On Tuesday 19 February in Brussels, the European Ministers for European Affairs recalled their red lines on the proposals for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and supported the working process in order to facilitate the search for a compromise “in autumn 2019” on this dossier, which strongly divides the EU Member States (see EUROPE 12167).
The Romanian Presidency of the Council briefed the ‘General Affairs’ Council on the progress of work on the sectoral and horizontal proposals for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2021-2027.
It will present an updated version of the 'negotiating box', the living document intended to help in the search for a compromise on the next MFF, in preparation for the June European Council.
“It’s a marathon, not a sprint”, commented the current President of the General Affairs Council. He has planned a dense work programme for the coming weeks (6 meetings of the ad hoc working group, an informal Council on 11 and 12 March in Bucharest, a debate at each General Affairs Council).
From Germany’s perspective, Member States agree on the need to conclude an MFF agreement “by the end of the year”, even if this will be difficult. Two major events are planned: the European Council in June and the European Council in October. He called on States to make compromises and to remain realistic in their expectations. Germany prefers to talk about priorities before talking about spending ceilings.
By June, it will be necessary to agree on as many sectoral proposals as possible, said Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger. He welcomed the full agreement on a digital Europe. “The 'negotiating box’ document must be limited, and progress must be made on conditionality, own resources and the eurozone budget”, he summarised.
Several delegations, including Finland and Slovenia, supported the Romanian Presidency's intention to discuss certain sectoral proposals with a view to simplifying this version of the 'negotiating box’. “We are ready to discuss figures”, said the Slovenian representative.
Portugal, on the other hand, considered that this was not the time to put amounts for the common agricultural policy (CAP) or cohesion on the table. Poland considered that there was no need to rush to present figures for the MFF.
Denmark is more concerned about the quality of the agreement than its speed of implementation, a feeling shared by Italy in particular.
Spain is expecting an agreement “in the fall” and wishes to avoid any delays. Some sectoral elements will have to be addressed by the Heads of State, the delegation acknowledged.
Greece, France and Spain stressed the need to strengthen the social dimension of the EU (European social pillar).
Protection of the Union's budget. A majority of countries (France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Denmark...) support the establishment of a conditionality regime to address widespread failures in the rule of law. Finland referred to the need to provide for an even “stronger conditionality”.
Hungary was critical when it stated that the proposal should carefully “respect the rule of law and not circumvent the Treaties” (and should take into account the remarks of the Council's Legal Service).
Cohesion policy. Several countries (Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Latvia...) have asked to maintain cohesion policy appropriations at current levels for the period 2021-2027.
Greece and Italy, in particular, criticised macroeconomic conditionality in the field of cohesion policy.
Ireland and Hungary protested against the lowering of the cohesion policy’s ceiling (-40% in the case of Hungary). Slovakia considered that more flexibility was needed in the implementation of the cohesion policy.
France has asked to add social conditionality to macroeconomic conditionality.
Agriculture. France reiterated its position in favour of maintaining the current level of CAP appropriations for 2021-2027. The CAP is an absolute priority and amounts should not be reduced, Spain warned. Italy also asked to maintain this budget.
Belgium reiterated that it was “not in favour” of the proposal on the external convergence of direct aid (direct payments are gradually adjusted, upwards or downwards, to bring their amount closer to the European average). Italy also expressed criticism on this issue.
Some Eastern European and Baltic countries, such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, have requested the introduction of a minimum level of aid convergence in the 'negotiating framework' document (so that the new countries obtain a level of aid equivalent to the earlier EU countries).
Brexit. Belgium has asked for support for SMEs heavily affected by the effects of Brexit and to avoid complications in terms of customs duties. Ireland also referred to the impact of Brexit.
Overall volume. Some delegations from the so-called liberal countries reiterated their wish to cap the amount of the EU budget for 2021 to 2027 at a maximum of 1% of GNI. Greece said it supported the European Parliament’s position (1.3% of the EU’s GNI). The Netherlands once again advocated savings to cover the expenses of an EU of 27.
Own resources. An “adequate level” of new own resources for the EU is a priority for Italy, with an emphasis on investment. Greece has supported the introduction of a financial transaction tax or a tax on digital giants. Belgium supported a tax based on the volume of non-recycled plastic waste.
Eurozone budget. France insisted that the euro area budget should be “autonomous and complementary” to the MFF (integrated into the European budget, but not subject to the MFF ceiling).
The objective would be to reach an agreement in June on the eurozone budget.
Belgium supported the proposal on the table. Italy stressed the need, in particular, to avoid duplicating what already exists and referred to the issue of debt obligations.
In conclusion, Commissioner Oettinger justified the need to make “slight cuts” in ‘CAP and cohesion’ expenditures, without which it will not be possible to conclude. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)