EU heads of state and government will be able to assess in Brussels, on Thursday evening, 12 December, the long way they still have to go to reach agreement on the sensitive issue of the EU’s multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (see EUROPE 12387/1). The timetable for the adoption of the next MFF could be specified.
The European Council will discuss on Thursday, over dinner, the ‘negotiation box’ presented by the Finnish Presidency of the Council, which was widely criticised by the Member States on Tuesday. “I do not think that the European Council will be able to make a decisive breakthrough on Thursday. The ambition is not to repeat the October discussions, but to move beyond them. But it is not easy”, says one European source. Some sources suggest the possibility of concluding an agreement “in the first half of 2020”, if the political will is there.
EU leaders will discuss the overall amount, the common agricultural policy, cohesion, own resources (including the abolition of rebates), conditionality and climate. “Everyone will criticise the Finnish proposal”, confirmed a diplomatic source.
A new method? However, a new phase of hope is beginning, as it will now be up to the new President of the European Council, Charles Michel, to lead the negotiations on the MFF to their conclusion. “This is a new phase: Charles Michel wants to present a method to free up the file”, said one source. The idea would be to accelerate discussions, but in an “inclusive way”. Mr Michel should be able to set a timetable.
Several sources mention the possibility of convening an extraordinary European summit in February 2020 to increase the chances of reaching a compromise before spring 2020. However, it is up to Mr Michel to decide. Time is of the essence: the European Council’s agreement must be translated into EU Council acts and forwarded to the European Parliament, which must give its consent before the programmes begin on 1 January 2021.
But some sources mention the role that the future Croatian Presidency (which has distanced itself from the Finnish position) will have to play in “refining the negotiation box”.
Negotiations should be easier to conduct once the outcome and modalities of Brexit are known. Nevertheless, the debates are likely to be difficult, even once this uncertainty has been resolved, because the countries’ positions are divergent and sometimes decided. In addition, some delegations make a link between the MFF and the EU’s climate ambitions. “There is in any case a link between the MFF and climate objectives, the sequence is very delicate”, says a diplomatic source.
The inflexible position of some so-called net contributor countries (not to exceed 1% of the EU’s gross national income) is in direct opposition to the demands of the so-called “cohesion-friendly” countries, which are pushing for an ambitious budget, close to at least the volume proposed by the Commission (1.114% of GNI).
One source confirmed that the Finnish ‘negotiation box’ included additional reductions in cohesion policy (compared to the Commission's proposal, which is already lower than in 2014-2020). In addition, the Finnish Presidency reportedly proposed to modify the Berlin method on the distribution of cohesion funds, to the advantage of four countries (Germany, Finland, Poland and Belgium), according to another diplomatic source.
Rule of law conditionality is important in the eyes of many countries (Scandinavian countries, France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and others), but Poland and Hungary challenge the modalities of the proposed mechanism.
The issue of discounts is controversial. Countries such as France, Italy and Poland want their rapid elimination, while net contributor countries want a corrective mechanism to be maintained in their favour. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur, with editorial staff)