Strasbourg, 08/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the European Parliament gave its support to the very ambitious new financial perspectives for 2007-13. This budgetary position is very unlike the one Member States could accept in the guise of the European Council compromise on 16-17 June. The EP adopted by a large majority (4426 votes for, 140 against, with 122 abstentions) the report of Reimer Böge (CDU) in a revision that was almost identical to that of the EP's temporary committee on political challenges and budgetary resources for the expanded EU. The only political change involved agreeing to the European Commission position on a seven yearly period for financial perspectives 2007-13 whereas the draft report called for financial perspectives over five years. The Greens/EFA voted against, as did the GUE/NGL. Böge presented each of the counter-proposals rejected during the plenary
During the debate on preparation of the next European Council the Luxembourg presidency a promised to do "everything possible to get a compromise acceptable to all" (see other article). However the figures show that the EP and Commission goals would not stand up well to budgetary discipline imposed on Member States. The EP is counting on a total budget (2007-2013) of EUR 975 bn in commitment appropriations, which represents 1.18% of Gross National Income (GNI) of the EU and EUR 883 bn in payment appropriations, 1.07% of GNI. The compromise of the presidency includes 1.06% of GNI in commitment appropriations (870 bn) and 0.96% in payment appropriations (786 bn). The Commission had proposed 1.24% (1022 bn) in commitment appropriations and 1.14% (943 bn) in payment appropriations but Member States advocating rigour (the Six) (Germany, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Austria and Sweden) advocate 1% in commitment appropriations (815 bn) and therefore 0.91% in payment appropriations (742 bn).
As opposed to what was proposed by the Commission, the EP is not integrating European Development Funds into the EU budget (EUR 21.876 bn in total). The EP has also some reserves outside the financial framework for facing unexpected event (cohesion, emergency aid, solidarity funds, and guarantee funds) and facilitating the EU's economic adaptation to competitiveness. By including the financial framework of the EDF, as well as some reserves, the spending proposed by the EP is practically at the same level as that in the Commission proposals.
Speaking during a press conference, Josep Borrell said that it would be good if the Council knew that Europe needed financial perspectives to be adopted as soon as possible and for that it needed the EP's agreement. He added that Parliament also knew very well that without an agreement the financial framework for 2007-13, annual budgetary procedure as included in Article 272 of the Treaty would not be prejudicial. Borrell said that their negotiation position was therefore quite good. However he acknowledged that annual procedures could lead to conflicts between institutions which he said should be avoided.
Mr Borrell welcomed the European Commission's support and the positive comments made by the Luxembourg Presidency on the subject of the EP's proposal. “The Council must not depart from our position too much”, he urged.
Reimer Böge, the rapporteur, said: “We have clearly shown that even at times as difficult as the one we are living through today, we are able to take decisions on difficult issues”. He explained that, in the case of the annual budgetary procedure, spending of 1.03% of the EU's GNI is foreseen for 2007 in payment appropriations, without counting 0.3% under budget flexibility.
The stance taken by the EP for the various budgetary headings is as follows:
Competitiveness and cohesion to the service of growth and employment (EUR 459 billion): The EP suggests a total budget of EUR 459 billion for research, trans-European networks, teaching and training, social policy, convergence and cross-border cooperation. For the heading on competitiveness for growth and employment, the EP “fully” supports the Commission's proposal for research and TEN in the field of transport. It suggests transferring EUR 4.5 billion from non-priority areas to the heading “citizenship, freedom, security and justice” (EUR 1.3 billion); Heading 4, the EU as a world partner (EUR 2.5 billon); and life-long learning (EUR 670 million). Also, it makes an internal transfer of EUR 200 million from TEN to actions for energy and the Social Agenda.
With regard to Heading 1b (cohesion policy), the EP supports the Commission's proposal providing for an allocation of 0.41% of the EU's GNI to be made to this policy.
Conservation and management of natural resources (EUR 396.2 billion): This heading allows agricultural spending to be funded for rural development, fishing and protection of the environment. The EP is opposed to all “renationalisation” of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It expresses concern about the fact that, if there is no political and financial agreement, the funding of measures relating to the market and direct payments for Bulgaria and Romania (nearly EUR 8 billion in total) above the ceiling agreed by the European Council of 2002 for a 25-member EU remains uncertain. In order to guarantee the level of support set by the European Council's decision of October 2002, it would, according to the EP, be appropriate to allow a temporary process of compulsory co-funding to be implemented in the EU15 if needs exceed forecasts. It is to be noted that the EU Heads of State and Government agreed to set the ceiling of agricultural spending (outside rural development) at EUR 293 billion. The EP suggests that the Natura 2000 programme (biodiversity and protection of natural habitats) should receive an allocation of EUR 21 billion.
Citizenship, freedom, security and justice (EUR 19.4 bn): the main policies involve asylum and immigration, external borders, security, justice and fundamental rights, health and consumer protection, culture and youth and citizenship. The global volume of funding has increased by EUR 1.3 bn, 1 bn for fundamental rights and the fight against crime, 140 million for culture and 189 million for youth.
The EU as an actor on the world scene (EUR 70.6 bn): the EP considers that the enlarged EU's goals, particularly for European pre-accession aid and neighbourhood partnerships justify an increase of EUR 2.5 bn and a reorientation of 1.5 bn.
Flexibility and reserves: the EP is supporting an increase of EUR 200-500 million for the flexibility instrument (allowing for “new unexpected needs to be covered” in a section that has no margin of manoeuvre). Reserves are forecast (not counted in the financial framework) for competitiveness (7 bn maximum by replacing the Growth Adjustment Funds, for cohesion (3 bn), emergency aid (1.5 bn) and Solidarity Funds (6.2 bn).
Duration of financial framework: while indicating a preference for a parallel between the length of the period of the financial framework and the five year mandates of the EP and Commission, MEPs adopted an amendment (332 votes for, 326 against and 17 abstentions) in which they supported the Commission proposal on a seven yearly financial framework, particularly for facilitating programming for cohesion policy and other legislative instruments.
British MEPs (apart from one of them) defend Mrs Thatcher's rebate - generally positive
welcome for Böge report but reservations from Greens and GUE
The Böge report was generally well received but the Greens/EFA and European Left/Nordic Green Left were more reserved. Terence Wynn (Labour UK) explained whey most British MEPs would abstain during the vote, “spending and resources are separate questions for us and if the question of resources is discussed, it'll be too late”. He called on his colleagues to “get real”. The question of the rebate obtained by Mrs Thatcher at the Fontainebleau Summit in June 1984 is obviously weighing heavily on the British MEPs but one of them, Liberal Democrat Chris Davies, was very critical of the uncompromising attitude of the Blair government. Davies said that the government saying that this was “not negotiable” was “nonsense”. He believes that they should renegotiate and reopen the agreement on agricultural spending, as well as ask for a gradual but significant reduction of CAP subsidies. British Conservative James Elles asked whether it was wise during this current turbulent patch for Europe, to plan the EU's finance's up to 2013. He said that they had no idea what their policies would be then and called for a reflection phase for five year financial perspectives.
During the debate there were many contradictory demands but a fundamental message was revealed in the contributions by political group spokespersons, as summed up by Alain Lamassoure (EPP/ED, France) - the Union cannot expand with a budget that stays the same, it needs ambitious financial perspectives. An agreement was needed to show citizens that Europe is interest in them, added French Socialist Odile Guy-Quint, regretting that there was an absence of big projects that could help achieve this. Anne Jensen (ALDE) said that the Böge report was very responsible and appealed for sufficient funding for sectors making up Europe's future: training; research; competitiveness. Kathalijne Buitenweg, Dutch Green said that their alternative proposal contained action in areas that involved citizens who (like some Dutch people said no to the Constitution, she noted) wanted a better Europe. They did not want to be lulled or have prestigious projects but ones that were practical and workable, she insisted. The GUE/NGL does not like the Böge report. Esko Seppanen wanted a more social Europe “less militarism, less neoliberalism and an end to the British rebate”. Wojcieh Roszkowski (Union for a Europe of Nations, Poland) was concerned at the renationalisation of agricultural policy resulting from national co-funding of the CAP.
MEPs underlined the importance of getting a good majority at the Parliament. Enrico Letta (The Margherita, ALDE)) affirmed that Parliament's vote had to call on the European Council to get an agreement that was as close as possible to its own, if not, they were in danger of beginning a temporary exercise, lacking long term vision leading to the unambitious position of those defending the 1% ceiling. Jean-Marie Dupuy (UDF, ALDE) stated that Parliament's position was “wise” both financially and politically. Alyn Smith (Scottish National Party, Greens/EFA) insisted that the compromise was not perfect but that no compromise was. Bronislaw Geremek (ALDE, Poland) said that there was no contradiction between solidarity and competitiveness and called on Member States to respect to the current crisis by pushing the European project forward and not to increase the gap between old and new Member States. Gianni Pittella (Democratici di sinistra) called on president Juncker to use his negotiating qualities to obtain a “dignified entente” and prevent lengthy bilateral mediations that could penalise some countries.
The future for agriculture under the new financial perspectives worries some MEPs, such as German Green Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf and Françoise Grossetête (EPP-ED, France), who also saw the CAP becoming a NAP (national agricultural policy). Luxembourg socialist Robert Goebbels was concerned about research, Belgian Green Pierre Jonckheer, about cohesion policy. Ville Itälä (EPP/ED, Finland), said that the Baltic Sea had the same strategic importance as the Mediterranean. Several MEPs, Jana Bobosikova (non-attached, Czech Republic) and Hélène Goudin (Independence and Democracy, Sweden) called on them to take the message from citizens seriously, those who said “no” to the Constitution. Hélène Goudin declared that “it's the end of an époque where political elites could advance without worrying about public opinion”.
The Luxembourg presidency, concluded Nicolas Schmit, should be able to deal with the contradictions that appeared during the debate, contradictions which even go back to the Council. He said that they needed to put all this into context and obtain a compromise. The president of the Council said that this was not going to be easy. Some of the difficulties included the position of those who linked negotiation of the British rebate with reduction in agricultural spending.
Mr Schmit (Luxembourg European affairs minister) asked whether they really wanted to reduce agricultural spending and the subsequent desertification of the European countryside. He added that the response could perhaps be found in finding clearer priorities Luxembourg government could accept the Commission's proposal “tomorrow” but as the presidency “I have some difficulties with the text”. He called on them to fight against demagogues who claimed that European money was too easily spent and to work for better Community spending. A compromise is needed, he said, which if not obtained those who expected something from the EU would be left wanting, which could damage Europe's image.
He said that he did not really believe Reimer Böge's “chaos theory” if a compromise is not attained at the next summit. He said that they had to effectively use the ten days before the European summit for talking and negotiating and that the Council should not believe that a compromise between Heads of State and government “has been decided” and that this could !involve an acceptable compromise for Parliament.
Several MEPs were pleased with the vote. Pascalina Napoletano, Massimo D'Alema, Massimo Pittella (PES) and Enrico Letta and Alfonso Andria (ALDE) affirmed in a press release that Parliament intended to exercise all its powers of co-decision and welcomed the “victory of some of the battles led by Italian centre left MEPs (notably on the sufficient funding for cohesion and the abolition of British privilege and the introduction of co-funding for agricultural spending. Christian Democrat Armando Dionisi (EPP-ED) noted that, “Parliament accepted my position and that of other Italian colleagues to a seven year budget instead of five. This is a very important victory in our country, especially for the south. According to the initial proposal from the Parliament, the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU provoked a net loss of EUR 5 bn for the period 2012-13 for Italy”.
- - - - - - - - - -