Further friction between MEPs and the Council of the European Union can be expected regarding the fate of the European Commission's proposal, made in May 2018 and renewed last May, to link the granting of European funds to respect for certain key principles of the Rule of law (see EUROPE 12494/8).
As they told Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday 8 July (see EUROPE 12523/12) and then German State Secretary for European Affairs Michael Roth on Thursday, MEPs do not want to be a mere rubber stamp for the European Council's proposals on the pretext that a swift agreement must be reached on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027 and the Recovery Plan.
The European Parliament cannot simply “rubber stamp” the EU Council proposal and wants to “negotiate” fully with EU ministers, said Spanish Socialist Eider Gardiazabal Rubial.
This debate took place the day before Charles Michel's presentation of his ‘negotiating box’ on the post-2020 MFF, a framework that maintains a proactive approach to respect for the Rule of law (see EUROPE 12525/1). But MEPs already had doubts about the EU Council's intentions and its refusal to accept, as it has been saying since 2018, the Commission's proposed decision-making method.
The Commission took up the idea of conditionality of funds from the European budget, but also from the recovery funds, in its proposals of 27 May and, as in 2018, it suggested that the suspension of funds be blocked by a reverse qualified majority vote.
In front of the MEPs, Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders explained on Thursday that maintaining this voting method was “very important” for the Commission and a guarantee of efficiency and quick decisions.
However, as he did at the beginning of February, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, once again proposed, on 10 July, to reverse the method and to decide this suspension of funds by qualified majority, which will make it easier for the Member States to block a decision to suspend funds.
Charles Michel nevertheless promised that Member States did not “intend to lower their heads on the Rule of law” and on issues such as press freedom. He stressed that the Commission's new mechanism on the Rule of law, based on an annual report, will allow a generalised monitoring of deficiencies in all Member States and that the EU Council will itself have an annual debate on the Rule of law.
In return, Charles Michel also proposed to increase the funds earmarked for the 'Justice, Rights and Values' programme and the funds earmarked for the future European Public Prosecutor's Office, which will track down fraud against the European budget.
The day before, Michael Roth acknowledged doubts about the fate of the cross-compliance proposal, mentioning several compromises since 2018 and the same deadlock in the EU Council on the decision-making process, in particular. The German State Secretary nevertheless called on MEPs to act quickly, seemingly inviting them to accept even a less ambitious proposal on cross-compliance.
The majority of MEPs in the House renewed their interest in this mechanism, which will help to put an end to the “looting” carried out, for example, in Hungary by Viktor Orbán, said Greens/EFA MEP Daniel Feund.
More measured, Finnish EPP MEP Petri Sarvamaa considered that this conditionality link “is a giant step” that will save the European taxpayer's money. He also warned that the Parliament will not accept the EU Council's proposal as “a fait accompli” and “without proper negotiations”. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)