For the President of the EU Committee of the Regions, Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso, the prospect of working on the basis of an annual budget, should the European Parliament and Council of Ministers fail to agree on the EU’s multiannual budget, is not feasible in the case of cohesion policy. “We cannot allow this to happen,” he told the European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development (REGI), on 19 February, alluding to the multiannual nature of European Structural Fund programming. “We absolutely need a growth instrument over seven years. […] The worst thing that could happen would be to not have a budget.”

Valcárcel Siso urged MEPs to “avoid rejecting” the budget, although he admits that he is only “moderately satisfied” with the result of the 8 February summit. An 8.5% reduction in the cohesion policy budget from the current period “is a serious cut, although we cannot forget that only one year ago a number of member states were calling for its dismantling,” he said. The fact that it “continues to stand as an essential pillar of the EU budget” is therefore cause for satisfaction for the CoR president. He is also pleased with the Council’s agreement on a new category of transition regions (GDP per capita of 75% to 90% of the EU average) and on the new mechanism to combat youth unemployment. The president noted: “The Structural Funds represent more than one third of public investments for at least half the EU member states”.

He also called for adjustments to the agreement, however. “Approving the budget as proposed by the European Council is not what we want”. It is well known that local and regional authorities do not support macroeconomic conditionality or the performance reserve, on which the heads of state and government agreed. They are on the same wavelength as Parliament on this point. Valcárcel Siso pressed MEPs to take a different tack. “Some tend to forget that the institutional context in which we operate has nothing to do with what it used to be,” he said. He was alluding to co-decision on the legislative elements of the cohesion package, such as macroeconomic conditionality and the performance reserve.

AND MEPS?

One of the leading figures of REGI, Lambert Van Nistelrooij (EPP, Netherlands), co-rapporteur on the general regulation on the Structural Funds, also stressed the need to operate with a framework valid for seven years. “We cannot endanger that,” he said. Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland), rapporteur on the ERDF, spoke of “Parliament’s very extreme position,” referring to the possibility of the agreement being rejected. REGI Chair Danuta Hübner (EPP, Poland) also spoke out against using the solution of the annual budget, noting that the amounts foreseen at least made it possible to safeguard the architecture of cohesion policy.

But some in REGI are more radical. François Alfonsi (Greens-EFA, France) spoke of a “political rift” in connection with the budget. “This is the first time that the Eurosceptics have gotten the upper hand. Everyone caved in to [British Prime Minister David] Cameron. I think that Parliament has to react strongly, that there has to be a crisis.” In the same vein, Younous Omarjee (GUE-NGL, France) does not want to hear that “we need an agreement at all costs”. “It is important not to be put before a fait accompli. […] Parliament has to keep a strong position.” A member of the same group, Cornelia Ernst (Germany), said that with this agreement, “we have the impression that the Lisbon Treaty never existed. The majority of what we want was dismissed”. Maria Irigoyen Perez (S&D, Spain) spoke of an “absolutely unreasonable” budget.

Valcárcel Siso urged MEPs to “avoid rejecting” the budget, although he admits that he is only “moderately satisfied” with the result of the 8 February summit