables financing to be moved from one area to another, and the launch of new own resources (including the financial transactions tax that is already in the bag).
The argument in favour of negotiation considers that the Parliament should not ignore the comments of other institutions or Community bodies. Ramon Luis Valcarcel Siso, the president of the Committee of the Regions, has explicitly called on MEPs to avoid rejecting the multiannual financial framework. Indeed, the Parliament is right to want to improve what is improve-able (…) but rejection needs to be avoided because the regions can't afford backtracking on the financing that they are expecting (see EUROPE 10789).
This position points to a general rule - the one whose daily activity benefits from European financial support needs the existence of the multiannual financial framework as an instrument allowing this activity to be planned beyond an annual budget (which would be automatic in the absence of an agreement).
An aspect needing clarification. Sylvie Goulard believes that annual budgets based on the budget of the previous year wouldn't hamper multiannual projects - in other words, programmes financed over several years. This is not the opinion of Danuta Hübner, the chair of the European Parliament's regional development committee (and the former European commissioner for regional policy). Hübner believes that the annual budgets that would result automatically if there were no agreement on a budget would be a terrible mistake because a budget of this type cannot commit financing for later years - any programming would be impossible. This aspect must be clarified.
A bad calculation. My general recap of the current positions would seem to confirm the opportunity for a compromise between the Parliament and Council and the need for reasonable concessions from each side. Some extremely strong positions from MEPs are understandable ahead of the upcoming electoral Parliamentary campaigns next year - but the excesses sometimes contribute to the negative image of the EU for public opinion. In reality, European construction continues to progress in fundamental areas, although the atmosphere remains negative. Anyone who voluntarily collaborates in this unjustified, or largely exaggerated, atmosphere is making a wrong move.
(FR/transl.fl)