In Strasbourg on Tuesday 4 July, several MEPs levelled criticism at the European Commission’s scenarios providing for a reduction in agricultural and cohesion spending post-2020 (see EUROPE 11819).
The methodology outlined by Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger in the reflection document on the future of EU finances did not go down well in the hemicycle, although the Commissioner took pains to reassure the MEPs.
Brexit. The Commissioner reminded his audience that the annual EU budget stood at around €150 billion. When the UK leaves the EU, it will lose 15% of its revenue. “We don’t know how much we will have: between €125 and €160 billion”. In response to the MEPs’ concerns, Oettinger said: “I don’t want a vacuum either”. He pointed out that there are several EU countries that do not wish to make up the funding shortfall resulting from Brexit, but agreed with several MEPs that the EU budget is under-funded.
Substantial cuts to CAP and cohesion policy? “We should not need to make substantial cuts to the common agriculture policy and cohesion policy”, the Commissioner said, but the MEPs are under no illusions. Oettinger acknowledged that he could not give them any guarantees that funding for those two policies would stay at the same level, but we will certainly avoid making any substantial cuts to them. He went on to say that he did not want migration and defence to be paid for at the expense of the cohesion policy. “I hope to avoid any further divisions in our European family”.
He also recognised that there needs to be discussions on whether the cohesion policy should only benefit the poorest regions and he also touched upon the link between the payment of structural funds and countries’ compliance with EU values.
Timetable. Oettinger said that he hopes to present proposals on multi-annual financial framework (MFF) post-2020 in May or June 2018. He would rather the window for the negotiations be around May-June 2018 and May-June 2019, before the European Parliament elections and the appointment of the new Commission in November 2019. Holding the negotiations in around November 2019 and November-December 2020 could lead to a delay in the implementation of the new programmes (and 2020 could be lost altogether).
José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal) said that he hoped Parliament’s proposals on the post-2020 MFF would have the ear of the Council. This budget must hold water, he said.
Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain) called for the citizens’ expectations to be taken on board in the MFF. She argued the case for responding to the migration crisis, leading the way on climate change, continuing to cover the CAP 100% and investing in the cohesion policy. To do this, we need a solvent budget and to discuss new own resources (a financial transactions tax, a European corporate tax) and an end to the rebates enjoyed by the wealthier countries.
Although he was speaking on behalf of his group, Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR, Poland), spoke out against the budget cuts scheduled in the CAP and the cohesion policy.
Gérard Deprez (ALDE, Belgium) welcomed the Commissioner’s desire to establish a link between compliance with the fundamental values of the EU and access to the various European support funds for public and private investments. He welcomed the following projects: a Child Guarantee supported by EU funds, a macro-economic stabilisation mechanism, a crisis reserved paid for out of unused credits and an unscheduled reserve in the defence programmes (to deal with contingencies). He added that he also supports the creation of a basket of own resources in the next financial framework, in connection with two EU objectives: ‘decarbonisation’ and deepening of the single market.
Xabier Benito Ziluaga (GUE/NGL, Spain) stressed the sad reality of Brexit (€10 billion less). The EU needs change, he argued.
Jordi Solé (Greens/EFA, Spain) called for the right choices to be made (social Europe, fighting climate change, sustainable growth, security, etc.). The system of own resources needs to be reformed, Solé added.
“Asking us to prepare the future financing of the EU before we have defined its strategy, level of ambition or priorities is a very strange thing to do”, said Isabelle Thomas (S&D, France). She went on to say that Parliament would not work on the basis of the five scenarios, but on the basis of its vision and priorities for the EU. Thomas argued that under no circumstances should new expenditure come at the cost of the solidarity programmes such as cohesion, youth, social affairs or development aid. “New spending needs new revenue”, she said.
Parliament is soon to adopt a resolution assessing the Commission’s document on future EU budget. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)