Reimer Böge

This week is make or break time for the European parliament’s budget talks with the EU presidency. Reimer Böge talks to Bruno Waterfield.

Reimer Böge is the European parliament’s lead negotiator on Europe’s financing from 2007 to 2013. After acrimonious and messy talks between member states, MEPs entered the New Year by rejecting an EU budget deal done at a late night Christmas summit.

The timetable has gone a little astray – negotiations were initially expected to be concluded for this week’s plenary session after three “trialogue” meetings between parliament, Austrian EU presidency and European commission. But Böge is cautiously optimistic that a fourth round of negotiations, on Tuesday, will finally unlock a deal.

“There is a chance now to come to an agreement during the fourth trialogue. Of course, nothing is agreed
until everything is agreed. We made some progress on reform, on parliament’s rights. Of course, the question of the review clause and the question of more flexibility are still in debate.”

The experienced German Christian Democrat – he became an MEP in 1989 – seems as worried about
machinations behind closed Coreper doors as with outstanding parliament demands. If some national governments use Coreper – the committee of permanent representatives – to roll back EU presidency wording from the third March 21 talks then, warns Böge, all bets are off.

“It is very important to say that the Austrian presidency has to go back with certain agreements to Coreper to get the green light. If the Coreper reopens certain questions again, we will also go back to some of our original demands and positions,” he insists. “If everybody is ready to compromise there is a chance on Tuesday to get a result.”

Behind parliament’s negotiating position is a postponed resolution, agreed by the parliament’s budget
committee, tearing up financial planning procedures by rejecting an inter-institutional agreement between
parliament, national governments represented by Council of the EU and commission.

Böge and his committee colleagues shelved threats to move back to annual Brussels spending rounds only because progress had been made.

“We had a constructive third trialogue and the reason to postpone the resolution was to honour these constructive talks and not raise emotions in parliament or the council. It was clear that we would not come to a final result but at the same time we made more progress than we expected the week before,” he says.

Failure, or attempts by some national governments to limit transparency or parliament’s rights in future
budget talks, could see the resolution dusted off for Thursday’s plenary votes. But, anyway, Böge will be
reporting back on April 5 on talks expected to eat into the night on Tuesday.

“It is foreseen that we will have a declaration in Strasbourg on Wednesday morning on the fourth trialogue – whether positive or negative. The plenary and public have the right to know what was going on the night before. There is a 50/50 chance to come to agreement and we should not be too optimistic, there will still be some difficult hours of negotiations. But the chance is there.”

Agreement on April 4 should still see Europe’s financing timetable stay on track for spending to begin in January 2007 – with a schedule less tight than the last EU financing package. “We are still in good time. The parallel ongoing process on the legislative programmes is mainly guaranteed so there is no problem to implement the multi-annual programmes from January 2007.”

Key – but not absolutely critical – will be cash. The parliament has demanded an extra €12bn as the price of a deal. The EU presidency has dangled a meagre €1.5bn to €2bn. Böge explains the sums behind the parliament figure, which is larger than the budget that sank talks under the Luxembourg EU presidency last June.

“Finally, we will discuss figures. During the third trialogue, the presidency offered something like €1.8bn on
top of the €862bn decided in December. We made a political analysis of the outcome from last December
on certain programmes based on the calculations of the commission."

"We saw that certain programmes, Erasmus, Leonardo, Trans-European Networks, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programmes, culture, youth and consumer protection are underfinanced."

"This political analysis leads us to present the figure of a €12bn increase which is really needed to protect these European added value programmes. Of course, the council said this is unacceptable, this is far too much and will never be accepted. But we wanted to show at this state of play where the political deficits lie. The council has to take responsibility.”

He is not saying if signals of more cash on offer have come from a March 22 summit of Europe’s leaders. Or if German Chancellor and EU paymaster Angela Merkel has dropped any hints to Christian Democrat
MEPs. “I will not talk in public about talks, phone calls and exchanges of views I have had over the last week. There were many talks with many governments at many levels, not just with one government.”

Linked to the cash demands are parliament calls for the EU’s flexibility budgets to be boosted and reformed. The commission has revised downwards a February sum of €700m to €400m but for Böge the issue of how money can be spent and the procedure for agreeing it, currently resting on unanimity among member states,
is as crucial.

“Mobilisation of the flexibility instrument must in future be based on a qualified majority in the council and on absolute majority in the plenary of the European parliament,” he said. “It makes no sense in talking about €400m or €700m without talking about a simplified procedure.”

The issue of parliament’s rights during an EU budget review in 2008/2009 is perhaps the most important issue. A rethink of Europe’s financing, including CAP spending, the UK rebate and calls for an EU tax, is sensitive for both sides.

The question of “own resources” or of how national governments make contributions to the EU will strike to the heart of any review. Will parliament have a veto, as with the current financial perspective, or will it be an onlooker?

“This is one of the difficult key questions where we did not come to agreement. I think it is very necessary that within the review clause parliament’s rights are guaranteed. Of course, the council hates it that the question of own resources shall be mentioned,” says Böge.“If a review clause foresees change to existing rules, parliament’s rights are touched and therefore the role of parliament must clearly be defined." "It is also very clear that, as far as the duration of the financial perspective is defined, the result will bind a new parliament and commission in 2009 for more than half their mandates. There is a certain link to result of the outcome, duration and the review clause.”

Böge is floating a convention of national and European parliamentarians to bridge the gap. “It is very clear that to make progress on the system of own resources national parliaments need to be involved and to give the green light. Our idea is to hold a conference together with national parliaments. It helps the council itself – it is not against the council. To have an agreement on own resources between the member states it is very clear that we will get one only if national parliaments agree on it. Therefore, our idea is very helpful for the council to come to an agreement within the review clause.”

A big gain for the parliament has been progress on the issue of certifying that the 80 per cent of EU funding administered nationally is properly spent. “I think it is very important to say that the reforms we are asking for, to have clearer defined system of certification from the member states, have a money value. Asking for reforms, asking for new financial instruments to modernise the budget procedure, means saving a lot of money spent on administrative burdens under the present rules. Now I think we have found a text that could be accepted so in future the work of the Court of Auditors could become more based on these declarations.”

As MEPs gather in Strasbourg, Böge is reminding colleagues that concessions have been made because parliament held firm. MEPs can not blink now, he argues, as budget talks enter the endgame. “Unity is the only chance parliament has in such negotiations. If the other side gets the impression parliament is divided, we will be out of the game.”

Originally published in the April 3 edition of the Parliament Magazine

• Previous article
• Next article