On Thursday 11 December, members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets (BUDG) discussed the draft interim report on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-2034. This text is to become the basis for the institution’s negotiating mandate. The day before, Member States’ representatives to the EU continued their discussions on the draft negotiating box presented by the Danish Presidency ahead of the General Affairs Council on 16 December and the European Council on 18 and 19 December.
In Parliament, co-rapporteurs Siegfried Mureşan (EPP, Romanian) and Carla Tavares (S&D, Portuguese) presented a text calling for a “considerably strengthened” MFF, with a level of at least 1.27% of EU gross national income (GNI) as a whole devoted to programmes, excluding NextGenerationEU debt repayments.
These reimbursements, estimated at around 0.11% of GNI, should be placed outside the EU budget ceilings. The margin generated would be reallocated to programmes, representing an increase of around 10%. “We cannot do more to protect citizens and support our economy with a budget whose size remains unchanged”, said Siegfried Mureşan.
The co-rapporteurs believe that cohesion and the common agricultural policy must retain their central role and not be used as an adjustment variable to finance new priorities, in particular security, defence and competitiveness.
“There is no need to weaken the Common Agricultural Policy and cohesion policy”, said Siegfried Mureşan. The report also rejects a budget model allowing for differentiated applications between Member States.
The governance proposed by the Commission has been criticised. Carla Tavares felt that “the Commission’s proposal risks sacrificing transparency on the altar of efficiency”.
MEPs highlighted the risk of a decline in parliamentary control and less visibility of the use of funds, particularly in the context of national and regional plans (NRPPs) and the consolidation of programmes. The text therefore calls for a sufficiently detailed nomenclature, a clear distinction between budgetary implementation and political decisions, and a guaranteed role for Parliament in the governance of future instruments.
The report also points out that access to funding must remain linked to respect for the EU’s values, as well as the importance of sustainable own resources to cover the European Union’s priorities and the repayment of the common debt.
Fabienne Keller (Renew Europe, French), who supported the general approach, called for the budgetary nomenclature to be improved so that European policies could be better monitored. Rasmus Nordqvist (Greens/EFA, Danish) announced amendments on biodiversity funding and regretted the disappearance of the LIFE programme from the Commission’s proposal. João Oliveira (The Left, Portuguese) felt that the amounts earmarked for cohesion and support for the productive sector were insufficient. Jean-Marc Germain (S&D, French) recalled that maintaining the current levels of the CAP and cohesion was a red line for his group and called for a strengthening of the three pillars of the budget.
The parliamentary timetable provides for amendments to be tabled by 29 January, then adopted in committee in early April and in plenary in May, before the Council adopts its own position with figures under the Cypriot Presidency in June.
Council. The day before, Member States’ representatives to the European Union (Coreper II) finalised their last discussion on the current version of the draft negotiating box (see EUROPE 13769/7), ahead of the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting on 16 December. The document is devoid of figures at this stage and serves only to structure discussions between Member States.
The Danish Presidency of the EU Council stated that the text had been adjusted to take account of comments made at previous meetings, notably on NRPPs, cohesion, the CAP and flexibility margins.
The issue of rebates now appears in the form of options, which several delegations disapproved of. The Presidency point outs, however, that the requests of several Member States made it necessary to include these options, and that the matter will form part of the final trade-offs with the size of the budget, the modernisation of its structure and future own resources.
According to the Presidency, the aim is to enable the future Cypriot Presidency to focus its work on the figures and not on rewriting the entire document.
Discussions on revenue also played a major role. Some delegations called for a return to 25% of the cost of collecting traditional own resources.
The draft report: https://aeur.eu/f/jy6 (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)