06/06/2011

Looking for broad consensus on EU resources after 2013
Reasonable, not revolutionary changes, for an efficient EU

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

The European Parliament - first to declare its proposals on EU resources post 2013

The European Parliament is ready to deliver a proposal on what the level of EU resources should be after 2013. We will be the first EU institution to do so and, if the vote obtained in the committee - 39 in favour, 5 against and 4 abstentions - is confirmed in plenary, we will table a strong politically-backed proposal to increase the resources of the EU by at least 5% compared to the 2013 level. Moreover, as the proposal states, even with an increase of 5% we believe that only a limited contribution can be made to the achievement of the Union's agreed objectives and commitments.

Eleven months of debate in the 'Special Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Resources for a Sustainable Union after 2013' - the so-called SURE Committee created by the European Parliament to define what should be the priorities and the resources of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) - 1094 amendments and 117 compromise amendments have been necessary to meet our challenge of achieving a strong political position supported by the largest consensus possible between all the political groups.

What is our position?

What we are basically saying is that the solution to the crisis is more Europe. We consider that freezing EU resources after 2013, as has been proposed by five heads of government in December 2010 (France, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Finland) is not a good option. Should the European Council not share our view, the Parliament asks the Heads of Government to clearly identify which of its political priorities or projects should be dropped.

Reforming the financing system

In its proposal, Parliament also demands an in-depth reform of EU resources to replace the Gross National Income (GNI)-based system. The reform should achieve an autonomous, fairer, more transparent, simpler and equitable financing system for the EU budget, without increasing the tax burden for citizens and in compliance with the fiscal sovereignty of Member States. This will mean the end of existing rebates, exceptions and correction mechanisms and a feasibility study for the possible introduction of an EU financial transaction tax.

Re-structuring the budget

On the structure of the budget, the Parliament also makes proposals for change. All internal policies should be grouped under a single 'Europe 2020' heading, with two other headings for external policies and administration. We make a clear demand for maintaining spending on agriculture and cohesion policies and a significant increase of the funds allocated to R&D and innovation - to help SMEs and to promote renewable energy and energy infrastructure. We also consider it a priority to finance the Trans-European Transport networks, to take a horizontal approach in all EU policies on climate change, proper investment in education and lifelong learning policies and sufficient funding for home affairs policies. We call for the chronic under financing of foreign policy to be tackled if the EU really wants to become a global player. Finally, we call for savings in administration spending.

Increasing flexibility

There are also proposals to extend the 'flexibility' of the budget. The Parliament wants to establish a reserve margin to cover the future European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) guarantees. It also wants the possibility for unused margins and unused appropriations to be carried over from one year's budget to the following. We want to ring-fence the expenditure of all large-scale projects, such as ITER or Galileo, and a compulsory mid-term review of the MFF.

Synchronising programming

The Parliament accepts as a transitional solution the principle of a 7-year period for the next MFF, but to increase democratic responsibility, accountability and legitimacy there is a need to synchronise financial programming with the five-year mandate of the Commission and the European Parliament. Therefore, we propose a 5-year framework or a 5+5-year framework after 2021.


What next?

I expect these compromises to be endorsed by a huge majority in the European Parliament at its June plenary. Our influence in the difficult negotiations to come will be as strong as the majority obtained by these proposals in plenary.

We look forward to the kick-off of the negotiations, due to start when, at the end of June, the European Commission presents their two proposals - one on the next MFF and another on own resources. The next Multiannual Financial Framework should be approved unanimously by the Council, but after the consent of the European Parliament. The Heads of Government will now know what we expect. We are not calling for revolutionary changes; we are calling for reasonable changes to allow the EU institutions to cope with the tasks to which they have been committed.