18 February 2013

Van Rompuy urges Council/EP to conclude MFF swiftly

Compared to the previous (2007-2013) framework, overall spending ceilings have been slightly reduced, but within those ceilings a clear shift of priorities has taken place, with the share of investments for growth and employment rising. This reflects the two key considerations behind our choices: adapting to severe budgetary constraints across Europe, whilst investing for the future.

As is clear from press reports, each of the leaders tried to get the best deal for their own country and citizens. This is perfectly legitimate, as is the fact that some focused more on the concerns of their taxpayers and others on the needs of beneficiaries. The important thing for me is that together we reached agreement and that it was a good deal for Europe as a whole.

We had to find agreement on three parameters: the size, spending priorities and the sources of revenue, aiming at the same time for a modernised, realistic budget, focussed on the most pressing needs.

First, on the size: in the current economic circumstances, the only option was a budget of moderation. Belts are being tightened across Europe, and the Union could not be an exception. Some consider the reduction of 3 per cent in the overall ceiling of commitments to be a setback for Europe. It is not. Just like everywhere else in Europe, much of the focus is on doing more with less money and ensuring that each euro goes where it can make the most impact. More Europe doesn't necessarily mean more money.

But let me also point out that this reduction in the ceiling in commitments may not even result in a reduction in actual payments in the annual budgets that you adopt. Over the last seven years, payments voted by the Parliament were well below the MFF ceiling, totalling €875 billion over the whole period -- much lower than the €908 billion foreseen now for the seven years ahead.

In any case, the MFF ceilings were never going to change, neither upwards or downwards, by more than a few percentage points, given the need for unanimity, yet some political commentary has focussed exclusively on that aspect. Back in November, I myself put forward a proposal for an overall commitment ceiling of €970 billion, and the final agreement of €960 billion was close to this figure -- even though several Member States wanted to go €30bn or more below my proposal. It is when we look at the content of spending, that there are real changes, and these changes deserve to be welcomed. Their significance is far greater than the small change to the overall ceiling, and merits far more attention...

Allow me also to say a few words about a specific criticism that has been made about this agreement, namely on the discrepancy between commitments and payments. As a matter of fact, this is very close to what was foreseen in the last MFF, but this time we worked on a scheme to bridge the gap. We agreed on greater flexibility - even to "maximum possible flexibility" - so that there will be adequate payment appropriations to meet legal commitments. The need for this was eloquently described to us by your own President, Martin Schulz, at the beginning of our meeting.

Indeed, I would underline that the points made by the Parliament have been crucial throughout this process, perhaps more than you may have thought. Parliament certainly helped make the case that EU spending is not directly comparable to national spending, focussed as it is on investment potential. Parliament kept alive the issue of own resources, which few Member States had the appetite to consider. Parliament pressed with some success for a new flexibility clause and for a review clause, both of which are mentioned in the European Council conclusions. And Parliament constantly focussed attention on need to shift resources to the new pro-growth policy areas. Even if this has not been done to the extent proposed in the Commission's initial proposal, any comparison of like with like - of this MFF compared to the previous one - shows that the increase is substantial. Even on the overall level of expenditure, I recall that when the last MFF was negotiated, the Commission's proposal was reduced by much more: - 13 per cent compared to 8 per cent this time.

Reaching an agreement showed a sense of collective responsibility from Europe’s leaders, but we were well aware that a final agreement must still be reached with the Parliament. I reminded my colleagues that all that European Council decided was a mandate - albeit a very strong one - for the ordinary Council and its Presidency to take forward in discussion with the Parliament. In doing so, the European Council fulfilled its role under Article 15 of the Treaty, to "define the general political directions and priorities" of the Union. We now hand over to the Council to work with the Parliament for the adoption of the necessary acts.

And let us not forget: beneficiaries count on this new MFF from 1 January 2014. A seven‑year investment budget is a strong factor of predictability. Without it, we can only commit money for one year at a time. For scientists, non-governmental organisations and universities, for local and regional authorities across Europe, that would be a major setback. Big projects depend on a longer-term perspective. At a moment when confidence in our economies gradually returns, sealing this seven-year perspective for Europe will be a positive sign.

To avoid any delays and uncertainty, I urge Council and the Parliament to conclude swiftly. The alternative of falling back on the ceilings laid down in the last year of the previous MFF, would lock us into the existing pattern of expenditure, lose the reforms that have been agreed and lead us to deadlock in the renewal of the necessary legal bases. I therefore wish you and the Irish Council Presidency the very best in taking this forward. I am still convinced that we can reach an overall agreement on the MFF. An open discussion, based on facts and figures, will make this possible.

Full speech

© European Council