Guy Verhofstadt has shown the way. The European Parliament's Liberal Group (ALDE) has set out its formula for ironing out the difference of opinion between the European Council and Parliament on the 2014-2020 budgetary framework. The new aspect has been highlighted by the leader of the group, Mr Verhofstadt. He doesn't call for an increase in the overall amount that will be available to the EU but he talks about the way it should be used, the elasticity of the appropriations and parliamentary control (see EUROPE 10795). Most member states have to deal with very heavy national deficits and have to manage expenditure by imposing sacrifices on their citizens. The EU, too, has to accept a tight budget. The European Commission is urging member states to reduce their budgetary deficits - which are ruinous. The EU should also accept a similar effort. The most important element is what the available resources are to be used for and the elasticity of using them. We need more flexibility between the different budget lines and we need the option of moving the amounts available from one year to another so that under-utilised funds can be directed where there is not enough money - thus avoiding wastage.
At the same time it is crucial to make progress on the area of own resources, so that the member states stop reasoning in terms of fair return - with each trying to recover what it has paid in by looking for rebates, reductions and other concessions. Europe can't wait another seven years to take on this fundamental development.
Mr Verhofstadt has also underlined the political aspect of his group's position. Democratic legitimacy imposes a mid-term approval procedure, enabling the next European Parliament - elected in 2014 - to have its say on the EU's budget priorities because “no democratic system can allow its Parliament to be excluded from working on budget priorities”.
An alternative formula? It should be added that Jean-Guy Giraud (Union of European Federalists - France) has brought to our attention the fact that the Treaty does not oblige the multiannual financial framework (MFF) to have a time-span of seven years. The legal texts indicate that the MFF is “established for a period of at least five years”, and a political minority has always sought to bring the period covered by an MFF into line with the mandates of the Parliament and Commission. In the current situation, the MFF approval just needs to be delayed by a year for the renewed Parliament and the new Commission to assume - at the end of 2014 - the responsibilities incumbent upon them. At the same time, the Parliament could reaffirm the need for own resources for the EU in order to gradually replace the contribution from the member states. In practice, the Parliament would assume the risk of a crisis, in order to obtain the move to a new stage in European construction. It's a dangerous position but it should be taken into account.
Possibilities for a compromise? Last week, the president of the Parliament, Martin Schulz, told the president of the Irish Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers, Enda Kenny, that it is more than likely that the Parliament will reject the MFF set out by the European Council. Schulz told media: “It is more than likely that a majority of the Parliament will say no” (see EUROPE 10796).
Is this a negative signal? Not entirely - because Mr Schulz has said that the rejections refers to the MFF “as it currently stands”, once again pointing out the three conditions for a compromise: (1) flexibility of the financial framework; (2) gradual move to own resources; (3) mid-term review.
It can in fact be noted that the positions of Mr Verhofstadt and the president of the Parliament coincide on the basic issue - agreement is possible if the European Council accepts certain conditions. Mr Verhofstadt goes further on one point. He accepts the financial envelope defined by the heads of state and government because he believes that, given the budgetary difficulties of most of the member states, discipline in expenditure is required at European level too (and all the more so as the efficient use of the available resources would be far more efficient than the increase in the contribution, accompanied by all its wastage).
Taking into account the repercussions that the lack of a multiannual financial framework would have for Europe, I believe that the attitude of Mr Verhofstadt and his group is justified. The Parliament is right to lay down its conditions and to negotiate them firmly - but it should not risk a rupture. The Council must be flexible on its starting position (despite the demand for unanimity and the risk of British blackmail) and the Parliament must take account of the consequences that failure would bring - especially for common policies, like the agricultural or cohesion policy.
(FR/transl.fl)