The search for compromises between political groups in the European Parliament’s Economic Affairs Committee (ECON) turned into a tug-of-war on Monday 17 February during a discussion on the socioeconomic policies that Member States are being asked to pursue in 2020 as part of the ‘European Semester’ budget process.
This seemingly innocuous discussion on “a text that is not even worth the ink with which it is written”, in the words of Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, Belgium), nevertheless demonstrates the strong rift that resurfaced between the political families on the left and right after the 2019 European elections, when the question of integrating the European Green Deal into economic and budgetary policies was once again raised. It also echoes an earlier deadlock in the ECON Committee last autumn (see EUROPE 12340/18).
On the left, Aurore Lalucq (S&D, France), who drafted the draft report to be put to a vote on Tuesday, said that, to support the fight against climate change through the Green Deal and to “ensure our survival on the planet”, the European Union needs to redirect its economic policies. However, after bitter negotiations, the draft report “today falls short of what the Commission is proposing” and does not have the support of the main political groups such as the EPP and Renew Europe, she noted, convinced that every effort had been made to accommodate the “fears” that have been expressed.
Her Spanish counterpart, Jonás Fernández, warned that the S&D group will not vote for a text that makes no reference to UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) or to respect for the European pillar of social rights.
On behalf of the GUE/NGL group, Portuguese MEP José Gusmão criticised the groups for going back on language already used by Parliament in other reports, such as “the fight against fiscal dumping”.
On the right, the EPP, Renew Europe, and ECR groups presented their own compromise amendments on Monday.
Unfortunately, “we have not found good compromises” with the rapporteur, deplored Enikő Győri (EPP, Hungary), who criticised Mrs Lalucq's content and method. You are trying to “reshift the ‘European Semester’, while we want to keep its function as an instrument of economic coordination”, she said. She said she was not opposed to a reference to the Green Deal in the draft report, but refused to allow the text to become “a Christmas tree”. And she called for a “responsible” position from Parliament to be transmitted by March at the latest.
The same goes for the Renew Europe group. Mrs Lalucq's text is anything but a draft report for the European Parliament; it is more of an “election campaign report”, said German MEP Engin Eroglu.
Eugen Jurzyca (ECR, Poland), for his part, said that MEPs, especially on the left in the chamber, see “the Green Deal as an opportunity to weaken the fiscal rules”.
Posing as a referee, Mr Lamberts said he understood the position of the EPP/Renew Europe/ECR groups that the ‘European Semester’ must remain an instrument for fiscal and economic convergence. Yet, in his view, Mrs Lalucq is correct that there is “a clear link” between economic policy and environmental and social “threats”.
“How much do we want an alignment?” he asked. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)