After several hours of interinstitutional negotiations on Thursday 7 December, the European Parliament and the EU Council failed to reach a provisional agreement on the text of the Single Market Emergency Instrument (SMEI). The MEPs are critical of the Council’s inflexible position, refusing to make any concessions, even though this trilogue was intended to be conclusive.
The regulation, which is intended to remedy the disruptions that can be caused by certain crises, as was the case during the Covid-19 crisis, was proposed by the Commission in September 2022 and largely amended by the Member States (see EUROPE 13196/3) and parliamentarians (see EUROPE 13225/11).
The general approach validated by the Council reduces the scope of the text, notably by removing the possibility for the Commission to oblige the EU27 to set up strategic reserves, as well as the need for European countries to notify the Commission in the event of restrictions being introduced at their borders.
According to several parties involved in the negotiations, the Council has never really taken on board several of Parliament’s demands, starting with the co-decision on activating the emergency instrument and setting up ‘fast lanes’ at borders to “facilitate the free movement of goods, services and workers, in particular those linked to the current crisis”.
The text’s rapporteur, Andreas Schwab (EPP, German), stated at the end of the trilogue that “as long as the Member States are more concerned about their own privileges than the security of supply of their citizens, this proposal will fail”. In his view, it is not possible for Parliament to compromise on these issues.
According to several sources on the Council side, it was Parliament’s position on ‘fast lanes’ that prevented the negotiators from reaching an agreement within the allotted time. Negotiations also became stuck over the principle of ‘notification’, i.e. the obligation for Member States to notify the Commission whenever they introduce restrictions on movement at their borders.
The failure of the trilogue on 7 December makes the future of the text uncertain. The date for the next trilogue has not yet been set and may not be until next February. This would push back the possible adoption of the regulation to the end of the summer, almost 2 years after the Commission’s initial proposal. (Original version in French by Isalia Stieffatre)