“The EU must act quickly to establish new sources of revenue (...), to repay the NextGenerationEU loans, but also to ensure that the Union has sufficient funds for the future”. This statement by European Parliament’s rapporteur on own resources, Danuše Nerudová (EPP, Czech), made on Thursday 9 October, two days before the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, sounds like wishful thinking. In her view, “Europe’s ability to stand on its own two feet is at stake“.
From the EU Member States’ point of view, this means paying a bit more. And despite repeated calls from the European Commission to adopt new own resources, this is not going down well. “The truth is that we don’t want to pay”, said a European diplomatic source.
Agence Europe has tried to gauge the Member States’ mindset on the ever-sensitive issue of adopting new own resources (see EUROPE 13631/6).
In mid-July, the European Commission attached a new own resources package to its proposal for the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (see EUROPE 13682/1). It includes resources based on: the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS); the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM); the tax on uncollected electronic waste; the excise duty on tobacco; and an annual contribution from companies with an annual turnover of at least €100 million (CORE).
At an extra €44 billion a year, these five additional own resources would bring total own resources to €65 billion a year.
Formally, most Member States say they are prepared to discuss resources that would generate “fresh funds”, i.e. that would not involve transferring funds “from national budgets to the European budget”. In fact, none of the Commission’s proposals has currently secured the necessary unanimity.
Several countries do not want any new own resources. This is the case in Sweden and Austria.
On Friday, the CORE resource based on large companies’ turnover is expected to be the focus of discussions by the European finance ministers. It is “the main target”, according to one source. At a time when the EU is seeking to strengthen its competitiveness, taxing companies would be counterproductive, according to several countries. Germany, Malta, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are opposed, according to our information. Others share this position.
A diplomatic source told us: “It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach an agreement on the new own resource for tobacco, because it is in reality just an additional national contribution”. In a position paper at the end of September, the Netherlands took the view that adopting a resource based on excise duties on tobacco would disrupt negotiations during the upcoming revision of the relevant directive.
Poland, which supports a tax on companies, remains strongly opposed, as does Slovenia, to an own resource based on the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Overall, opinions are likely to evolve as the discussions are still preliminary. Regarding taxes on electronic waste, for example, several countries insisted on their need to study the proposal further. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)