Brussels, 22/05/2012 (Agence Europe) - At the meeting of the Committee of the Permanent Representatives of the Member States to the EU (Coreper) on Wednesday 16 May, many delegations rejected the inclusion of a reference in the paragraph on the negotiating box on the financial framework 2014-2020 to a reduction in the total level of direct agricultural aid. The discussions also revealed differences of opinion between the countries on macroeconomic conditionality in the field of cohesion policy and the new own resources for the EU budget. The General Affairs Council to be held in Brussels on Tuesday 29 May will for the first time discuss a full version of the negotiating box on the multi-annual financial framework 2014-2020.
At the meeting of Coreper, a small number of countries (Sweden, Czech Republic) supported paragraph 43 of the negotiating box which provides for an annual reduction of 'x' percent of the total level of direct payments allocated to the farmers of the EU. This paragraph stipulates that “the total amount available for direct payments will be reduced by 'x' % a year, from the financial year 'x' to financial year 'y'”. The United Kingdom also supports this idea. The European Commission and many of the member states (France, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Belgium and Finland) oppose this option to reduce direct aid. Several of the new member states (plus Portugal), whose direct payments are below the Community average, could possibly agree to this reduction, as long as they are exempt from this gradual reduction.
The Danish Presidency noted the large number of countries opposed to this gradual reduction of the envelope of direct payments, whilst stressing that this issue would have to be dealt with sooner or later in negotiations on the financial perspectives 2014-2020.
Cohesion.
The talks focused on the principle of macroeconomic conditionality, which provides for the structural funds to be suspended for countries which are not respecting the revised Stability Pact. A number of net contributors to the EU budget, such as Germany, Austria, Finland and France, supported this principle. France announced its reflection on a compromise solution (more progressive approach, upper limit, suspension applied to commitment appropriations rather than payment appropriations, Council decision to suspend funds).
Other countries support this principle of macroeconomic conditionality, such as Ireland, Romania, Estonia, Slovenia, Portugal, Slovakia and Poland, but have misgivings over the best way of putting this concept into operation. They feel that the Presidency's text goes into too much detail and brings with it the risk of double sanctions (on top of those laid down in the revised Stability Pact). Amongst other things, these countries called for sanctions to be limited to a certain percentage of the GDP of the country in question, for macroeconomic conditionality to be applied to expenditure other than the cohesion policy, for the suspension to be limited to commitment appropriations and for a Council decision to be required to authorise a suspension.
A third group of countries, made up, amongst others, of Spain, Greece, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and Malta, opposes any form of macroeconomic conditionality.
Own resources.
The Council is divided over the creation of a financial transaction tax (FTT) to feed into the EU budget. The countries which are in favour of the FTT include Italy, Spain, France, Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Finland. Those which do not want the tax to be an own resource are Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Malta, Sweden, Lithuania and Latvia.
The United Kingdom is implicitly opposed to the tax, because it refuses to countenance any change to the system of EU own resources. In addition, practically all countries (with the exception of Sweden and the UK) supported the proposal to remove the current VAT-based own resource and a majority of member states (Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain, France, Malta, Bulgaria, Germany and Latvia) oppose the creation of a new form of VAT-based own resource. Many countries are opposed to any form of budgetary discount or rebate (Italy, Czech Republic, Finland, Spain, France, Poland, Romania, Greece, Ireland etc), although some of them take the view that the Commission's proposal of fixed sums is a step in the right direction. Lastly, the Commission proposes a reduction of between 25% and 10% of the costs for collecting own resources. Some countries are in favour (including Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, France, Poland) and others are against (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Malta, Lithuania and Latvia). (LC/transl.fl)