On Wednesday 16 July, MEPs from across the political spectrum criticised the method and sequence of presentation of the draft post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) by the European Commission (see EUROPE 13682/1), blaming the Commission for failing to provide them with any documents in advance. On the substance, many of them warned against any renationalisation of the management of the European Union budget to the detriment of European added value, during a debate in the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets.
“To put it politely, there is still a lot of work to do”, Siegfried Mureșan (EPP, Romanian) said with a hint of irony. What is on the table is “a proposal to renationalise the EU budget”. Drawing on the Parliament’s position that he co-sponsored with Carla Tavares (S&D, Portuguese) (see EUROPE 13635/1), he reiterated that “Parliament would reject national and regional partnership plans if there is no clear European thinking behind the spending of money, if there is no preservation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) nor of cohesion policy”.
On the overall size of the 2028-2032 MFF, an envelope of €2 trillion, “is a good thing in theory, but this is mainly due to inflation and the repayment of the European Recovery Plan”, Mr Mureșan stressed.
Pointing also to “a risk to the Community method”, Carla Tavares said that citizens “need more Europe, not less”. She questioned the role of the European Parliament as a budgetary authority in this new way of managing the MFF.
In a joint statement, the leaders of the EPP, S&D, Renew Europe and Greens/EFA groups called for a budget that delivers “genuine European added value”, opposing the national and regional partnership plans as presented on Tuesday. “We will defend an ambitious and robust MFF with increased resources compared to the 2021-2027 period, with a built-in crisis response capacity, and where the repayment of NGEU (Next Generation EU) borrowing must not endanger the financing of EU policies and priorities”, they added.
In response, the European Commissioner for the Budget, Piotr Serafin, noted that the CAP, cohesion and the European Social Fund will have their own legal basis, an approach that gives the European Parliament a role as co-legislator. “This was a key request from MEPs”, he noted. On the potential renationalisation of the budget, he said that the issue was open to debate: “We need to find the right balance between flexibility, which is needed at national and regional level, and the need to spend money on EU priorities”.
Own resources. On the question of ‘own resources’, Danuše Nerudová (EPP, Czech) stressed that there would be no compromise without own resources that were “sufficient, stable and enjoy strong political support”. “What about rebates?”, she asked. Why have you given up on a tax on digital services? - asked Sandra Gómez López (S&D, Spanish).
Piotr Serafin confirmed that the European Commission is proposing an end to the rebates granted to certain countries, but that it is not proposing a tax on digital services. “We will continue to study all other possible options”, he promised.
The far right is up in arms against the draft post-2027 MFF. For Tamás Deutsch (PfE, Hungarian), two winners emerge from this project: “the Commission, which wants to strengthen its power” - an argument echoed by João Oliveira (The Left, Portuguese) - and “Ukraine”, to the detriment of farmers and citizens. Julien Sanchez (PfE, French) criticised the Commission for asking for a “blank cheque” to pay off the “massive debt” created by the European Recovery Plan. He described the strengthening of ‘Rule of law conditionality’ as a “political manoeuvre”.
Other MEPs, including Denmark’s Rasmus Nordqvist (Greens/EFA) and Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, German) asked how much of the funding would be earmarked for the ‘green’ transition and social objectives. Will the LIFE environmental programme be included in the European Competitiveness Fund? - asked Fabienne Keller (Renew Europe, French). (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)