“We cannot afford a narrow accounting approach with a complete lack of political vision”, launched the European Parliament's negotiating team on the long-term budget on Friday 21 February, after the failure of negotiations between EU leaders on 20-21 February on the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (see EUROPE 12431/1).
The failure of the negotiations was due to the intransigent position of the ‘Frugal Four’ countries led by the Netherlands, opposed to an EU budget of more than 1% of EU GNI and obsessed with the principle of ‘fair return’.
Charles Michel is leading a reflection on how to relaunch the negotiations and regain the European spirit needed to find a compromise on this sensitive issue.
“European Council President Charles Michel’s proposal was clearly lacking ambition and coherence and we call upon the Heads of State or Government to continue the discussions in view of finding a good agreement”, explained Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, Belgium), Chair of the European Parliament Committee on Budgets, and the various rapporteurs: Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland), Margarida Marques (S&D, Portugal), José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal) and Valérie Hayer (Renew Europe, France). Ms Hayer felt that “no deal is better than a bad deal”. The proposal presented was said to have been unacceptable to the Parliament, with “favourable advances” on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but a “further setback on global ambitions and own resources”.
Back to the drawing board. The Parliament’s negotiating team believes that there is still time for President Michel to “go back to the drawing board” and “search for a win-win compromise” on the basis of the project of achieving a stronger Europe. It rejects, on the contrary, a “lose-lose” compromise on the basis of the lowest common denominator.
The ETS resource disappears. European Parliament negotiators also hope that EU Heads of State or Government will “break the deadlock on own resources”.
“The proposed changes are insufficient for the Parliament”, which recalls it will not give its consent on the MFF without a satisfactory reform.
Mr Michel’s proposal provided for the plastic levy and part of the ETS revenues. However, the last Commission working document referred only to the plastic levy. Germany opposed the creation of a new own resource based on part of the revenues of the ETS (European carbon market).
In addition, the Commission's document provided a mechanism for the plastic levy to avoid an “excessively regressive” impact on national contributions. In other words, a system to prevent the poorest countries from paying too much of this tax.
Link to this Commission document: http://bit.ly/38JQ7i6 (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)