MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK POST 2020 MAIN CHALLENGES European Economic and Social Committee MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK POST 2020 MAIN CHALLENGES Stefano Palmieri Extraordinary meeting Group II Sofia June 21st, 2018

“Europeans need more and better Europe” The size of the EU budget as percentage of Gross National Income (GNI) Commitments ceiling in % EU GNI European Development Fund *2014-2020 estimated commitments (UK expenditure excluded) in % EU27 GNI ** European Development Fund integrated (“budgetised”) Source: European Commission

A GENERAL VIEW A lack of transparency and clarity over the figures and methodology used in the MFF proposal (no comparative data and mix of current and costant prices) The cuts are much higher and the increases are much lower No mainstreaming of the SDGs to all EU programmes The COM proposal goes against solidarity and progressive financial investments and play them against security and defence

Some “quantitative” doubts about more Europe The cuts are much higher and the increases are much lower A more than -15% cut in agriculture (vs. COM stated -5% cut) including more than 10% in direct payments and more than 25% in rural development after deducting UK amounts Around -10% cut in cohesion (vs COM stated -7% cut) including a 45% reduction to the Cohesion Fund after deducting UK amounts; Around 13% increase in research (vs COM stated 50%) without deducting UK amounts; A 77% increase in Erasmus+ (vs COM stated doubling) without deducting UK amounts.

Social Progress Index 2016 Social progress can be defined as a society’s capacity to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, to establish the basis for people and communities to improve and sustain their quality of life and to create the conditions for people to reach their full potential.

SPI Sub-indices - 2016

FROM QUALITATIVE POINT SOME TIMID STEPS FORWARD To cancel the principle of “just retour” at the core of “the rebate and the rebate of the rebate” The basic principle of the EU Budget must to deliver European Added Value

EESC proposal to considers with an high level of European Added Value the following programmes medium- to long-term investments in economic, social and environmental development, Going to re-launch employment, innovation and competitiveness of the European System programme act to protecting the most disadvantaged regions and most vulnerable social groups and responding flexibly and promptly to asymmetric shocks and unexpected crises in the Eurozone and EU

Some “qualitative” doubts about better Europe The conditionality of the rule of law The conditionality of the Structural reforms

Two ghosts in the mist... Social Pillar Financial Transaction Tax

The first one... November 2017 – Goteborgh Summit on Fair jobs and growth Was declared the Social Right one of the European Pillar of the EU Which programme to realize the Social Pillar? ... Social Fund ?

The second one... To increase the “Own Resource of the Union” that could ensure that Brexit doesn’t lead to an increase in direct contributions of the MS through: A levy for non-recycled plastic packaging (7.0 billions € year); A share of the Emission Trading System revenues (1.3-3.0 billions € per year); A revenue based on the receipts from a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax base (12.0 billions € per year) 12% of the total resources 22.0 billions € per year

The second one... No mention to the Financial Transaction Tax notwithstanding the quite good judgement from HLGOR By 2020, about EUR 54 billion could have been raised to finance the EU budget. This would have reduced the GNI-based contributions by around 50%. Commission estimates in 2013 found that the revenues of the tax could be between EUR 30 and 35 billion on a yearly basis, if the original FTT proposal had been applied to the EU-11.

The FTT global score from HLGOR

The MFF 2020-2027 approval process SIBIU 9TH MAY 2019 TODAY

THANKS stefano.palmieri@eesc.europa.eu European Economic and Social Committee