Despite divisions, on Friday 17 April the European Parliament adopted a resolution on EU action in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic (395 votes in favour, 171 against and 128 abstentions), thus stating its position on the response to the pandemic and its consequences (see EUROPE 12468/2) ahead of the next meeting of European Heads of State or Government on 23 April.
“It was very important for Parliament to speak with a large majority in favour of a strong economic reconstruction plan for Europe”, said Parliament President David Sassoli, calling on Member States to show solidarity.
In his view, this resolution is notably a sign that Parliament, as the budgetary authority, welcomes the leading role that the EU budget could play in financing economic recovery. “[This resolution] means using all available resources to stimulate the economy, including recovery bonds”, he said.
The same goes for the President of Parliament’s Renew Europe group, Dacian Cioloş (Romania), who considers that “this resolution is a call for new measures”.
Greens/EFA defection. As the resolution was carried by the EPP, S&D, Renew Europe and Greens/EFA groups, its adoption initially seemed guaranteed.
However, the votes on the amendments the day before (Thursday) ultimately led the vast majority of Greens/EFA MEPs to abstain, not allowing the resolution to gather the broad support initially expected.
Although it includes “some good signs”, this resolution is “a missed opportunity to show the ambition needed to tackle this unprecedented crisis, but, above all, the issues that await us”, said French Greens/EFA MEPs Michèle Rivasi and David Cormand.
‘Coronabonds’ versus ‘recovery bonds’. The cause of the Greens/EFA’s discontent: the rejection of some of their amendments, in particular the one that proposed “that a substantial part of the debt to be issued to combat the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis be pooled at European level”, thereby making a reference to ‘coronabonds’ without explicitly naming them as such.
“Parliament rejects the Greens/EFA amendment on coronabonds [282 votes in favour, 326 against and 74 abstentions]. It is burying the desire for solidarity and the revitalisation of the European project”, Green MEP Karima Delli (France) denounced on Twitter.
The MEPs of the Renew Europe group are singled out in particular; these latter largely voted against the amendment, and in particular the members of the group’s French delegation, almost all of whom abstained, despite statements in favour of a joint issue of debt securities by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Defending themselves, Renew Europe MEPs justified their vote by the fact that the Greens/EFA amendment would not have brought any added value to the resolution, as the resolution already states that “the investments needed [for economic recovery] should be financed by [...] recovery bonds guaranteed by the budget of the Union ”.
“The Greens’ amendment was useless, since the support for coronabonds was already in the resolution”, said Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, France) on Twitter.
This argument is considered wrong by the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups, who believe that there is a fundamental difference between the ‘coronabonds’ and ‘recovery bonds’ mentioned in the resolution.
According to GUE/NGL co-President Manon Aubry (France), recovery bonds are “bonds issued by the Commission and guaranteed by the EU budget to finance European programmes”. They should therefore not be confused with the ‘coronabonds’, which seek to “issue a common debt security between different States to reduce the interest rate and the cost of borrowing, the security being considered ‘safer’ on the markets, as it is guaranteed by the other [Member States] ”, she explains.
Contacted by EUROPE, David Rinaldi, professor at the ULB on European economic governance and member of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS), considers that the concepts of ‘coronabonds’ and ‘recovery bonds’ are not yet clearly defined. For him, the main difference between the two instruments lies in their temporality, the former being intended to finance emergency expenditure to support the health sector, while the latter are intended to finance socio-economic reconstruction over a longer timeline.
To conclude this point on this controversial amendment, it is interesting to note that the ID group voted largely against it, including the Italian Members of Lega. The entire Italian EPP delegation was also opposed to the amendment, following the line of its group, which was largely opposed to ‘coronabonds’.
Other amendments.
On the social chapter, a Greens/EFA amendment stressing the importance of protecting the homeless and providing financial support to NGOs and local authorities providing front-line assistance was, on the other hand, largely adopted (597 votes in favour, 47 against and 44 abstentions). A decision welcomed by the Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.
Finally, MEPs rejected an amendment tabled by the ECR group stressing that “any new legislative initiative should be postponed if it places an additional burden on businesses and thus slows down their economic recovery”, thus targeting in particular the Green Deal (293 votes in favour, 383 against and 17 abstentions).
To consult the resolution (unamended): https://bit.ly/3biPQE3 (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)