On Wednesday 18 December in Strasbourg, MEPs once again criticised the Finnish negotiating box regarding the EU's next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the lack of progress on this issue at the last European Council (see EUROPE 12389/2).
Manfred Weber (EPP, Germany) regretted the lack of progress made on the next MFF. “There was no debate on the MFF”. He described as the negotiating box of the Finnish Presidency of the European Council as “provocative” and asked the EU Council to avoid a fruitless debate between "net contributors" and "net beneficiaries" of the EU budget.
Iratxe García Pérez (S&D, Spain) also said that the proposed negotiating box was “unacceptable, unrealistic” (spending reduction on agriculture, cohesion, research, border management, etc.). In addition, “there is no talk of the Just Transition Fund, the 'European Green Deal', nor the Youth Employment Initiative”, the MEP deplored. Iratxe García Pérez asked for additional individual resources to finance the EU budget and social conditionality in the Cohesion Policy.
There is still work to be done to ensure that the MFF is seen as “an instrument to implement our political ambitions”, said Dacian Cioloș (Renew Europe, Romania). He criticised this “bargaining between those who win and those who lose”. Traditional policies (agriculture and Cohesion) must be modernised and not weakened, he warned.
Ska Keller (Greens/EFA, Germany) said that the proposed negotiating box does not provide enough funds for climate issues.
Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL) defended Charles Michel from attacks from the extreme right (Belgian) during the debate. He asked the European Council to stop blocking decisions, in particular those regarding the MFF.
Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland), rapporteur on the MFF, welcomed Mr Michel's willingness to cooperate with the Assembly on this issue.
Policy coherence. Charles Michel, at the end of the debate, spoke of an “extremely difficult” project. This is why it has taken him a long time to meet face-to-face with the various European leaders to assess priorities and “areas for negotiation and compromise”. He called on MEPs to show “political coherence” in political messages, as Heads of State or Government are “faced with national parliaments composed of political majorities with parties represented in this European Parliament”.
Mr Michel pointed out that countries will have to pay more because of Brexit. He stressed the need to find the “right balance” between traditional policies (agriculture, Cohesion) and new policies (migration, innovation, climate change).
However, the issue of conditionality can cover different concepts in different EU countries (rule of law, migration, social or fiscal dumping), he admitted. He noted the strong signals being sent about individual resources (ETS, digital, plastic waste). Mr Michel will actively pursue bilateral relations with the Member States, “with the intention of moving towards a compromise and assessing when we think we are approaching a political landing zone where we can try to then move towards a final decision at the European Council”.
Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, said that “our European ambitions require adequate resources to be realised”. She acknowledged that “the current proposal is still far from this objective”. The Commission will fully support Charles Michel in his efforts to “achieve a balanced, equitable and ambitious consensus”, she said. And if the budget proves to be too limited, there is only one solution: new individual resources for the EU must be discussed. She thanked Charles Michel for mentioning the ETS (Emissions Trading System). (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)