On Wednesday 28 June, the MEPs of the committee on budgets of the European Parliament gave a very mixed welcome to the European Commission’s ideas on the future of the EU’s finances (see EUROPE 11818).
“You are showing me an extremely heterogeneous landscape”, the Budgets Commissioner, Günther Oettinger commented ironically. He defended his method, comprising of several scenarios on the future of the EU and, therefore, its budget. “I am being fairly cautious, but I will start getting more and more specific”, he pledged.
The method fails to win everyone over. The rapporteur on the current multi-annual financial framework (MFF), Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland), expressed interest in the new idea in this methodology of working specifically on added value and the budgetary impact of the various scenarios. Isabelle Thomas (S&D, France) welcomed the Commission's acknowledgement of the fact that the EU budget is not up to its objectives. However, she expressed regret that with this methodology, “the budget will come before the strategy”.
“We need an agreement on the post-2020 MFF under this mandate”, said José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal), adding that Brexit should neither prevent progress nor scale down the priorities of the EU. Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain) criticised the method based on the five scenarios on the future of the EU and its finances. “We can’t waste time on circular debates. We know what we want!” She supports an MFF of 5+5 years. The Commissioner promised to provide clarifications on what this option really means in the autumn.
Cohesion policy: an adjustment variable? “The cohesion policy is in crisis”, said Commissioner Oettinger, but added that he did not want to remove categories of regions benefiting from funds. Many people, particularly in the member states, argue that only the poorest regions should be helped, the Commissioner stressed, adding that he did not necessarily support this view. A smaller share of the budget does not mean less money, the Commissioner said with regard to the various options.
Fernandes sounded the alert on the cohesion policy: conditionality should never be imposed on citizens, businesses, students, researchers or regions, but only on the member states. We also need to look at the cost of the absence of certain policies, he added. Constanze Krehl (S&D, Germany) said that she found the scenarios put forward unsettling and defended the cohesion policy, the only investment programme to create a link with the citizens. “We don’t need to get the red pen out, though some work will be necessary to simplify the rules”.
The ‘revenue’ side of the budget. Janusz Lewandowski (EPP, Poland) said that the Commission’s stated ambition of getting rid of all rebates was optimistic. There are not enough options in this reflection document, Lewandowski, himself a former Budget Commissioner, added. Indrek Tarand (Greens/EFA, Estonia) welcomed the Commissioner’s tendency to support a new system of own resources and argued for a five-year MFF. Jens Geier (S&D, Germany) suggested that Oettinger was somewhat on the defensive over the revenue side and the options to plug the EU’s funding gap.
The CAP is useful and relevant. Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE, Finland) said that aid to EU farmers should not be reduced, as suggested by several scenarios in the reflection document. Monika Hohlmeier (EPP, Germany) said that there should be a reflection on the criteria for subsidies to be paid out to farmers and said that it was not right that large undertakings are favoured. Oettinger described the CAP as “useful and relevant” and said that he was open to any ideas that could lead to a gradual scaling-down of aid to major farming undertakings.
Michel Dantin (EPP, France) added that the CAP “to this day remains the most integrated and accomplished policy of the EU”. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)