News
BackEU Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski outlined during a hearing of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which direction the EU budget would take until 2020: basing his comments on an EU budget payment volume of 1.18 % of the EU Gross Domestic Product in the nineties, Lewandowksi forecast a continuous reduction to 0.94 %. Some EESC members worry that this might happen at the expense in particular of the cohesion policy and thereby also of social projects. MEPs too seemed to be less than happy with the developments around the EU financial framework.
The representative of the current Danish EU Presidency Kaare Barslev hinted that the negotiations on the new EU Multiannual Financial Framework from 2014 would only make slow progress. The negotiations in the Council were currently in their technical phase, said Barslev. Even though there had already been a political discussion on the use of EU funds, one had not made much ground. The plan was for the Danish Presidency to create the foundation for the last phase of the negotiations. However, this already clarifies that agreement will not have been reached by the end of the year.
The Rapporteur of the European Parliament, Ivailo Kalfin criticised the statement made by Lewandowski. The European Parliament had adopted a resolution, which was aimed at a 5 % increase in the EU budgets for 2014 to 2020. Compared to this, individual EU Member States wanted to severely reduce the EU budget; however, in this case one would have to ask the question, which aspect of spending should be targeted. Innovations, Trans-European networks or something else. There was hardly any room for savings though with regard to the administration as spending for this category would only amount to 6 %, said Kalfin. The MEP also referred to a problematic innovation, which would be introduced together with the so-called conditionality. According to this principle, those Member States that would not meet certain macroeconomic requirements, would not receive any money. However, this would in particular affect those countries that were dependent on the cohesion fund. Kalfin also voiced doubts concerning the proposal of the Commission to use more private funds for infrastructure projects: firstly, at EUR 1 billion, the volume of the planned major infrastructure projects was extremely large; secondly, private investors would expect corresponding profits, which, however, could not be guaranteed. In respect of plans relating to own resources, such as the Financial Transaction Tax it would be important to inform the public that this would not result in more money being directed towards the EU and also, that not more money would be spent, concluded the Rapporteur of the European Parliament.
Kalfin’s colleague, the MEP Gardiazábal Rubial also criticised that freezing the EU budget would not help. Especially, because increasingly more responsibilities would be transferred to EU level. The cohesion policy was one of the most important instruments and the Commission had allocated fewer resources in particular to this sector. The discussion in the Council for example would show a lack of solidarity; instead the overriding features were egoism and populism, said the EU representative.
The representative of the European Trade Union Confederation, Claude Denagtergal was also very critical. Resources for social purposes were required in particular in times of crisis. But now making cuts was the only mantra and the Member States would become increasingly more nationalistic. What was positive said Denagtergal was the fact that the European Social Fund had been given a special mention and that it had been allocated 25 % of the entire Structural Fund resources. Hence, EUR 82 billion would be available, which was an increase compared to the current EU Multiannual Financial Framework. However, it was difficult to comprehend why the Commission intended to let a number of useful projects peter out, for example a programme, which is aimed at helping those most in need, when in fact, a special target of the EU2020 Strategy had been the reduction of poverty. Then again, EUR 2 billion had been earmarked for food aids - the worry was that this money would benefit the agricultural sector. Nevertheless, with regard to the European Globalisation Fund, the Commission proposes an opening for agricultural purposes. Hence, 2.5 of the overall EUR 3 billion earmarked could go to the agricultural sector after all. Even though agriculture already has a pillar of its own. This undermines the actual purpose of the fund - to support people who have lost their jobs.
The European Economic and Social Committee as well as the European Parliament are currently working on statements on the EU Multiannual Financial Framework. With regard to individual draft proposals on the respective EU Programmes from 2014, the European Parliament will have a major say within the scope of the co-decision procedure. However, the Council decides on the volume of the EU budget whilst the European Parliament has no more powers than agreeing with or rejecting the result of the Council negotiations. In order for the EU Multiannual Financial Framework coming into force within the agreed time, negotiations have to be concluded by the end of 2012.
The Rapporteur of the European Parliament, Ivailo Kalfin criticised the statement made by Lewandowski. The European Parliament had adopted a resolution, which was aimed at a 5 % increase in the EU budgets for 2014 to 2020. Compared to this, individual EU Member States wanted to severely reduce the EU budget; however, in this case one would have to ask the question, which aspect of spending should be targeted. Innovations, Trans-European networks or something else. There was hardly any room for savings though with regard to the administration as spending for this category would only amount to 6 %, said Kalfin. The MEP also referred to a problematic innovation, which would be introduced together with the so-called conditionality. According to this principle, those Member States that would not meet certain macroeconomic requirements, would not receive any money. However, this would in particular affect those countries that were dependent on the cohesion fund. Kalfin also voiced doubts concerning the proposal of the Commission to use more private funds for infrastructure projects: firstly, at EUR 1 billion, the volume of the planned major infrastructure projects was extremely large; secondly, private investors would expect corresponding profits, which, however, could not be guaranteed. In respect of plans relating to own resources, such as the Financial Transaction Tax it would be important to inform the public that this would not result in more money being directed towards the EU and also, that not more money would be spent, concluded the Rapporteur of the European Parliament.
Kalfin’s colleague, the MEP Gardiazábal Rubial also criticised that freezing the EU budget would not help. Especially, because increasingly more responsibilities would be transferred to EU level. The cohesion policy was one of the most important instruments and the Commission had allocated fewer resources in particular to this sector. The discussion in the Council for example would show a lack of solidarity; instead the overriding features were egoism and populism, said the EU representative.
The representative of the European Trade Union Confederation, Claude Denagtergal was also very critical. Resources for social purposes were required in particular in times of crisis. But now making cuts was the only mantra and the Member States would become increasingly more nationalistic. What was positive said Denagtergal was the fact that the European Social Fund had been given a special mention and that it had been allocated 25 % of the entire Structural Fund resources. Hence, EUR 82 billion would be available, which was an increase compared to the current EU Multiannual Financial Framework. However, it was difficult to comprehend why the Commission intended to let a number of useful projects peter out, for example a programme, which is aimed at helping those most in need, when in fact, a special target of the EU2020 Strategy had been the reduction of poverty. Then again, EUR 2 billion had been earmarked for food aids - the worry was that this money would benefit the agricultural sector. Nevertheless, with regard to the European Globalisation Fund, the Commission proposes an opening for agricultural purposes. Hence, 2.5 of the overall EUR 3 billion earmarked could go to the agricultural sector after all. Even though agriculture already has a pillar of its own. This undermines the actual purpose of the fund - to support people who have lost their jobs.
The European Economic and Social Committee as well as the European Parliament are currently working on statements on the EU Multiannual Financial Framework. With regard to individual draft proposals on the respective EU Programmes from 2014, the European Parliament will have a major say within the scope of the co-decision procedure. However, the Council decides on the volume of the EU budget whilst the European Parliament has no more powers than agreeing with or rejecting the result of the Council negotiations. In order for the EU Multiannual Financial Framework coming into force within the agreed time, negotiations have to be concluded by the end of 2012.