Brussels, 08/06/2016 (Agence Europe) - At a plenary session debate of the European Parliament on Wednesday 8 June, several members of the European Parliament, from all across the political spectrum, questioned the ability of the Juncker plan to finance investments which would not get off the ground via conventional financial tools, with the European Commission hoping to extend the experiment beyond 2018 (see EUROPE 11563).
In the view of José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal), Jean Arthuis (ALDE, France) and Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Belgium), the mid-term review of the Juncker plan should be seen as an opportunity to look at whether projects granted a public guarantee genuinely constitute additional investments. However, “90% of the projects financed appear very similar to those typically financed by the structural funds or the EIB”, said Pavel Telicka (ALDE, Czech Republic). On behalf of the S&D group, Italy's Gianni Pittella said that the financing granted under the Juncker plan should be “in addition rather than instead of”. He added that the EIB should be taking on greater risks, as its optimum AAA financial rating is “not a dogma”.
When the Juncker plan was created in 2015, the European legislator stressed that the investments to benefit from a public guarantee from the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the financial arm of the plan, should come on top of those likely to be made under normal circumstances.
The MEPs are not fundamentally opposed to the Commission's request to extend the instrument. The EPP group seems to be the most in favour, with Austria's Othmar Karas calling for the Juncker plan to be “deepened and broadened”. Other MEPs feel that it is too early to reach any conclusions on the 'Juncker' plan.
Many MEPs, however, take the view that the investment plan should be re-jigged to focus on specific areas lagging behind in development terms and promote projects in future-facing sectors. “It is time to start thinking about a proper public investment plan promoting economic and social cohesion”, said Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL, Portugal). Comparing the Juncker plan to a “bit of powder more akin to homeopathy than the horse pill we need”, Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, Belgium) called for the member states to step up their contributions to the plan and for this to “focus” on countries in economic difficulties and projects with European added value in future-facing sectors, such as “energy transition and independence”.
Because it mobilises private savings available, “the investment plan seems to be working”, said the Commissioner for Growth and Investment, Jyrki Katainen. The Juncker plan has passed the €100 billion in private investments mark since it was launched (see EUROPE 11559). “The main issue is not to make it larger, but to focus on addressing market failure”, the Commissioner said, referring to issues observed regarding direct stakeholding is in the capital of SMEs.
Katainen also raised the Commission's idea of building on the experience of the EFSI to create an innovative tool to finance projects in the developing countries, in order to tackle the “root causes” of migration (see EUROPE 11567), but stress that he did not wish to oversell the merits of this idea. Sander Loones (ECR, Belgium) and Marco Valli (EFDD, Italy) expressed the view that such an initiative should be accompanied by control measures to prevent the available funds from going up in smoke.
Nigel Farage (EFDD, UK) took the floor to argue in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, two weeks ahead of the British referendum. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)