In its adoption, on Thursday 22 February, the eve of the informal European summit, of two draft reports on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) post-2020 and the resources of the EU budget, the committee on budgets of the European Parliament is aiming to set the tone for tough negotiations to come between member states.
These reports will be adopted in record time so that Parliament can get in first to set the pace in the discussions, Isabelle Thomas (S&D, France), co-author of the draft report on the post-2020 MFF, said on Wednesday 21 February, during a debate at Parliament's budget committee.
Schematically, the MEPs, who have lined up behind the Commission against the Council, will adopt a generous stance by calling for the spending ceilings of the EU budget over the period 2021-2027 to be set at 1.3% of gross national income (GNI) (see EUROPE 11944). The Commission proposes a level of 1.1%+ of GDP.
This upper expenditure limit aims to pay for the new political priorities - the migration challenge, security, defence, research and innovation - whilst maintaining an adequate level of financing for the traditional European policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the cohesion policy.
By creating a budgetary shortfall of around €12 billion, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU has complicated matters further. In order to avoid asking the member states for an excessive increase in their national contributions, the MEPs will ask the Commission to look into creating new resources, such as the harmonisation of the corporate tax base (CCCTB). As far as we are concerned, the post-2020 MFF and resources cannot be taken separately, said Jean Arthuis (ALDE, France).
Janusz Lewandowski (EPP, Poland), co-rapporteur on resources, argues that somebody needs to fill the Brexit gap, in gross national income or in own resources. We have to take account of the fact that the budgets of the member states are very tight, hence the interest in looking towards own resources, added Gérard Deprez (ALDE, Belgium), the other co-rapporteur, who went on to stress that Parliament does not intend to bring in a European tax as such.
Conditionality. One of the most-discussed elements concerns the possibility of making any European funding, not just funds allocated to cohesion, conditional on compliance with the European values, such as the rule of law.
A compromise amendment supported by the EPP and S&D groups calls on the Commission to consider a mechanism to get rid of European funding to member states in breach of certain fundamental values of the EU.
However, the EU budget should not be used as an instrument of punishment, a European source said. For instance, the MEPs are expected to stress that the final beneficiaries of European financing should not be punished, with the onus on the member state in breach to offset the loss of European money.
Budgetary structure. If a compromise amendment supported by the EPP and S&D groups is adopted, the MEPs would have to modify the structure of the future EU budget as proposed in the initial draft report.
This would mean that agriculture and fisheries would once again constitute a separate heading, as is the case under the current MFF.
Not all of the groups agree on changing the structure of the budget, observed Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland), co-author of the report on the MFF.
As for the timetable, the MEPs want the post-2020 MFF to be adopted before the European elections of May 2019. The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, on the other hand, described this aim as unrealistic, in a note submitted to the member states ahead of the informal summit. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)