Parliament had the last say in a hard-won 2014-2020 budget deal with the Council assures MEP Ivailo Kalfin, but he also calls for more focus on political goals in future.

Urging the EU to speak the same language on its multi-year budget

Mr Kalfin hello  and welcome to this interview.

it's about 40 pages  and it's a report on negotiation on the MFF -

meaning the EU budget for the next 7 years  from 2014-2020.

And the next part of the title  is 'lessons to be learned'.

If we think about the lessons to be learned,  it means that there was something wrong

during these negotiations,  what went wrong?

Yes, I would say that the basic problem  for these negotiations

was that at times were talking different  languages in the different EU institutions

the Parliament was  talking about policies and priorities,

and the Council - the Member States -  were only talking about figures,

in fact just one figure,  the maximum of the budget.

This is the big problem, we were never able  to make the Council discuss policies.

Next time, what we would  very much like to change

is to have a decent debate about  the political goals and priorities,

the budget is an instrument  to achieve those.

And even in times of austerity  in national budgets,

the EU budget is an investment tool  which is helping national policies a lot.

So this is the angle we would like to take  together with the Council.

We'd also like more cooperation  with the national parliaments

so that citizens understand  that the EU budget brings additional value.

and the amount spent from the EU budget  sometimes, most of the time,

is more than that from the national budget.

Let's look at the positive side now,  there is a mid-term review in 2016 -

it will be interesting to hear what you say,  what you will change-

and of course there is some flexibility  for this budget.

Tell us a bit more about that.  What will happen in 2016

and how are you sure that something  will really be implemented in 2016?

It is very important that the Council  indeed engages in this mid-term review

because it could theoretically be blocked  unless there is a consensus in the Council.

But it is going to be very important  to review where we are

where we want to go,  and whether the budget needs adjusting.

Secondly, we agreed upon the creation  of a high-level group on 'Own Resources'

under the chairmanship of Mr Monti  that already started working

to explore different options  for an EU budget that isn't larger

but rather more autonomous  and less of a burden on national budgets.

This is also important.  And finally of course the flexibility

which is going to allow better and more  efficient use of every euro in the budget.

Your problem is now  that we have elections in just a few weeks

meaning the MEPs discussing all this today  may not be back after the elections.

you will not have the same people  discussing and negotiating this.

How sure are you that what you  have now said will be confirmed in 2016?

This is aim of this report, this is practically  the legacy of the negotiations we had

which are handed on to the next Parliament,  to the next Commission.

They're going to address these issues  from the outset.

I'm sure that one of the questions for the  European Commission President candidate

will be whether they're committed to starting  the procedure of the mid-term review.

So, this is definitely going to be raised  from the very beginning of the next term.

OK, let's go back to your report.  The question is also 7 years,

a budget to be spread over 7 years,  for some of you this is just too long.

Within five years, some say five years  would be much better

as the situation changes,  we had a crisis,

this crisis may develop  in one way or another.

What is your argument?  -Indeed, this is the problem.

Formally, if there's no  real mid-term review, the next Parliament

will not have a say on the budget, nor will  the Commission, which is not normal.

Bringing the EU budget in line  with the length of the political cycle,

would mean discussing political  priorities and budgets at the elections

as is done in every national parliament.

Of course, thinking longer term is good  for large EU projects, for long-term projects.

But it is possible to do this  even if the MFF is squeezed to five years.

I think that politically it's much better  as by doing so you engage every parliament

and the Commission  in discussing budgets and priorities.

OK, let's see next time.  I hope to see you back after the elections.