MEPs, meeting in plenary session, on Tuesday 11 December, expressed their disappointment with the work of EU finance ministers on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).
This debate is not insignificant. Eight days after a final meeting of the Eurogroup in an inclusive format to finalise the ministerial work on deepening EMU (see EUROPE 12152), the ministers' conclusions will be discussed by the Heads of State or Government at the Eurozone Summit on Friday 14 December.
As a reminder, this work, which took place from September to December, following the mandate given by the Heads of State or Government last June (see EUROPE 12052), focused on four issues: the creation of a common backstop for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF), a function that will be the responsibility of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the reform of the ESM, the creation of a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) and a fiscal capacity for the eurozone.
But these last two questions were characterized by the absence of concrete progress with proposals. The major European funders have decided to refer the EDIS issue to a high-level working group and let the Heads of State or Government consider what follow-up to budgetary capacity should be given, which should not focus on the stabilisation function wanted by the Commission and several parliamentarians (see EUROPE 12131).
Disappointment of Members of Parliament. During the debate, MEPs expressed their disappointment. Othmar Karas (EPP, Austria) said in particular that the proposals put on the table by the Eurogroup were "trailing the Commission's positions".
"We regret that there is no common position on the budget", said Mercedes Bresso (S&D, Italy), who also called for a final agreement on EDIS before the end of the current mandate. “The mountain has given birth to a mouse", Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany) said regretfully, to comment on all the work on EMU.
Like Pervenche Berès (S&D, France), several MEPs regretted the absence of Mário Centeno, the president of the Eurogroup, during this debate.
However, parliamentarians have expressed divergent positions, emphasising in particular the need for a consolidation of public finances in Europe rather than a eurozone budget. “Each country must control its debt and make its economy competitive", said Ralph Packet (ECR, Belgium). This position is not unlike that of the Hanseatic League States in the Eurogroup.
It should also be noted that Bernard Monot (EFDD, France) took a stand against the reform of the ESM and its transformation into a European Monetary Fund, in the name of the "totalitarianism" of such an instrument. This argument is similar to the traditional positions of Eurosceptic MEPs. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)