Saint Malo, 26/09/2013 (Agence Europe) - In proposing macroeconomic conditionality subject to certain conditions, the European Parliament has taken a major gamble in an attempt to break the deadlock in the stalled negotiations on reform of cohesion policy (see EUROPE 10929). Both the Council and European Regional Policy Commissioner Johannes Hahn are standing firm. If no compromise were to be found, Parliament's attempt at a show of force could delay, or even threaten, Parliament approval of the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF).
Addressing the General Assembly of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) in Saint Malo, France on Thursday 26 September, Hahn reaffirmed that macroeconomic conditionality, which links payment of EU structural funding to compliance with the requirements of European economic governance, was “an absolute necessity”. This view was supported by the Council in institutional trilogue discussions. The result is deadlock, as Parliament has been rejecting this mechanism for two years. Somewhat under the cosh of the intransigence of the Commission and the member states, the team of Parliament negotiators called for the right of scrutiny of the procedure for suspending structural funding, as a means of paving the way to a compromise. MEP Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland), the rapporteur on the European regional Development Fund (ERDF), said in Saint Malo that the question is “whether we agree to say yes to macroeconomic conditionality, but under our conditions, or no, except for certain exceptions. We are preparing for a compromise”. This comment drew an expression of regret from Jean-Yves Le Drian, outgoing CPMR President, at “not having had more success in our opposition to macroeconomic conditionality rules”.
At any rate, the Parliamentary request is not, at this stage, acceptable to the others around the negotiating table. French European Affairs Minister Thierry Repentin said during the conference that “the European Parliament cannot be involved in the procedure for suspending funding as the treaty makes no provision for it!” The commissioner, too, argues that the role of Parliament is to make decisions from a legislative point of view, whereas the Commission is responsible for implementation. The conditions set out by Parliament do, however, open the door to much wider debate. Without wishing to reduce the current trial of strength to simply “the ambition of the Parliament” as, above all, it is about improving cohesion, Olbrycht acknowledges that it is also a way of “creating a new system after the Lisbon Treaty as the European Parliament's position is weaker. It is the prime ministers who are in charge!”
The clock is ticking. A trilogue meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 2 October. Hahn does not discount the need to hold a final trilogue meeting before the plenary session vote in the week of 21 October. He remains optimistic, however: “Parliament is aware that we need a compromise, as agreement on the various legislative acts is a condition for ultimate agreement on the MFF”. Postponement of the vote on cohesion reform could also mean delay in adopting the MFF. “Everyone in Europe is expecting a rapid decision on the budget as that provides certainty over the money available from 2014 to 2020” (our translation throughout), stressed the commissioner. EU ministers will discuss reform of cohesion policy on Monday 30 September at the General Affairs Council. (MD/transl.fl)