The official documents do not provide an overall or comprehensive insight into the economic, financial and political interests surrounding the dossier for future financing of Community activity, namely the new financial perspectives for the 2014-2020 period (see this column yesterday). Certain aspects remain partially in the shade and divergences have been left out of the official debate. In fact, the interests and opinions of the member states and different political forces do not coincide on several major subjects. None of them are well known and I will therefore highlight them as part of this exploration. Other interests have been left out, sometimes deliberately. The new financial perspectives, as we are aware, will define the framework, objectives and scale of the annual EU budgets as from 2014. The European Parliament's budgets committee has requested appropriate EP participation in the negotiations. Alain Lamassoure, the president of this committee, has also requested that, as far as the interlocutors at the Parliament are concerned, this dossier be handled by the European Council (therefore, by the heads of state and government) because the ministers technically responsible at the Budget Council “say no to everything out of principle”. The five essential aspects that I would like to highlight are as follow:
1. Common agricultural policy (CAP) and cohesion policy represent the two main chapters in European spending. The demand not to reduce their funding has in principle been largely supported by a majority of member states, but not by all. Parliament took position in favour of partially revising the CAP (see this column in EUROPE 10179 in connection with the Lyon report adopted last July) and it approved a specific resolution supporting cohesion policy (see EUROPE 10232, with the declaration by Danuta Hübner at the end of the vote) demanding, at the same time, that the European Social Funds be maintained or strengthened.
2. Direct support to farmers could not, in the opinion of certain member states, be uniform. European financing of the CAP, by removing the idea of EU/member state co-financing, would not automatically mean that direct aid to farmers would have the same level everywhere. According to a press release by the French minister for agriculture, Bruno Le Maire, following a meeting with his Italian colleague Giancarlo Galan (EUROPE 10237), this aid must take into account the diversity of different economic conditions in Europe, as well as the net contribution of each member state to the Community budget. Member states from central and Eastern Europe do not all agree. At the same time, we can read statements of the following kind: “If the Treaty of Rome were concluded today, it would not include any provisions on agriculture”. Nothing is as yet in the bag.
3. The “British rebate” has not, to my knowledge, led to any formal debates at the Community institutions yet. The issue has, however, been raised in France, a member state where the British rebate has a significant impact. According to a German newspaper, the European commissioner for budgetary affairs, Janusz Lewandowski, is said to have confirmed that “the rebate for Great Britain can no longer be justified”. London considers that this rebate, obtained by Mrs Thatcher due to the low level of agricultural funding received by her country, is justified and non-negotiable. The spat on this subject will be one of the most sensitive aspects involved in future negotiations.
4. The increase in research/development and innovation funding has in principle been agreed but with a few reservations and misgivings. For example, the costs and even the usefulness of the Iter project have been contested and the delays involved in the Galileo project have also been subject to criticism. Certain quarters are asking whether a number of industrial giants and research bodies are taking advantage of the situation to increase the costs (in comparison to the forecasts they themselves had made) when abandoning a project that has received such funding would be unthinkable. Other political or economic forces underline the fact that Europe cannot risk remaining on the sidelines of projects that will have a decisive impact on the future. It is likely that large-scale projects will be retained but with greater controls on their real impact, cost and results, together with greater but more monitored funding.
5. Aid to third countries. Certain aspects of EU aid to third countries are the subject of a number of comments and exchanges of views, which remain particularly discreet, given the sensitive nature of the subject and the importance of common foreign policy.
This column intends to return to this domain, as well as the action by the European Federalist Movement to create new own resources. (F.R./transl.fl)