EU budget talks: Council rejects Parliament’s breakthrough proposal | News | European Parliament
EU budget talks: Council rejects Parliament’s breakthrough proposal

EP’s negotiators made a breakthrough proposal on Wednesday on the critical issue of how to count the costs of common debt in the next long-term EU budget. Council has rejected it blindly.

At the 10th trilateral dialogue, Parliament and Council representatives reviewed all pending issues in the negotiation. On the question of the top-ups for the 15 flagship programmes, Council further hardened it stance while Parliament proposed a series of openings, said the members of the Parliament’s negotiating team on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and Own Resources (OR)

“Despite being largely left out of the decision to set up the EU Recovery instrument, Parliament has agreed that the costs of the new debt will be borne by the Union budget.

However, Parliament believes that such costs should be counted above the stringent ceilings of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Otherwise, they enter in competition with regular Union programmes. This is due to the top-down approach of the Council, which consistently sets overall MFF ceilings at a level closer and closer to 1% of the EU’s GNI. When repayments of the principal of recovery debt kick in after 2027 (more than 15 billion euros per year), this would be the end of the Union budget as we know it”, EP’s budget negotiators said.

“In 2021-2027, counting NGEU (‘Next Generation EU’ recovery instrument) costs above the ceilings would have released 12.9 billion euros within the ceilings for topping up flagship expenditure programmes, as requested by Parliament.

Tonight, we offered the Council to count the NGEU costs above the ceilings, but without redistributing the 12.9 billion euros to the flagship programmes. This would leave a significant unallocated margin that would be very welcome to finance unforeseen needs in the coming years, given the troubled times we are going through. Council would retain full control over whether this margin is used or not for additional expenditure in the future”, the MEPs added.

“The Council has blindly refused to consider this possible breakthrough, arguing once again that this was touching a ‘red line’ set by the European Council summit of July 2020. Parliament has a negotiating mandate; Council has a series of red lines.

Let us be very clear: our offer is 100% compatible with the letter of the European Council conclusions of 21 July 2020:

  • It would not change any of the ceilings set by the Heads of State and Governments;
  • It would not directly translate into additional expenditure if Council does not agree with it;
  • It would not be in contradiction with the specific part of the conclusions dealing with interest payments (paragraph 74), which says nowhere explicitly that those should be counted within the ceilings.

Therefore, it is clear that our proposal does not, as Council says, ‘reopen the agreement of the Heads of States and Governments’. Instead, Council invents new ‘red lines’ for itself along the way. At this stage of the negotiations, and in the current context, this is irresponsible”, the negotiating team concluded.

The EP’s negotiating team for the next long-term EU budget and Own Resources reform

Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, BE), Chair of the Committee on Budgets

Jan Olbrycht (EPP, PL), MFF co-rapporteur

Margarida Marques (S&D, PT), MFF co-rapporteur

José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, PT), Own Resources co-rapporteur

Valérie Hayer (RENEW, FR), Own Resources co-rapporteur

Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, DE)

Follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1205126942384676866?s=20

EU long-term budget deal must be improved for Parliament to accept it | News | European Parliament
EU long-term budget deal must be improved for Parliament to accept it | News | European Parliament

In a resolution on the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 17-21 July 2020, adopted by 465 votes against 150, with 67 abstentions, MEPs pay tribute to the victims of the coronavirus and to all the workers who have been fighting the pandemic. They underline that “people in the EU have a collective duty of solidarity.”


Positive step for recovery, inadequate in the long term

In the text, which serves as a mandate for the upcoming negotiations on the future EU financing and recovery, Parliament welcomes EU leaders’ acceptance of the recovery fund as proposed by Parliament in May, calling it a “historic move for the EU”. MEPs deplore however the “massive cuts to the grant components” and call for full democratic involvement of Parliament in the recovery instrument which “does not give a formal role to elected Members of the European Parliament”.

As for the long-term EU budget, they disapprove of the cuts made to future-oriented programmes and consider that they will “undermine the foundations of a sustainable and resilient recovery.” Flagship EU programmes for climate protection, digital transition, health, youth, culture, research or border management “are at risk of an immediate drop in funding from 2020 to 2021″, and that as of 2024, the “EU budget as a whole will be below 2020 levels, jeopardising the EU’s commitments and priorities.”


Parliament cannot accept a bad agreement

Parliament thus does not accept the European Council’s political agreement on the 2021-2027 MFF as it stands and “will not rubber-stamp a fait accompli”. MEPs are “prepared to withhold their consent” for the long-term EU budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) until a satisfactory agreement is reached in the upcoming negotiations between Parliament and the Council, preferably by the end of October at the latest for a smooth start of the EU programmes from 2021.

In the case however that a new MFF would not be adopted on time, MEPs recall that Article 312(4) of the TFEU provides for the temporary extension of the ceiling of the last year of the present MFF (2020), and that this would be fully compatible with the recovery plan and the adoption of the new MFF programmes.


Rule of Law

Parliament “strongly regrets” that the European Council significantly weakened the efforts of the Commission and Parliament to uphold the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy in the framework of the MFF and the recovery plan, recalling that the Rule of Law Regulation will be co-decided by Parliament.


New sources of EU revenue and repayment of EU-debt

MEPs reiterate that Parliament will not give its consent for the MFF without an agreement on the reform of the EU’s own resources system, including the introduction of a basket of new own resources by the end of the 2021-2027 MFF which is necessary to cover at least the costs related to the recovery plan.

They believe that the EU Heads of State and Government have failed to tackle the issue of the recovery instrument repayment plan and recall that without further cuts to key programmes or increasing the Member States’ contributions to the EU budget, new own resources is the only acceptable option to Parliament.


Mid-term revision indispensable

Parliament demands that a legally binding MFF mid-term revision enters into force by the end of 2024 at the latest and stresses that this revision must include the ceilings for the 2025-2027 period, the introduction of additional own resources and the implementation of the climate and biodiversity targets.