Brussels – Giving the European Union a multi-annual budget will be less easy than usual. In the European Parliament, they are aware of the delicacy of the moment. Yet, they aim to offer a constructive role by assisting the EU Commission, which will present its seven-year budget proposal (MFF 2028-2034) tomorrow (16 July), initially by suggesting what not to do.
This is where the co-rapporteurs in the European Parliament, Sigfried Muresan of the Popular Group and Carla Tavares of the Socialist Group, begin their reasoning, which forms the basis for the Parliament’s guidelines. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the cohesion policy “must continue to be separate and distinct programs,” for which “we expect the same amount” as the current budget, “updated for inflation”, the two MEPs stress.
Therefore, they reject the idea of a single fund that merges resources for agriculture and territorial development. “Negotiations will not begin unless there is a clear distinction between cohesion and agriculture,” Muresan and Tavares insist, in an EPP-S&D convergence that is difficult for the EU executive to ignore. Then, there is the issue of figures, as the two MEPs acknowledge that the priority at the moment is an agreement on the structure of the next seven-year budget. Therefore, the numbers will only come later. There are, however, precise indications: providing the same amount means requesting no less than 386,6 billion euros for CAP funds and 392 billion for cohesion, adjusted for inflation. All this is in a context in which “for defence and competitiveness we expect more,” Muresan points out. But then again, adds Tavares, “it is clear that we cannot do more with less.”
https://www.eunews.it/2022/03/29/parlamento-europeo-cose-e-come-funziona/
The MFF 2028-2034 is essentially already a puzzle. From Parliament also comes a ‘no’ to the idea of devising the budget along the lines of the NextGenerationEU model, with resources being disbursed only after action has been taken, an idea that Socialists reject. Now, the warning also comes from the Popular Party: “We will reject any attempt to nationalize the budget,” Muresan thunders, which means: “We reject the idea of individual national plans, which would water down agriculture and cohesion,” the Parliament’s key priorities. However, it remains open to discussion on own resources, which means the funds available to the Commission without having to request them from member states.
Several hypotheses are under consideration, including increasing taxes on tobacco products and large companies with net profits of at least EUR 50 million. While these ideas have already led to a rejection by some Member States in the Council (‘no’ by Greece, Italy, Romania, and Sweden, ‘no’ by Luxembourg, Ireland, and the Netherlands on corporate taxes), Muresan and Tavares are not closing the door on anything for the time being. On the contrary, the EPP MEP stresses, “own resources are a key element. The Parliament calls for putting all options on the table for discussion.”
Funds are needed, and the amount is more than expected. The EU must repay EUR 200 billion in loans taken out on the markets to finance the recovery mechanism, and in this sense, ensuring liquidity to the EU executive becomes imperative. Because Muresan again points out, taking out debt to pay back debt is neither wise nor sustainable. “Rolling over loans to pay off loans solves the problem partly in the short term, but in the end, we pay interest twice,” he scolds. ‘No’ therefore to new Eurobonds to repay previous ones. “It would be irresponsible to renew loans without knowing how to repay them. New resources are essential; renewal cannot replace new resources.” A warning to the Commission.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
