On Tuesday 16 June, EU European Affairs ministers confirmed that significant differences existed with regard to the post-Covid-19 European recovery plan and the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027, ahead of the European Council meeting on Friday 19 June (see EUROPE 12507/12, 12506/2).
A number of ministers stressed the need to reach rapid agreement on all of the proposals (see EUROPE 12504/2, 12494/1).
Andreja Metelko-Zgombić, who chaired the last General Affairs Council during the Croatian Presidency, stated that the EU's response to the coronavirus crisis must “remain equal to the challenges”. She stressed that delegations view the recovery plan and the MFF as a “package”.
European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič stressed the need to work towards a “robust recovery” of the EU economy while also taking solidarity, cohesion and convergence into account. He called on Member States to find a “solution” with regard to the recovery plan “in July”. He warned about the consequences of further delays.
The Member States’ positions at the General Affairs Council on Tuesday were identical to their previously expressed positions.
The four ‘frugal’ countries (the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Sweden), plus Finland, believe that the recovery plan should mainly provide loans to the Member States, in preference to grants. The Austrian delegation believes that the length of the recovery plan (four years, according to the Commission) should be shortened. Sweden is in agreement.
Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece in particular were satisfied with the proposals regarding the recovery plan, as was France. They stressed the urgent need to endorse the measures and warned against any reduction in the planned budget (€750 billion, including €500 billion in subsidies).
The Central and Eastern European countries broadly supported the proposals but commented on the criteria for allocating the funds in the recovery plan. They are concerned that too much money will go to the southern EU countries, which have been more seriously affected by the pandemic. According to the Commission's projections, Hungary will receive €6.1 billion in grants, compared to €12.9 billion for Portugal, even though Portugal's population is only slightly larger than Hungary's.
Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg support the package, but also have reservations about the criteria for distributing the funds.
MFF 2021-2027. The so-called ‘frugal’ countries and Finland reiterated their position in favour of the MFF 2021-2027 being capped at 1% of the EU’s Gross National Income (GNI) (https://bit.ly/3d67Z8n ).
The so-called ‘cohesion’ countries asked for an increase in the cohesion policy budget.
Some countries, including France, welcomed the progress made in the proposal on agricultural spending (direct aid and funds for rural development have been revised upwards), but stressed that CAP spending should be maintained at its current level.
The debates on rebates have once again shown that Germany and the ‘frugal’ countries are calling for budgetary correction mechanisms to be maintained after 2020. The Commission and most EU countries, on the other hand, are calling for an end to the various rebates, as the UK rebate will end when the UK leaves the EU.
On the subject of own resources, most delegations were open to the introduction of new own resources. However, some delegations, including Poland, have difficulties with some of the options, such as the ETS resource.
Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Belgium in particular stressed the need to establish a link between the releasing of funds and respect for the rule of law. Poland and Hungary, on the other hand, criticised the tabled proposal. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)