Brussels, 12/11/2009 (Agence Europe) - On the sidelines of the EP plenary session on Thursday 12 November, MEP Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France) announced that he had received assurances from European Commission President José Manuel Barroso that the document “Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe”, the first draft of which brought a largely negative reaction, will not be adopted this year, but in the course of the first half of 2010. This means that it will be the new Commission (Barroso II) which will be responsible for opening discussion on the mid-term EU budget review.
“The European Council and the Parliament did, indeed, agree that this updating should take place in 2008-2009, but that was four years ago - an eternity away! In the meantime we have had the Lisbon Treaty, the first Irish referendum, the financial downturn, the delay in the Treaty's coming into effect: so it is wiser to leave it to the new Commission to present its political programme and how the programme will translate in financial terms, at the same time,” Lamassoure said, thanking Barroso for delaying the publication of the Commission's proposals on the new budget policy until the start of next year.
Oral question to Commission on renationalisation of CAP
At the workshop on the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2013, which took place on Tuesday 10 November (see EUROPE 10017), chairman of the EP agriculture committee Paolo De Castro (S&D, Italy) asked Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel about the controversial draft document on the review of the EU budget, which recommends reducing agricultural spending so as to be able to fund major EU priorities (growth and employment, energy and climate, EU external action). De Castro criticised the approach which consisted of speaking about budget and compatibility before even defining policy objectives and instruments. He said that the draft “doesn't seem to be on the right lines” with regard to the interests of EU farmers. If the CAP faces many challenges, as the document notes (feeding people, meeting consumer expectations on quality, contributing to tackling climate change, safeguarding biodiversity, managing water resources, improving animal welfare), “it would seem paradoxical to propose a significant reduction in funding” for the CAP, he argued. He also criticised the ideas contained in the text on co-funding of expenditure on the first pillar of the CAP (direct aid and market spending), which would open up the way for renationalising CAP expenditure. De Castro stated that the EP opposed any attempt to renationalise this spending. The EP agriculture committee unanimously approved the decision to put an oral question to the Commission at the next EP plenary session on this issue. (L.C./transl.rt)