Barring surprises, it is very unlikely that the member states will manage to conclude an agreement on the EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 before the elections of May 2019, despite the Commission's hopes.
On Wednesday 12 September, the Austrian Presidency of the Council presented the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU (Coreper) with a 'stock-take' on the 2021-2027 MFF, showing differences of opinion on most subjects.
This report provides that in December of this year, the EU leaders will be presented only with a 'progress report' on the state of discussions on the next MFF. This agenda will make the chance of an agreement at European Council level before May 2019 virtually non-existent.
Even so, the Austrian Presidency hopes to continue the debates at a swift pace, so as to identify the elements of the future negotiating box, a document aiming to facilitate a compromise at Council.
Debate at Council on 18 September. On 18 September, the General Affairs Council of the EU will hold a debate on the post-2020 MFF dossier, with the Austrian Presidency having prepared two questions for the delegations: firstly, whether the EU's priorities and European added value are fully reflected in the Commission's proposals and secondly, their agreement with the allocation of EU funds set out for various political areas.
The Presidency 'stock-take' report reviews the various subjects.
Term. The delegations broadly support the term of seven years proposed (2021-2027).
Structure. Most of the delegations accept the seven headings proposed and considered that the proposal better reflects the priorities agreed by the EU leaders.
Differences over priorities. The Commission has proposed to reduce the budget for agriculture and cohesion to take account of Brexit and pay for the new priorities.
The document reiterates that many delegations stressed that even though a modern budget must respond to challenges “it should at the same time preserve the traditional Treaty-based policies” (cohesion and agriculture). Others, in the opposite corner, would prefer the money to focus more on the new challenges and are calling for extra savings to be made on the traditional policies.
Some delegations welcomed the proposal to create a 'European Peace Facility' and a 'European Investment Stabilisation Mechanism', whilst others oppose this.
Migration. The delegations welcomed the Commission's proposals (migration, border management, security, defence). However, some of them are calling for guarantees that the new political priorities will not be paid for at the expense of the existing ones.
EDF. The proposed budgetisation of the European Development Fund (EDF) is welcomed by some countries, whilst others prefer the status quo, so as to reduce pressure on scarce resources (for instance, cohesion and agriculture), the document explains.
Own resources. A large majority of the Council recognises that the resource based on GNI (gross national income) responds to the objectives and therefore sees no need to reduce its share.
However, certain delegations welcome the proposed 'basket' of new resources, which would help to reduce national (GNI-based) contributions. Each of the new own resources proposed by the Commission is supported by some delegations and rejected by others and certain countries have proposed alternative new own resources, such as a financial transactions tax or a digital tax. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)