In anticipation of the special EU summit on February 20 in Brussels, the European Parliament has made it clear to the European heads of government what the EUâs multiannual budget must at least meet. New sources of revenue must be tapped. If necessary, Strasbourg threatens to vote against the budget plans of the heads of government.
EU President Michel has convened the prime ministers and heads of state for an extraordinary summit in Brussels because the major disagreements over revenue and expenditure threaten to bring the functioning of the EU machinery to a halt from 2021 onward.
It is still unclear whether the summit will last one, two, or three days. EU President Michel has said that unanimity among the EU leaders must be reached regardless. They still have no common position. Austria has already threatened to vote against any kind of increase.
The European Parliament established its position on the financial frameworks in November 2018. Basically, it means that the EU must decide what it wants to do, that the task portfolio and policy are leading, and that the expenditures follow from that. The European Commission largely agrees with this approach. There is considerable criticism in Brussels and Strasbourg of prime ministers and ministers who only talk about money.
An example is the call from the heads of state who say that urgently 10,000 extra customs and police officers must be stationed at the European borders against the arrival of illegal immigrants, but then the finance ministers do not allocate the money for it. The same applies for Climate Policy: everyone agrees something must be done as soon as possible, but the frugal EU countries apparently do not want to spend money on it.
Members of the European Parliament will once again argue today for an ambitious Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2021-2027. That budget must free up enough money, not only for all existing tasks and activities, but also for important new matters such as climate action, research, digitization, support for youth employment, and small and medium-sized enterprises. At the same time, existing EU subsidies for rural communities, farmers, and poorer regions must remain intact.
The core demand of the European Parliament is that the multiannual budget must include ânew revenuesâ in any case. There has been talk for some time now of introducing an EU deposit system on plastic bottles. A few ministers oppose this because retailers and industries in their countries are against it.
There is also talk within the EU of introducing some kind of internet/advertising tax. Some countries are still against this out of fear of American countermeasures. Furthermore, the penalty and sanction for euro-unfriendly EU countries is controversial. There are plans to withdraw subsidies from EU countries (such as Poland and Hungary) if they do not comply with EU behavioral rules.
For such new sources of revenue, it concerns âtaxes,â and under EU rules, unanimity among the prime ministers and ministers is required. In the European Parliament, such far-reaching decisions can be adopted by a simple majority.
Dutch PvdA MEP Paul Tang said on the eve of the plenary debate that for the social democrats a modern and effective budget is more important than an arbitrary figure. According to him, the rigid stance of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, who fixate on a maximum of 1.00%, stands in the way of progress.
Other European Parliament groups also criticized the financial barriers raised so far by a few wealthy Western European countries. Dutch MEP Bas Eickhout (Greens) called it âPenny wise, Pound foolish.â