In Brussels on Tuesday 18 September, several European ministers took position in favour of a swift agreement on the EU's multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the period 2021-2027, whilst others stressed the problems in reaching a quality compromise on this dossier, which is the subject of differences of opinion, in the space of just a few months (see EUROPE 12094).
It is hard to predict whether an agreement on the forthcoming MFF is possible before the European elections of May 2019, as the European Commission hopes.
The Austrian Presidency of the Council hopes to help the member states to identify some elements of the future 'negotiating box'. One idea that has been mentioned would be for the European Council to decide on elements of agreement before the EP elections, an option that has not been rejected by the European Commissioner for the Budget, Günther Oettinger, who is hoping in particular to avoid a last-minute compromise in late 2020, with the consequences of delays in the 2021-2027 programming.
At a table round at the 'General Affairs' Council, several delegations (Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium, Slovakia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta and Bulgaria) recommended a rapid agreement, in 2019, on the 2021-2027 MFF. Several large EU countries, such as Germany and France, were fairly reticent on this point. Poland, which has predicted difficult debates, agrees that negotiations should be concluded rapidly, “but the main thing is the quality of the compromise”, the Polish minister said. Italy agrees that the debates could end up taking a long time.
No to cutting CAP and cohesion budgets. Most countries (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Belgium, Ireland, Estonia, Slovenia, Greece, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland, Croatia, Cyprus and Malta) oppose the proposals to reduce the agriculture and/or cohesion budgets.
Sweden and Denmark, on the other hand, want more cuts to traditional spending, with the Netherlands lining up in favour of reducing certain expenditure.
Germany stressed that a balance is needed between the new priorities and traditional policies.
Oettinger pointed out that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom will lead to a loss of €84 million, “and so without reductions, we cannot pay for large projects”.
Cohesion. The Commissioner acknowledged that the cohesion cuts would affect the countries differently. Hungary lamented what it described as a “diabolisation” of the cohesion policy and a proposal that will cost the country 24% of its envelope.
Oettinger confirmed that he hopes to review the Berlin method (used to calculate the national envelopes, which is based mainly on gross national income per head of population), adding additional criteria, such as unemployment rate, demography, climate change and migrants. He stressed that he was open to compromises on this issue.
Conditionality. Several countries (including France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium) supported a tighter link between the disbursement of European funds and respect for the rule of law. In the opposite corner, Hungary and Poland expressed misgivings about this proposal (deepening the debate, legal issues, etc.).
Migration. Spain insisted on a policy of integrating migrants, with a European coordination agency to examine applications, citing the example of the American 'green card'.
Italy considers that it is not just illegal immigration that should be considered, but also the countries of origin. The aim is an overall responsibility, which should be reflected in the budget.
Hungary laid emphasis on the need to reinforce the protection of the external borders and the fight against illegal migration flows and stressed the need to avoid “anything that may attract migrants”.
Own resources. Several delegations supported the creation of new own resources (France referred to the digital tax, Spain climate change or the fight against tax fraud, Italy a tax on major polluters) and the removal of rebates (France, Spain, Greece and Portugal).
Finally, France and Poland took position against including the EDF (European Development Fund) in the EU budget and the Czech Republic against a compulsory limit on direct agricultural aid. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)