The EU General Affairs Council stressed on Tuesday 8 January in Brussels the need to continue negotiations on the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) at a good pace in order to prepare a political agreement on this sensitive issue in autumn 2019.
This Council will return each month to this issue in an attempt to make progress before the European elections in May (see EUROPE 12161).
The Romanian Presidency of the Council has been “very ambitious” on the negotiations to be conducted on the MFF 2021-2027, on the basis of the “negotiating box” defined by the outgoing Austrian Presidency. A majority of Member States considered that this document (intended to facilitate discussions with a view to reaching an agreement) constituted a good basis for further work. On the contrary, some countries such as Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Italy have asked to amend the document to better reflect the priorities expressed.
The Romanian Presidency also wishes to bring the Council to partial general guidelines on the various sectoral policies (see other news).
The ‘negotiating box’. The Romanian Presidency hopes to “make the best possible progress in the negotiations before the European elections in May 2019” in order to prepare the European Council debate in June on the MFF 2021-2027. It will present an updated and improved version of the negotiating box.
EU Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger explained that he would prefer an agreement in October on the next MFF (before the change of the European Commission).
Quality, rather than timing. Although no delegation contested the objective of an agreement in autumn 2019 as requested by the European Council, France, Poland, Sweden and Italy considered in substance that the quality of the MFF should take precedence over the adoption timetable.
“Regarding quality, the proposals still leave much to be desired”, Poland said.
France, who considers it necessary to aim for a global agreement, warned against the danger of reaching agreement as early as March on certain priority policies accompanied by the amounts allocated.
Germany asked not to reopen the 'negotiating box'.
Rule of law. Several countries (France, Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, Sweden) supported the proposal on budget protection in the event of a general failure of the rule of law (see EUROPE 12159). Only Poland considered that “it was not necessary to go too far by creating a duplication with the so-called Article 7 procedure” of the Treaty.
Own resources. The Romanian Presidency intends to discuss both expenditure and revenue. However, the Netherlands opposed a change in the own resources system. France (new environment-related resources) and Italy (European tax on those who escape tax and European obligations to finance major projects), on the contrary, are pushing for the creation of new revenues for the EU. Belgium supported a tax based on the volume of non-recycled plastic waste.
The 1% club. Several countries (Denmark, Sweden, Austria...) have further requested that the total MFF 2021-2027 should not exceed 1% of the EU's Gross National Income (GNI) each year.
CAP and cohesion. Poland and the Czech Republic opposed the Commission's proposed cuts in agricultural and cohesion spending. Poland protested against the ceiling on cohesion spending, which it considers discriminatory.
New priorities and traditional policies (CAP and cohesion) must be taken into account, Italy said. France said that the new priorities (youth, migration, defence, etc.) must not lead to a reduction in the CAP's budgetary ambition, “which must be maintained at its current level of 27”.
Ireland and Spain, in particular, have also defended the CAP budget.
Sweden called for a significant reduction in CAP and cohesion appropriations. Germany acknowledged that the EU would have to cut back on traditional policies. The Netherlands agrees on strengthening of conditionality applied to cohesion policy. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)