European ministers for European affairs were divided on Monday 12 November on the timetable for the adoption of the post-2020 EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) and its scope (see EUROPE 12134, 12133). Criticisms have again been verbalised regarding the planned cuts in appropriations by the European Commission for agricultural and cohesion appropriations.
The General Affairs Council laid the foundation for the debate at the European Council in December on the MFF 2021-2027.
France and the Netherlands, in particular, said that the content of the agreement should be given priority over the timetable. For France, we must not rush. Above all, it is important to have “a good budget”, said French Minister for European Affairs Nathalie Loiseau. According to her, we should not rush to “have any form of budget before the European elections”.
Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and Slovenia, in particular, to the contrary called for a rapid agreement on the post-2020 MFF.
On behalf of the Council Presidency, Austrian Minister Gernot Blümel recalled that the Council had worked assiduously in recent weeks on the MFF 2021-2027. In December, we should have a fairly clear vision of the important issues to be decided in order to reach a compromise he said.
Günther Oettinger, the European Commissioner for the Budget, said that good progress had been made on the dossier, so as to allow the December European Council to “take up the dossier”. He warned of possible delays in the start of programmes. “We recommend the adoption of the MFF before the May 2019 elections, that is the best option”, the Commissioner said.
The 1% club. The proposed spending framework is too hight said Danish Minister Anders Samuelsen, who is calling for a reduction in the EU budget due to the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU. A “strict expenditure ceiling" at 1% of GNI is necessary, according to this country.
The MFF needs to be modernised, said Finland, which has insisted on defence, research and the CAP (especially rural development).
The Netherlands also considered that further savings should be made in agricultural and cohesion policy. It asked to take migration into account when considering the conditionality of EU funds. “Content takes precedence over speed”, said Dutch Minister Stef Blok.
Germany considered that citizens should be guaranteed the principle of modernity of the budget. The EU must take into account environmental and climate objectives and establish a link between the rule of law and the disbursement of EU funds.
Sweden has also defended a modern budget, with a reduced budgetary capacity (1% of GNI) and a reduction in agricultural appropriations.
The reduction in cohesion appropriations is not acceptable. Poland spoke of equity and protested against the decline in agricultural and cohesion funding.
Latvia referred to “sensitive” discussions on a proposal “neither fair nor equitable”. The decrease in cohesion funding amounts to 13%, protested the country.
Lithuania also spoke of an unacceptable position on cohesion.
Estonia also criticised a 24% cut in its cohesion envelope and the tripling of the national co-financing rate.
Hungary asked to review the proposed “unjustified cuts” in cohesion policy and the CAP. It criticised the proposals on the conditionality of migration policy support.
The criteria for allocating the Structural Funds should not be changed warned the Spanish delegation.
The Permanent Representative of Italy criticized the reform of the Berlin rule: changing the threshold for regions in transition would not be appropriate.
The CAP defended. Ireland has requested a MFF to support agriculture.
Portugal asked for an ambitious future MFF and protested against the cuts in the second pillar of the CAP (rural development).
Spain has requested that agricultural expenditure be maintained at its current level.
The CAP must not be sacrificed, France said. Slovenia also criticised the cuts in appropriations for the CAP. Slovakia has requested full convergence on direct aids.
Belgium stressed the need to “reconcile new EU spending with the maintenance of sound policies in the field of agriculture and cohesion”.
No to capping. The cap on direct payments should be optional, said Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Poland and Germany criticised the proposal on capping aid.
EDF. Croatia, Malta and Slovenia are against the inclusion in the budget of the European Development Fund (EDF). The Netherlands and the Czech Republic are in favour.
For research, the criterion of excellence must prevail, said Italy, Latvia, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium and Spain. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)