The pro-European majority in the European Parliament reiterated its rejection of the National and Regional Partnership Plans as presented in the proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, in a joint letter sent to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Thursday 30 October.
The European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and Greens/EFA groups in the European Parliament are calling on the European Commission to amend its proposal on national plans. The problems raised are of three types: governance, predictability and transparency.
Governance. By proposing 27 national and regional plans, the European Commission is renationalising the EU budget through a “Union à la carte”, according to the Parliament’s pro-European majority. The latter is concerned that the regions and the European Parliament will be sidelined as a result.
“Ongoing negotiations between the regions and the Commission should be legally binding”, said co-rapporteur for the 2028-2034 MFF Siegfried Mureșan (EPP, Romanian). On Thursday 30 October, the Committee of the Regions (CoR) expressed its “full support” for the letter. According to its President, Kata Tüttő, the EU budget must be “the expression of our common project”.
The signatories of the letter are calling for Parliament to be included in the approval and amendment of national plans by means of a delegated act. They also argue that the programming of flexibility amounts and adjustments linked to new needs should not be carried out without this institution either.
Predictability. All the more so as flexibility is at the heart of the restructuring of the MFF, with the aim of being able to adapt funding more easily to the political priorities of the moment, whereas 90% of the MFF in its current version is generally pre-allocated.
The pro-European majority fears that the combination of “large amounts of unallocated sums” and the regrouping of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Cohesion Policy, Fisheries and Maritime Policy and Social Affairs into national plans will threaten the funding of these various programmes.
It has therefore asked the European Commission to guarantee the autonomy of these programmes, through “dedicated budgets”, for “more predictability and certainty for beneficiaries”.
Transparency. The ‘cash-for-reforms’ principle that will govern these national plans has an “inherent democratic deficit”. Because the funding granted is not linked to costs, the European Parliament’s audit and control of the implementation of European funds is hampered by a lack of transparency, according to the signatories.
They reject any association between “local investments and macroeconomic reforms”. The S&D is concerned that this macro-conditionality will allow the European Commission to impose “austerity measures” in one area in exchange for EU funding in another.
The MFF’s co-rapporteurs, Siegfried Mureșan and Carla Tavares (S&D, Portuguese), are still considering putting a resolution to the vote at the November plenary session. Its content will depend on the Commission’s response.
However, a source close to the matter said that the European Parliament “has received positive signals” from the Commission. The letter sent today was intended to formalise and consolidate the groups’ positions with the Commission.
If there is no change, the national plans could be rejected. While the Member States and the Commission are aiming to reach an agreement on the MFF by the end of 2026, the pro-European majority believes that it would be better for everyone if the process were not delayed.
To see the letter: https://aeur.eu/f/j7q (Original version in French by Florent Servia)