In Brussels on Thursday 12 January, the President of the high-level group on own resources, Mario Monti, said that new income for the budget of the EU could be used to offset the resources that will be lost when the United Kingdom leaves the EU (see EUROPE 11701).
During the presentation of the group's recommendations before the European Parliament's committee on budgets, Monti, as well as most of those who took the floor, argued that the concept of a 'fair return' (in accountancy terms) should be abandoned. We have to do move away from this interpretation in budgetary debates, he said. He suggested focusing the expenditure of the EU on common goods, stressing that the EU should not be seen as a huge redistribution mechanism, but as a system that provides goods and services of a public nature which cannot be provided by the countries of the EU themselves.
Monti went on to say that the publication of this report marks the start of a process. He hopes that this way of working (one group bringing together the three institutions) will serve as a model for other reforms in future.
Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE, Belgium), who is a member of this group, pointed out that the UK leaving the EU will culminate in the end of the British rebate and rebates on the rebate. He said that whilst this is logical, logic and politics do not always make easy bedfellows. On the own resources, he said that a basket would have to be devised to deal with production, consumption and pollution. In the event of a rebalancing in the own resources, this exercise should be limited in time, he added.
Another member of the group, Bulgaria's Ivailo Kalfin (a former member of the European Parliament), said that the recommendations were based on a realistic scenario not requiring treaty change or any modification of the powers of the institutions. Additionally, subsidiarity is not called into question.
New political dimension to be launched
Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France), who is also a member of the group, said that the political battle will now begin, as on taxation matters, it is the Council which decides – by unanimity (Parliament's opinion is not politically binding on the Council). The general climate is not terribly conducive to European policies, he pointed out. He suggested opening another political dimensional: demonstrating that every additional euro spent at EU level leads to savings of a euro or even more in the national capitals. This, in his view, is the budgetary translation of the principle of subsidiarity. The idea would be to make sure that every time a European administration, service or agency is instituted, the resources are reduced at national level. He referred to the aim of having a common foreign policy and a single European diplomatic network.
José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal) acknowledged that 2017 was not ideal to discuss these issues, due to the forthcoming elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands. He called for the various rebates to be scrapped and suggested creating a VAT resource on electronic books.
Eider Gardiazabal Rubia (S&D, Spain) hit out at what she described as the perverse discussions on the fair return which are blocking the view of how and how much to compensate. She said that a EU budget representing 1% of EU GNI was not enough. Creating new own resources would help us to move forward, she said, expressing her hopes that the report of the high-level group would not quickly end up forgotten about in a drawer.
In the view of Bernd Kölmel (ECR, Germany), it is particularly important to set a framework and limits, "because we can't pay for everything". He added that the asylum policy should receive extra funding at EU level, but that this asylum policy needs to work.
The Greens/EFA group called for a thorough shake-up of the system of resources of the EU and reiterated the measures it recommended in this area in October 2016 (see EUROPE 11683).
A sensitive issue in the capitals. Jean Arthuis (ALDE, France), the president of the Parliament's budget committee, once again criticised what he described as the satellites of the budgetary galaxy that escape parliamentary control. He was referring to the increasing number of budgetary instrument outside the EU budget. He argued that these inter-parliamentary conferences (the next one will take place in February) should be used to discuss this report on the own resources and hence to engage in constructive dialogue between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. This would be a good way of bringing pressure to bear on the resistance occasionally manifested by the heads of state or government of the EU on the subject.
At a press conference, Monti recognised that this is an area in which it is very difficult to make decisions, due to the unanimity requirement at Council and the cumbersome procedure (ratification in each of the member states of the EU). Unanimity gives the countries a right of veto, but this does not mean the countries have a duty of veto, he stressed. This is why we have to try to reach consensus by tabling a package containing a number of elements, so that a balance can be struck between what the various member states like and what they don't like. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)