15/03/2011

Will the EU have enough money after 2013 to do its homework?
Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework

By Salvador Garriga Polledo MEP, Author of Parliament's position on the next MFF

I think the time has come to put this question on the table as never before have Europeans become more demanding of the EU and also more critical of its performance than nowadays. Public ownership of the EU will only return when our citizens are confident that their values and interests are better served by the Union. The next multiannual financial framework after 2013 should show Europeans that the EU has the capacity to think and act in their long-term interests and to produce effective results in securing solid growth and internal cohesion.

The SURE Committee: defining priorities and resources

Back in July 2010, to meet the challenge of defining what the Parliament's political priorities should be for the new post-2013 multiannual financial framework and to submit guidelines outlining the resources necessary for the EU to implement these priorities, the European Parliament decided to create a 'Special Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Resources for a Sustainable European Union after 2013'. The so-called 'SURE Committee' appointed me to draft a report on 'Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe'. I will present my conclusions this week, based on the discussions we have organized during the past months.

Pocket money and homework

As you may know, the EU budget is fixed every year on the basis of ceilings of expenditure or a "multiannual framework" decided every seven years after tough negotiations between the Heads of State and Government. The European Parliament also has an important role to play in this process, as it has to say yes or no to the result of those negotiations. The current financial framework runs until the end of 2013, so if the EU wants to be ready to continue its work, negotiations on the next framework should start no later than next year. We want to anticipate this debate and to clearly express our view of how much money the EU will need to do its 'homework', meaning all the tasks that it has been assigned by the Member States.

The crisis and severe constraints in public spending will make this new round of negotiations more difficult and will make the case for the EU budget to be better justified than ever before. The EU budget should provide the highest degree of 'European added value', be managed soundly and leverage as many public and private resources as possible. After all, the EU, which is less constrained in its actions by day-to-day economic, financial and political realities, is best placed to carry out long-term planning and to mobilise the required spending.

Better resources for better results

Some Member States have already come out in favour of a freeze of the EU budget, to take into account the need for fiscal consolidation in facing the current economic crisis. In my view this will not allow the Union to achieve its objectives or the new tasks and competences that the Lisbon Treaty provides for. Moreover, challenges like demography, climate change or energy shortages are too large for any one Member State to address on its own. These key challenges and the necessity to ensure a successful implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy for growth and jobs can only be achieved if sufficient resources are ensured for the EU budget.

At the same time, I agree that we need a new system to finance the EU budget without increasing taxes for citizens. The current system - based predominantly on national contributions - places disproportionate emphasis on net balances between Member States and dilutes in the public sphere the fact that the EU budget looks for a European common interest. We should aim to achieve a fairer, more transparent and simpler financing system and introduce one or several genuine own resources, as specified in a line of the Lisbon Treaty: the budget should be "financed wholly from own resources".

These are some of the reasons why I argue in favour of at least maintaining the same level of funding for the EU budget for the next 'multiannual framework', with a flexibility mechanism to allow the EU to mobilise when faced with unforeseen investment needs, in a world that is changing everyday.

We now need to find the broadest consensus possible between the political groups in the European Parliament on this direction, to show European citizens and the other Institutions that we have a clear vision and proposals on what the EU should do and with what money.