Sharon Bowles stressed that the package, which is expected to be adopted in plenary in June, is essential in order better to monitor member state budgets and deficits, as well as measures to determine and repair imbalances between EU economies.
What does Parliament want to achieve with this package?
Most important is the transparency issue, which also means the accountability of the member states. We want to apply reversed qualified majority voting (Council would have to vote to stop measures being imposed on members that do not correctly apply Stability and Growth Pact rules rather than vote in favour, making it easier to get the measures approved) as the normal process for economic governance measures. The European Central Bank agrees with us on this, wanting to increase the automaticity of decisions. The reason is simple: we do not trust the Council because in the past the bigger member states like France and Germany have not applied the rules. We want to be sure this cannot happen again in the future.
Then there is the issue of the fines. They are important, although we are not fond of countries that are already in trouble needing to pay a fine. Our preference is that when a country is not doing well, the situation is fixed at an earlier stage, but if action is not taken after the need is clearly indicated, fines are the ultimate sanction. Where fines are applied we would rather they were put to a common cause like the European Investment Bank than given to better off member states. It is also very important to ensure the professional independence of statistics and audits about a country's financial situation.
How important is the transparency issue?
Very important. Information relating to off-balance sheet as well as on-balance sheet exposures is necessary. Furthermore, people need to know what is going on in their own country and in Council, especially if some kind of action or recommendation that might affect them is likely. We want the member states, their parliaments and their citizens to have ownership of this project of budgetary cooperation.
Isn't there a danger that austerity measures will hinder growth and recovery?
The package does not prescribe austerity, but that is a consequence if large fiscal adjustments have to be made. This is a big part of the debate and the area where there is a difference of opinion in the Parliament. However, all reports are about stimulation and growth which is why we are pushing for the inclusion of the 2020 strategy in all the factors that are taken into consideration. The majority in the Parliament takes the view that there is enough flexibility in the Stability and Growth Pact for structural reforms, but that to discount all investment that might reduce expenditure in the future from the balance sheet is too uncertain.
Are imbalances to blame for the current crisis in the eurozone?
Well, the imbalances have not helped. In the future, this is something we need to be able to address. The countries that have a large surplus have some responsibility through the effect on the economy and interest rate decisions or through their bank lending and investment policies in the countries that are now in trouble. That is why this is not just a problem for the countries that are in trouble. We are all in this together and have to find solutions.
Can member states claim the political groups in the EP cancel each other out?
No, the vote for the package in committee was electronic so we know what the majority was for every single amendment and in most things we were together. Where we did differ, the majority was still substantial, not marginal, and that is the basis of our mandate for negotiating. The Council is in the same position; they do not have unanimity either.
What do you hope Member States have learnt since the tough negotiations with the EP on the financial supervision package?
Well, we have had co-decision on financial services for many years and have always had battles. What is new here is that we have co-decision in an area of budgetary surveillance. It was perhaps a bit of a shock for the Council to realise we have a role. However, they changed the Treaty and gave us this role. In fact in this package, there are four legislative proposals for which we have co-decision. Two are not co-decision but we are in the position to sell this to the Council as a package. So we want the Council to consider our point of view for the reports of Ford and Ferreira as well. They need to negotiate with us on the package as a whole.
Do you expect an agreement with Council before summer?
I certainly hope so. We have already been through all the proposals once in trialogue so we have started to work out where we are close and where we differ. Drafting suggestions are already being exchanged. You could say we have divided the issues into the good, the bad and the ugly. The good are where we agree already, the bad where we can find a compromise and the ugly where we are far apart and maybe we will need to give in on some points and the Council on others. The committee gave us a clear mandate to try to get a first reading agreement. However, we do not want a deal at any cost.
Full interview
© European Parliament
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article