Ahead of the Subsidiarity Conference in Bregenz (Austria), the President of the Committee of the Regions, Karl-Heinz Lambertz, spoke with EUROPE on 14 November about the major issues of concern to local and regional authorities, including the future of cohesion policy and the Union, and the latest developments in Italy and Brexit. (Interview by Pascal Hansens)
Agence Europe - On 15 and 16 November, the Conference on Subsidiarity is being held in Bregenz. What do you expect from this one?
Karl-Heinz Lambertz - I expect a good discussion in Bregenz on the concrete proposals contained in the recent European Commission Communication on Subsidiarity, and coming from the Subsidiarity Task Force (see EUROPE 12123). The objective will be to develop an enhanced and constructive application of subsidiarity in the EU decision-making process. The key aspect of this new working method -'active subsidiarity' - is to ensure there is sufficient added value in all EU legislation, in the interest of our citizens.
This has to be seen as part of a full package of proposals put forward by the Task Force, and now by the Commission, in order to improve the way we construct EU legislation, and strengthen added value. The Task Force put forward nine political recommendations backed up by 36 concrete proposals for action to improve the way the EU does its work. Many of these proposals relate to increasing the involvement and input of local and regional authorities in this process.
The co-legislators are working intensively on proposals for the next budget cycle and on cohesion policy, which has seen its budget reduced by 10% or even 46% for the Cohesion Fund. Are the negotiations going in the right direction, and above all, at the pace you want?
If we put aside the issues relating to the cohesion policy budget - which are still of great concern to us - we can say that work on the future regulations for implementing cohesion policy is progressing in the right direction with the European Parliament. As proof of this, I would like to mention the excellent cooperation of the rapporteurs of the European Committee of the Regions with their counterparts in the European Parliament. Our opinions will be definitively adopted on 5 December next, during our plenary session, and we are confident that our proposed amendments will be reflected in Parliament's reports.
On the other hand, however, as regards the work of the Council of the European Union, our concerns are very serious. With the Cohesion Alliance, we had succeeded in reintroducing, in the European Commission's proposals, the principles of multi-level governance and partnership as well as integrated development instruments, which alone can ensure results in line with the expectations of citizens on the ground. However, it would appear that the EU Council, in the interest of simplification, is reversing these advances. The simplification of European policies cannot mean their recentralisation. We remain very committed to this issue and I have written a letter to the ministers of the Twenty-Seven tasked with the cohesion policy to alert them to this issue.
The negotiations on Brexit are progressing (see other news). We hear a lot from the Member States, less from the regions. Do you have regular contacts with Michel Barnier? And with the British government?
The European Committee of the Regions has been in regular contact with Michel Barnier and his team, and we have had several opportunities to discuss with him the specific concerns of regions and local authorities with regards to the consequences of Brexit. In fact, he will be participating once again at our Plenary Session on 6 December (see other news).
Our Committee has had significant engagement with UK local and regional authorities, both through our own UK delegation and also directly with representatives of the City of London, the Scottish parliament and the Welsh Assembly. We also visited the Irish border area, both North and South, to see first hand the issues linked to the protection of the Good Friday peace agreement.
We have been very clear: to protect not only the regional economies on both side of the Irish border and the Peace Agreement, we cannot accept a hard border. It is in the interest of both British and EU regions that a permanent mechanism and agreement is put in place.
As our study with Eurochambres showed, the impact of Brexit for each region in the EU will not be the same, and will depend on the kind of Brexit that is agreed at the very end of the process. The EU needs to be ready to support those regions and cities that are most affected, by shoring up long-term investment and showing solidarity measures to help them through the transition.
Italy and the European Commission are in a bickering mood on the budgetary issue. Italy is exposed to an excessive deficit procedure. Do you think that activating this procedure, and potentially the macroeconomic conditions procedure, would be counter-productive and would only strengthen the Italian populist government?
First of all, when we set ourselves common rules, we must respect them. It is not credible to decide unilaterally to leave the Community framework, without taking into account your country's European commitments. On the contrary, this does not prevent us from engaging in a parallel political debate to change them.
You know my position: I believe that it is necessary to loosen the stranglehold of the Stability and Growth Pact in order to boost public investment in Europe, which is, in the opinion of all the major international organisations, at a level far too low to ensure sustainable and inclusive growth throughout the continent. There are balanced proposals to make it more flexible, such as removing national co-financing for European investment programmes from the calculation of public deficits. It is on the basis of these constructive solutions that we must work, while respecting European commitments.
Secondly, it is important to recall that the European Committee of the Regions has always formally opposed the principle of macroeconomic conditionality for cohesion policy. Beyond the fact that this mechanism attacks the wrong target by penalising regions and cities for decisions taken at national level, this type of measure only gives eurosceptics something to grind. I am not sure that this is the objective currently being pursued.