Many MEPs, on Wednesday 12 February, called for an ambitious compromise on the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027. They are hoping for an early agreement by the European Council, if possible on 20 February, and regretted the absence of President Charles Michel during the plenary debate on the MFF (see EUROPE 12423/1).
On behalf of the Croatian Presidency of the EU Council, Nikolina Brnjac expressed the view that an agreement on the MFF needs to be reached quickly, even if it will not be an easy task. She called for a "balanced" agreement that reflects the EU Council's strategic ambitions. An agreement in February is needed to conclude the various sectoral dossiers so that the programmes can be ready as of 1 January 2021. Nikolina Brnjac recalled that the European Parliament had to give its consent and that its demands on the new own resources had to be taken into account.
Do not skimp on the future. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that if the funds for the 'European Green Deal' are not made available, "we simply will not achieve a climate-neutral Europe by 2050". She argued for a balance between old and new priorities. "Countries are defending cohesion or the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and rightly so, but they must show the same commitment to our new priorities", said Mrs von der Leyen. She said she would not accept a MFF that does not devote "at least 25% of the budget to fighting climate change", with new funds for the 'Just Transition Mechanism'.
Manfred Weber (EPP, Germany) called for legislation to prevent oligarchs from getting rich from EU funds. He felt that one should not "skimp on the future. The CAP and cohesion are important policies, but funding should not be reduced for future priorities”. The creation of new own resources is a red line in the Parliament.
Iratxe García (S&D, Spain) called on Member States to be “ambitious” at their meeting on 20 February. EU leaders "need to understand that there are no winners or losers here. If anyone loses, it will be Europe", insisted Iratxe García. She recalled that Parliament "decides on an equal footing with the EU Council and we will not give in just because of time pressure, because the future of European citizens is at stake".
Dacian Cioloș (Renew Europe, Romania) called for the adoption of a good budget that does not limit the EU's ability to act. He called for a modernisation of the CAP, cohesion policy and the own resources system. His group calls for a strong budgetary mechanism to ensure respect for the Rule of law.
Marco Zanni (ID, Italy) is waiting for President Michel's new proposal, but feels it will not be very different from the one made by Finland, "which nobody liked". He said that we must stop dreaming and accept the fact that resources are limited. Countries should not be asked to increase their contributions, Zanni said.
"We should not be afraid to head into a conflict" with the EU Council, said Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, Belgium), who added that the Parliament is not a "rubber stamp for the EU Council". According to him, it would be necessary "to ensure the coherence of the entire European budget with the ecological and solidarity transition". He called on the European Council to: "Either sign up for 1.3% of GNI or give us the own resources".
Piernicola Pedicini (NI, Italy), like many other MEPs, opposed cuts in the CAP and cohesion budgets.
The CULT Committee is unhappy. In the margins of the plenary debate, several representatives of the Culture and Education Committee (CULT) expressed their dissatisfaction with the ongoing negotiations with the EU Council on the programmes for which they are responsible.
Milan Zver (EPP, Slovenia) for the Erasmus+ programme, Massimiliano Smeriglio (S&D, Italy) for the Creative Europe programme and Michaela Šojdrová (EPP, Czech Republic) for the European Solidarity Corps, opposed in unison the budget cuts advocated by Member States. “This is unacceptable to us”, said Milan Zver. “We need to solve the issue of governance and the budget”, added Michaela Šojdrová.
At this stage, three inter-institutional negotiation sessions have taken place in the second half of 2019 for each of the programmes, and further negotiations are expected under the Croatian Presidency of the Council.
Committee Chair Sabine Verheyen added two red lines related to the involvement of the European Parliament. Parliament should be involved in the internal budget breakdown of the programmes and when major changes are made. This had not been the case in 2016 when the budget allocated to the European Solidarity Corps pilot project was cut. “We want guarantees allowing Parliament to exercise its role as co-decision-maker when there are large-scale initiatives”, Verheyen said, stressing the importance of delegated acts in this discussion. She warned that everything will depend on Parliament’s ability to be taken into account. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur with Sophie Petitjean)