MEPs MURESAN AND TAVARES SPEAK TO 'F' - MORE MONEY ON DEFENCE BUT NOT LESS ON COHESION POLICY AND AGRICULTURE - Filenews 8/3 by Charalambos Zakos
Although the visit of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets to Cyprus scheduled for last Monday and Tuesday was cancelled due to the situation in the country after the attack on the British Bases and the cancellations of flights to and from the country, MEPs Siegfried Mureşan (EPP, Romania) and Carla Tavares (S&D, Portugal) gave an interview to "F".
The two MEPs are the European Parliament's co-rapporteurs for the European Union's next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) after 2027 and are at the forefront of the negotiations on the Union's long-term budget.
In their interview, they explain why the European Parliament is calling for a larger budget than the one proposed by the European Commission, warning that the EU has to deal with an increasingly complex geopolitical environment, increased security and defence needs, as well as the challenges of competitiveness, green and digital transitions.
Siegfried Mureşan underlines that Europe needs new resources to respond to the new priorities, but without undermining policies that have supported economic and social convergence for decades, such as cohesion policy and the Common Agricultural Policy, from which the citizens of Cyprus also benefit. For this reason, the European Parliament is proposing an increase in the budget of around 10% compared to the Commission's original plan.
For her part, Carla Tavares points out that the Commission's proposal essentially maintains the current levels of funding, which, as she notes, does not meet the growing needs of the Union. Parliament calls for at least 1.27% of the EU's Gross National Income for European programmes, excluding NextGenerationEU debt repayments.
The two co-rapporteurs also express concerns about how the new budget architecture could weaken the democratic and budgetary control of the European Parliament, in particular if it leads to a greater concentration of resources in national plans. As they emphasize, the Parliament will insist on maintaining distinct European policies and programs, while ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of European funds.
Despite differences with the Commission's proposal, the two MEPs appear optimistic that the negotiations they are starting will lead to a more ambitious and strong European budget, capable of meeting the challenges of the next decade.
– As co-rapporteurs, how do you assess the European Commission's proposal to cap the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) at 1.26% of EU GNI, especially at a time when the Union is facing growing political needs and significant debt repayments?
Co-rapporteur Siegfried Mureșan: In an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment, Europe is facing more challenges and needs to ensure its security, competitiveness and digital transformation, as well as promote its strategic autonomy. However, the new priorities, such as defence, must have additional resources but not cuts in long-term policies, such as cohesion policy and agriculture, which for years have brought clear benefits to Cypriot citizens as well. That is why, as co-rapporteurs for the MFF, our proposal for the European Parliament's position is a modest 10% increase in the EU budget compared to the original draft budget tabled by the Commission.
Co-rapporteur Carla Tavares: This increase, although still not sufficient to cover all needs, is absolutely necessary: the Commission's proposal was, in essence, a continuation of the status quo in terms of amounts, but we cannot do more with less. A higher EU budget is considered essential for strategic autonomy and resilience, and it also means greater European added value for all. We are asking for at least 1.27% of the European Union's Gross National Income (GNI) for programs, excluding the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) debt repayments part. We also want the next MFF to be properly adjusted to inflation and we support the Commission's proposal to do so.
The "Rural Target"
–The proposed expenditure ceiling risks undermining EU flagship programmes. Which policy areas or programmes do you consider to be most exposed under the current proposal, and what adjustments would be necessary to ensure them?
Co-rapporteur Carla Tavares: The MFF is not just a financial tool, but a real political roadmap of the EU's priorities. Despite some positive aspects in the Commission's proposal, such as the creation of greater economies of scale, there are many elements that do not meet our expectations, whether it is the size of the MFF, its architecture, the proposed governance arrangements, the nomenclature and the different programmes.
With regard to agriculture, cohesion policy, social policy, fisheries, as well as the asylum and migration funds, Parliament has been at the forefront of criticism of merging these policies into the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs).
Co-rapporteur Siegfried Mureșan: All these policies are crucial for the EU economy and for upward convergence. That is why, during the initial informal negotiations last autumn, we proposed to the Commission to adjust its position and ensure clearer support for rural development and our regions, as well as to ensure the identity and funding of each policy.
In response to our pressure, the Commission has already offered some way out of some of these issues in its response, such as setting a 'rural target' of at least 10% of the unallocated funds of the national plans for rural areas, strengthening the role of regional and local authorities through a 'regional check' and clearer and more predictable funding for our regions. However, more work is needed to safeguard the Union's common policies and to ensure adequate funding for their respective objectives.
Co-rapporteur Carla Tavares: We appreciate the proposed strengthening of the budget for competitiveness. Nevertheless, we believe that excessive integration of programmes is detrimental, particularly to Parliament's ability to choose which policy objectives the funds are allocated to. The proposal largely covers common priorities, such as prosperity, security and defence.
However, during the negotiations in the Council, we must ensure that funding for competitiveness, innovation, infrastructure, mobility, etc. will not fall victim to the usual budget cuts. That would be disastrous for the future of the EU.
On the contrary, it should be further strengthened. It is also of the utmost importance that the EU safeguards its role as a global actor in a changing world. In this context, we are pleased that the Commission is proposing an increase in resources for external action, but we believe that it will still be insufficient. We are fully committed to safeguarding and adequately funding the EU budget, because these areas are crucial for the EU's strategic autonomy and for the Union's role in the world.
The "renationalization of funds''
–The Commission has introduced a new structure for the long-term budget. What are your main concerns about how this redesign could weaken the democratic and budgetary control of the European Parliament?
Co-rapporteur Carla Tavares: The European Parliament has a key role in institutional balance as a budgetary and legislative authority. As the only directly elected body, we represent the voice of our citizens. With regard to democratic control and financial control of the European Parliament, we want a budget that is transparent to ensure accountability. We want to fully exercise our role as a budgetary authority and as a discharge authority. This means simpler rules for beneficiaries, but also adequate safeguards and controls for managing authorities, implementing partners and oversight bodies.
Co-rapporteur Siegfried Mureșan: The new structure lacks a genuine European approach and risks renationalising EU funds. That is why we are pushing for specific/autonomous programmes for agriculture, cohesion, social policies and migration. Parliament will fight for a modern budget, but it will also fight to safeguard accountability for how taxpayers' money is spent. The next MFF can clearly evolve in terms of flexibility and simplification, but we will not compromise on transparency and the involvement of Parliament, as provided for in the Treaties.
The April interim report
–In May, Parliament adopted its priorities for the EU's long-term budget after 2027. Where do you identify the biggest gaps between the Parliament's position and the Commission's proposal, and how difficult do you expect it to be to bridge these differences in the upcoming negotiations? more ambitious and democratically accountable EU budget?
Co-rapporteur Siegfried Mureșan: After the report on our priorities and the Commission's proposal were published, we immediately started the dialogue within the Parliament and with the Commission, to see how we could bridge the differences.
Discussions with the Council must now be intensified in order to reach an agreement. Our interim report, which will be adopted next month and will be our official position in the negotiations, will call for the necessary increase in the budget, underpinned by a new own resources package, as well as a strong role for Parliament as a legislative and budgetary authority.
Co-rapporteur Carla Tavares: We are working closely with the Cyprus Presidency of the Council to ensure the timely adoption of the next long-term EU budget, preferably by the end of 2026 – a budget that takes into account our priorities, as outlined in the European Parliament's interim report.
In a way, the MFF incorporates all the challenges we face, precisely because it will determine how we respond to each of them at Union level. As we negotiate it, we must strive for a real turning point. We need a strong budget for the Union to have the means to achieve its objectives. If there is one thing we can learn from previous years, it is that resources are always limited. So let's aim for a high level of ambition!
