Icon: enlarge
Chancellor Angela Merkel: Agreement on EU budget still under German Council Presidency?
Photo: Pool / Getty Images
Michael Clauss has made every effort to put the parliamentarians in a mild mood.
The member states are "extremely hesitant" to agree to a further increase in the EU's next seven-year budget.
Nevertheless, Germany's EU ambassador wrote that he wanted to "go one step further" in order to convince the EU states: Additional money could be made available for the programs that are particularly important to MPs.
The answer came promptly - and didn't sound friendly.
"I am disappointed," replied Johan Van Overtveldt, head of Parliament's Committee on Budgets, in a letter to Clauss on Thursday that was available to SPIEGEL.
Its proposals are "nothing new" and "not acceptable".
A little later, Rasmus Andresen, who sits on the parliamentary negotiating team for the Greens, added: Clauss' proposals were "in no way acceptable".
A continuation of the talks is pointless, "if one side shows hardly any willingness to compromise".
The cancellation is politically explosive for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Germany holds the EU Council Presidency, which rotates every six months until the end of the year, and Merkel is determined to complete the budget negotiations by then.
The main reason: If there is no agreement on the 1047 billion euros seven-year budget, the Corona aid package of a further 750 billion euros will also be delayed - money that is urgently needed in the crisis countries Italy, Spain and Portugal in particular.
In the end, however, the EU Parliament has to approve the budget with a majority.
And threatens with a no if his most important demands remain unfulfilled:
There should be more money for 15 programs than the member states have so far been willing to give - for research and health policy, for example.
To do this, the total volume of the budget must be increased.
The budget should contain a strict rule of law mechanism: Governments that undermine EU fundamental values and the rule of law in their countries are to be cut.
Clauss, however, strictly rejects an increase in the budget.
The heads of state and government negotiated for four days and nights in July to agree on a budget, the ambassador emphasized.
If you wanted to untie the package again, another summit would be necessary.
"That would jeopardize the entire construct," warned Clauss.
One could therefore at best think about "readjustments in a limited number of programs" which could lead to additional expenditure "in the high single-digit billion range".
There is talk of around nine billion euros.
Clauss offers 9 billion, Parliament wants 39
But that is far too little for parliamentarians.
It would have to be 39 billion euros more, replied Van Overtveldt - namely in "fresh" money and not, as Clauss suggests, from existing budget margins.
In addition, Parliament has already reduced the number of what it sees as key programs from 40 to 15.
The additional financial claims fell from the original 113 to 39 billion euros.
That corresponds to only two percent of the 1.8 trillion euros for the household and corona package, emphasized Overtveldt.
Such an increase would only be feasible by reducing other programs or by increasing the total budget.
The former is rejected by Parliament, the latter by the Council of Member States.
An EU diplomat indirectly advised parliament to read Clauss' letter carefully again.
It speaks of "creative possibilities" for making improvements to individual programs.
This could include income from fines to the EU or funds that were not called up.
So far, Parliament has had a "condensed understanding" of these possibilities.
Whether a better understanding of this would be the solution is open - especially since the trench warfare over money is not the only point where negotiations stall.
There is an even bigger problem with the rule of law mechanism.
Dispute about withdrawal of money for constitutional sinners
The EU Commission had already proposed in 2018 that member states should cancel the funds if the governments there undermine the rule of law - which was aimed primarily at Poland and Hungary.
The commission itself should identify violations that member states can only prevent the withdrawal of funds with a qualified majority.
This plan was already cleared away at the EU summit in July: Cuts should only be made if a qualified majority of states are in favor - a much higher hurdle.
The German proposal would water down the mechanism even further: it should be strictly limited to irregularities in the use of EU funds and not apply to general deficits in the rule of law.
This has met with criticism in the EU Parliament: The rule of law mechanism is no longer an issue, they say.
But Clauss sticks: "There can and will not be a mechanism of financial sanctions for member states that do not respect the rule of law," wrote the ambassador.
This is what Article 7 of the EU treaties is for.
However, Article 7 proceedings have been going on against Hungary and Poland for years.
Both fizzled out, much to the annoyance of the majority in the EU Parliament.
At least seven member states also find the German proposal too weak, especially the Netherlands.
The Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte recently made this clear to his EU counterparts that their parliament will reject the rule of law mechanism proposed by Germany.
Just last week the MPs in The Hague asked Rutte by resolution to advocate a stricter variant.
It will soon become clear how tough the fronts are on this issue: At the beginning of next week, the negotiators from Parliament, the Commission and member states will meet for the first official negotiations on the mechanism.
Icon: The mirror