At its meeting on Wednesday 4 September, the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets (BUDG) debated the 2025 draft budget plan drawn up by the European Commission and the position of the Council of the EU, adopted by Coreper on 17 July 2024 (see EUROPE 13455/8).
The Council wants to reduce commitments by €1,519.9 million and payments by €875.6 million for the headings of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which earned it almost unanimous opposition, including from the shadow rapporteurs of the various political groups, at the meeting.
“It will be difficult to reach agreement with the Council”, warned Victor Negrescu (S&D, Romanian), arguing that this discussion “will not be part of the health package”. From the EPP to The Left, via the European Commission, it was felt that the budget cuts proposed by the Council were too deep. “We do not believe that the Council’s amendments are justified”, said Lenka Filipkova, representing the European Commission.
MEPs are concerned about the consequences of cuts to key funding programmes in next year’s budget. The Commission intends to draft a letter including Parliament’s proposals. Poland’s Andrzej Halicki, shadow rapporteur for the EPP, mentioned the impact of cuts on the Erasmus + programme (€180 million less), the ‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values’ programme and EU4Health. Defending this funding will be all the more important, according to Mr Halicki, as MEPs “fought for these programmes in the European Parliament”.
These cuts should not even be “necessary, insofar as the European Commission considers that the margins are sufficient”, said Jean-Marc Germain (S&D, French). Rapporteur for The Left, Nikolaos Farantouris suggested “using equity capital to finance everything that is planned”.
The European Parliament supports the implementation of the cascade mechanism, which will be used for the first time with the 2025 budget and which should make it possible to pay interest under Next Generation EU (see EUROPE 13435/5). But this mechanism “must not lead to cuts in programmes that are doing very well”, said Rasmus Nordqvist (Greens/EFA, Danish). In his view, the Council is not respecting the agreement. “The real problem”, according to Victor Negrescu, is the cost of the loan to finance the repayment of Next Generation EU, the EU’s post-pandemic instrument. The “reality of interest rates” means that the amount the EU has to repay has “practically doubled”, said Mr Negrescu.
The European Parliament’s position is due to be adopted at its second plenary session in October. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)