Finnish Minister Tytti Tuppurainen told her counterparts at the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on Tuesday 18 June that her country was aiming for an agreement on the elements in the EU's multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2021-2027 by the end of 2019.
The minister, whose country will be taking over the presidency of the Council of the EU from July to December, also promised that she would "come up with some figures”, as requested by several European ministers who have criticised the slow pace of negotiations on this very sensitive issue.
On Thursday 20 June in Brussels, the European Council is due to review the state of play with regard to negotiations on the MFF, in order to set the next round of deadlines.
At Tuesday's General Affairs Council, ministers from several countries (including Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, France, Germany, Croatia, Ireland and Denmark) called for an agreement on the next MFF next autumn.
European Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger said: “We are entering the final stretch, we need to tie up the package by the end of the year”. Spain and Portugal have even suggested convening an extraordinary summit at the end of the year, in addition to the European Council meetings in October and December.
In the opinion of Germany, the time has come to make some political decisions, meaning that some figures will eventually have to be put forward. We need clarity, Slovenia added.
Mr Oettinger warned against the negative consequences of reaching an agreement at too late a stage for programmes to start and called on Member States to accept reductions in spending on agriculture and cohesion, “because there are no other solutions if we want to launch the new programmes” that fit with new priorities.
Criticism of the new version of the negotiating framework. While a majority of countries seem to think that the latest version of the negotiating box provides a good basis for further work on the MFF talks, ministers from several countries (the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, but also Italy and Poland, in particular) believe the document to be unbalanced or even unacceptable.
The debate also showed that EU Heads of State and Government will have to decide on the overall volume of expenditure, the envelopes for traditional policies (agriculture and cohesion) and the mechanism for protecting the Union's budget in the event of a general failure in a Member State.
There are still differences between countries on all sensitive issues.
On the subject of the Horizon Europe programme, Sweden, Ireland and Belgium have asked that there be no derogation from the principle of excellence in the allocation of funds, while some Eastern European countries, including Slovakia, want funds to be better distributed.
Agriculture. France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Estonia and Finland protested against a 5% reduction in the Common Agricultural Policy envelope proposed by the European Commission. The negotiating framework presents several options on the convergence of direct aid. Some countries, including Poland and Estonia, called for equal treatment for all EU farmers. Others, including Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy, believe the external convergence planned to be excessive.
The Czech Republic felt that capping aid should be voluntary and should not affect young farmers.
Cohesion. The so-called cohesion countries (including Poland, Estonia, Slovenia, etc.) protested against the significant reductions that will result from the proposal. Portugal, Slovenia and Croatia advocated retaining the 2014-2016 reference period for structural funds. Poland requested that the cap be maintained at 2.35% of GDP for all Member States.
Sweden did not agree with the plans for thematic concentration and criticised the new (overly generous) definition of transition regions. Spain wanted to retain the Commission's proposal on the 'Berlin method'.
Italy again opposed the principle of macroeconomic conditionality.
Own Resources. Italy regretted the lack of ambition in this area and, among potential new own resources, particularly recommended European requirements for investments or a tax that takes into account the differences between countries regarding taxation.
France also considered itself to be ambitious in this area, suggesting new own resources, particularly with regard to the environment.
The idea of national contributions calculated on the basis of the volume of non-recycled plastic packaging waste was supported by several delegations, while others, including Poland, were opposed or felt that it was too early to include it in the negotiating framework (Ireland, Czech Republic). Spain mentioned a carbon tax.
France again requested that 40% of the 2021-2027 budget expenditure be allocated to climate-friendly actions and requested that the European Development Fund (EDF) be maintained outside the EU budget. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)