MEPs are largely counting on President Charles Michel’s commitment to quickly reach an agreement on the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021–2027, or so they indicated on Tuesday, 11 February, on the eve of a plenary debate in Strasbourg regarding the preparation of the 20 February European Council dedicated to this sensitive issue (see EUROPE 12421/1). But some fear the harmful consequences of there being a deadlock at the level of EU leaders.
In fact, Iratxe García (S&D, Spain) stated that her group was “concerned”. “We have news from the European Council regarding a deadlock situation”, she lamented. She feels that certain countries have a “very uncooperative [position], contrary to the principle espoused by our Parliament”.
The President of the European Council will not be present at the European Parliament’s plenary debate on Wednesday, 12 February. In her eyes, “it’s symptomatic and worrisome”.
Iratxe García admits that Mr Michel is conducting bilateral negotiations with certain heads of state or government at the moment, but she finds it worrisome that he is not coming to listen to the European Parliament’s position.
For Pierre Larrouturou (S&D, France), Charles Michel “thinks that it is going to go quickly, but it is rather likely that there will be no agreement” on 20 February. He assures that the European Parliament will block the agreement if it gets nothing on the EU’s own resources.
Dacian Cioloș (Renew Europe, Romania) welcomed Charles Michel’s efforts to “speed up negotiations and try to reach an agreement”. In his opinion, a rapid agreement would provide “clarity” on European policies.
The budget volume. “The [European] Council cannot forget that we are part of the negotiation. You can’t do more with less funding”, Iratxe García pointed out.
The European Parliament supports an ambitious budget for 2021–2027, which is set at 1.3% of the gross national income (GNI) of the EU-27, compared to 1.14% in the Commission proposal and 1.07% in the Finnish draft from December 2019. The European Council is divided, and several net contributors to the budget (Austria, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands) do not want to exceed 1% of the GNI.
Manfred Weber (EPP, Germany) stated that the EU must have sufficient funds for its activities. He felt that it was not necessary to debate the numbers down to the penny but rather the policies. The EPP president indicated that the group is ready to confirm all current expenditure. Mr Weber emphasised that the EPP is calling for more “consistency” on the part of Member States, so money should be put into the 10,000 new Frontex (European Border and Coast Guard Agency) officials, for example. Mr Weber added that adequate funding is also needed, particularly for European defence.
“We will not accept a budget that does not respect the priorities set by the EU”, warned Mr Cioloș. He admitted that it was difficult for certain countries to have to increase their contribution to the EU budget again, hence the need to introduce new own resources.
“Europe is in a state of catastrophic underinvestment”, declared Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, Belgium). In his opinion, it is essential to stimulate investment.
In contrast to the others, Nicolas Bay (ID, France) felt that, logically, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU should result in a decrease in the EU budget. “On the contrary, what we’re advocating is a cut in the budget”, he told the press.
‘Yes’ to new own resources. “We have to be very ambitious regarding the issue of own resources”, emphasised Mr Cioloș. Manfred Weber indicated, “The EPP is overwhelmingly in favour” in order to get out of the debate between net contributors and net beneficiaries of the EU budget.
Mr Lamberts suggested that new own resources be created for the EU, specifically citing the plastic tax and the carbon tax. In particular, Mr Lamberts recommends a “federalisation of corporate tax”, so part of the corporate tax would go to the EU budget.
Nicolas Bay is hostile to this idea. In his opinion, the call for new own resources amounts to creating a “future European tax”.
Mr Cioloș also asked that a link between the MFF and respect for Rule of law be provided for, referring to what is happening “in Poland and Romania”. Mr Weber also supported this mechanism establishing a link between the disbursement of EU funds and respect for Rule of law.
A CAP in need of reform? Mr Lamberts felt that a “reorientation” of the common agricultural policy was needed but acknowledged that there was “resistance” to this from the Commission, which should, in his opinion, “withdraw its proposal” and present a new one. According to Philippe Lamberts, there is no willingness in the European Parliament to “transition to conservation agriculture” for the time being. Nicolas Bay said that he supports a “deconstruction of the CAP in order to get out of the current system”.
Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL, France) said that “allowing the CAP and cohesion policy to be sacrificed” would amount to “giving credence to Europhobic rhetoric”, referring to the envisaged cuts in these funds over the 2021–2027 period. He reiterated that the majority of French regions are transition regions.
To see the European Parliament’s position: https://bit.ly/2vraPEU (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur, Marion Fontana, and Agathe Cherki)