It is a battle to the death (or, better, to the last euro) that is being fought between the European Parliament and the Council on the draft budget for 2014; and which, at the moment, records the flat rejection, by the Strasbourg Assembly, of the latest version of the budget presented by the other institution, which represents the 28 national governments of the EU. A battle involving funding proposals in the order of millions or even billions of euros launched and rejected between Strasbourg and Brussels, fought on a battleground that now risks spreading to the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, i.e. the budget forecasts for the next seven years. A battle all the more serious since, to a large extent, it reflects the confrontation between two opposing visions of European economic policy: the one based on the dogma of financial recovery, whatever the cost, and the one based on the conviction that, in order to stimulate growth and occupation, it is necessary to invest more resources.
The hostilities between the two contenders had opened at the end of last year during the definition of the budget for 2013, and had been suspended thanks to a formal joint declaration signed by the presidents of the three European institutions (in addition to the Parliament and the Council it is the Commission was also involved, holder of the power to propose European laws). But they promptly exploded again now that next year's budget project has been presented to the European Parliament after the inevitable "scissoring" by the Council. Which reduced the proposal put forward by the Commission at the time to 141,8 billion in terms of commitments and 134,8 billion in terms of payments (respectively 142 billion in commitments and 135,9 billion in payments).
The first negative reaction was that of the Parliamentary Budget Committee, which at the beginning of the current month rejected the cuts proposed by the Council. "An alarming situation", said the president of the same commission Alain Lamassoure (PPE), a long-time French politician. Emphasizing that, “in the best case scenario”, the 2014 budget will record a reduction of 6% compared to this year's; and that 90% of the funds available will have to be used to complete the programs in progress. "When instead – he added – the EU has an urgent need to invest".
This reaction was followed closely by that of the Assembly meeting in plenary in Strasbourg. Who on Wednesday 23 rejected (with 480 votes in favour, 119 against and 86 abstentions) the cuts by the Council on research and employment expenses, and those for international policy (in particular concerning humanitarian aid for the Middle East and for Syrian refugees). Cuts to which Parliament has opposed a draft budget which provides for 2014 commitments for 142,6 billion and payments for 136,1 billion, ie respectively 800 million and one billion and 300 million more than the last proposal from the Council.
Considering the total amount of the budget in question, the size of this gap may not appear disproportionate to non-experts. But it is precisely on these numbers that the strenuous battle between the two European institutions is being fought. None of which has declared itself willing to take a step back. So that the procedure prescribed by the European Treaties has been resorted to when a case like this occurs: a period of conciliation has been opened which will see the 28 representatives of the Council and the same number of Parliament gathered around the same table to try to reach a compromise accepted by both parties.
If at the end of the 21 days, ie in this case on 13 November, an agreement is reached, the Council and the Parliament will have another 14 days to approve, each on their own behalf, the contents of the agreement; plus the time strictly necessary to finalize, even formally, the agreed text. But, if the attempt at conciliation fails, the Treaties provide for the ball to return to the Commission. Who will have to draw up a new budget project to be submitted once again to the approval of the Council and Parliament (whose next session will in any case open on 25 November in Strasbourg).
At this point times are tight and the positions remain distant. Reasons why at the moment the prospect of an agreement still appears distant. Also in the light of the positions taken by several parties, accompanied by the explicit alternative that has been proposed: the rejection, at the next plenary session in November in Strasbourg, of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. An alternative that refers not only to the 2014 budget, but also to the prompt approval by the Council of a "package" of measures which also includes the additions to the 2013 budget.
In this regard, on Thursday the Strasbourg Assembly, modifying the order of business, approved the request of the European Commission (from mid-November the cash register will be empty, Barroso had clearly stated) of a "top-up" of 2,7 billion to the 2013 budget. "A measure necessary to remedy an error in the estimates of the EU's own resources", clarified Giovanni La Via, head of the Italian delegation in the EPP group and rapporteur of that budget, "An act of Parliament's responsibility, which however – he added – does not erase the shortcomings of the Council that emerged a year ago during the negotiation on this year's budget".
“I would also remind the Council that rectifying the 2013 budget does not mean paying money to this or that European institution, but returning to the Member States financial resources already spent on the implementation of European programmes”, La Via also stated. Adding that, "if the Council does not approve the other amendment proposals to the 2013 budget (including the one requested by the Commission of 3,9 billion, second installment of the integration referred to in the joint declaration of last December), the Parliament it will not give its consent to the EU's seven-year budget”.
At least, if not more, equally harsh was the comment by Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian prime minister who is now president of the liberal democratic group in the European Parliament. “The Council refuses – he stated – to honor the payments foreseen for the current year, and some ratification proposals are frozen. An unacceptable method which, if not modified, would mean starting the new financial period with a deficit; a procedure that cannot and must not be institutionalised”.
“At this point everyone must be very clear in their heads that the proposals for rectification of the 2013 budget put forward by us constitute an insurmountable red line drawn by a very large majority vote in Parliament. Proposals whose complete non-acceptance by the Council would prevent Parliament from approving the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020”.
But the criticisms of the Council did not end there. Given that on the afternoon of Thursday the 24th, shortly after the Verhofstadt attack, the "load of 11" arrived in the form of an official comment by Martin Schulz, the combative president of the European Parliament. Who, given that the Strasbourg Assembly "worked effectively and quickly to ensure that the EU could pay the overdue invoices", said he was "deeply sorry that the problem of the impending cash deficit was not addressed in the same effectively and rapidly by the Commission and the Council".
“This shouldn't be the way to operate, we can't continue to muddle through between one budgetary crisis and another. Rather, the European Union needs a realistic and adequate budget to guarantee maximum efficiency, avoiding last-minute interventions”, added Schulz. Which he concluded with a jab: "If the Council does not approve the proposal to amend the budget for 3,9 billion by the end of the year - he articulated - Parliament will not give its consent to the 2014-2020 financial framework".
