As expected, the negotiators of the Council of the EU and of the European Parliament failed to reach an agreement on extending the firepower and duration of the Juncker investment plan, at their meeting early in the evening of Wednesday 12 July.
The positions between the two co-legislating institutions are still too far apart on: - financing the extension of the public guarantee granted to projects selected under the investment plan out of the Community budget (see EUROPE 11827); - the governance of the EFSI fund.
“There is still no light at the end of the tunnel on either of these issues”, Udo Bullmann (S&D, Germany), the Parliament's rapporteur on this dossier, told EUROPE on Thursday 13 July.
By adopting the European Commission's initial proposal, the Council supports the idea of making further use - this time to the tune of €650 million - of the budgetary lines of the programme 'Horizon 2020' and of the Connecting Europe Facility (see EUROPE 11789). The Parliament, on the other hand, would rather draw from the unused budgetary margins under the ceiling of one or more headings of the multi-annual financial framework 2014-2020.
The member states are not in favour of this, because they want to keep back as much margin as possible, against the backdrop of considerable migration flows and the forthcoming withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. The Commission has been asked to explore alternatives.
Another stumbling block is the governance of the EFSI fund, which is responsible for granting the public guarantee. Parliament would like to appoint an independent expert to the investment fund committee, which the member states are currently blocking. It considers that the move would increase the credibility of the fund on the financial markets.
No progress was reported on Wednesday on either point. The Estonian Presidency of the Council seems disinclined to request a modified mandate on these points ahead of the next inter-institutional negotiating session scheduled for Thursday 7 September.
The positions of the two institutions also diverge on pricing, in other words the interest rate applicable to the support granted under the 'Juncker' plan. The Council points out that the EFSI fund is a market instrument and that the EIB, which manages it, is not authorised to grant returns on interest rates. Parliament argues that a number of projects have been put out of the running by this policy, particularly in countries with a less than optimum market.
Progress has, however, been made in other areas. The Parliament seems to appreciate the language proposed on the fight against tax evasion, tax fraud and money laundering. Progress is also reported to have been made on the rules on the financing of motorway infrastructure, particularly in the cohesion countries. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)