In a non-legislative resolution adopted in Strasbourg on Wednesday 26 October, the European Parliament gave its backing to the main elements of the Commission's proposal to revise the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 (see EUROPE 11643). In particular, it calls on the Council to start negotiations with it on this dossier, which the MEPs see as related to the 2017 budget.
In its adoption (446 votes in favour, 181 against and 60 abstentions) of the resolution submitted by rapporteurs Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland) and Isabel Thomas (S&D, France), the Parliament welcomes the proposals in the MFF package as regards extending the budgetary flexibility, although it sees a need to go further, particularly in bolstering the emergency aid reserve and flexibility instrument.
EU crisis reserve. The Parliament approves the proposal to create an EU crisis reserve as an instrument to make it possible to react swiftly to crises and other events with serious humanitarian or security implications. It supports the Commission's proposal to use "decommitted" appropriations, but stresses that this must not be the only source of financing for the instrument. Thomas said that further reflection work was needed on its scope and financing. The Commission has undertaken to provide details of the decommitted appropriations and on the ceilings to be set on the monies available for this reserve.
The Parliament also supports proposals to use 'automatic decommitments' within the European budget. This money, earmarked to be spent under the EU budget, should logically be kept in that budget and not leave it, Thomas argues. As for payments, the policy of hiding one's head in the sand will lead to serious frustration at the end of the period, Thomas warned. She referred to the risk of unpaid bills piling up towards the end of the current MFF.
Regrets over ceilings and youth employment. The MEPs regret the fact that the Commission's proposal does not contain an upwards revision of the ceilings for heading 1a (competitiveness), 1b (cohesion) and headings 3 (justice and security) and 4 (EU in the world). As regards the youth employment initiative, €6 billion in credits have been used to date. The Commission's proposal provides for only €1 billion in reinforcements up to 2020, many MEPs lamented. Thomas argued that at the very least, the same amount should be added, specifically €6 billion for the end of the budgetary period.
A noteworthy absence. Many MEPs regretted the Council's absence from the debate on the revision of the MFF. They called upon the Council to present its position on this dossier and expressed concerns at possible delays in the budgetary procedure, given that the Parliament hopes to negotiate a compromise by the end of the year on the MFF and the 2017 budget.
Joint negotiations. Jean Arthuis (ALDE, France), the chair of the Parliament's budgets committee, pointed out that as it stands, the draft 2017 budget takes account of a revision of the multiannual financial framework. This is the first tranche of the revision. How come, he asked the debate, the revision will come under a different Council, the General Affairs Council. He expressed his hopes that the Council will reach position on the revision of the MFF. He also criticised the increasing number of budgets outside the EU budget.
Kristalina Georgieva, the vice-president of the Commission responsible for the budget, summarised the plenary debate by stating that some feel that the proposals go too far, but that more feel that the Commission has not gone far enough. In particular, she stressed that Italy, Greece and Spain will be the main winners from the technical adjustment of the MFF (+ €4.6 billion) for measures to tackle unemployment and deal with the impact of migration.
Bernd Kölmel (ECR, Germany), stressed during the debate that the revision should not lead to asking for more money. The EU countries and citizens are not inclined to give more money, he said, before calling for subsidiarity to be reinforced.
In the view of Gérard Deprez (ALDE, Belgium), in substance, the Commission's proposals fall somewhat short of the Parliament's expectations as expressed in the resolution adopted on 6 July 2016. Along with many others, he regretted the fact that no reference had been made to increasing the ceilings of the MFF. "You try doing any better with no more", said Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL, France). Ernest Maragall (Greens/EFA, Spain) stressed that the MFF should explain what Europe is doing to face the major current challenges, adding that flexibility is not enough and that more is needed. "We are not going to negotiate on the 2017 budget if we cannot agree on how to direct the MFF, and the Parliament is doing its bit", he said. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)