The Baltic States, frustrated by the current round of negotiations on the regulation establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for the 2021-2027 period, are threatening to block the post-Covid-19 European Economic Recovery Plan.
In a letter dated 18 January, of which EUROPE has obtained a copy, Latvian Prime Minister Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda and now former Estonian Prime Minister Jüri Ratas expressed concern at the European Parliament’s resistance to the EU Council’s decision to earmark €1.4 billion (in 2018 prices) to the cross-border rail link project between their three countries (see EUROPE 12620/15)—the Rail Baltica project.
“Without this funding, it will be impossible to complete the railway”, they insist in their letter to the Portuguese Prime Minister, António Costa, whose country currently holds the Presidency of the EU Council.
Earmarked funding had been set as a condition by the Baltic States in July to join the agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework and the Recovery Plan.
Compromise under consideration. Parliament finds this manoeuvre unacceptable and therefore welcomes the new Presidency’s readiness to negotiate. Lisbon will consult Member States this week on possible compromises (see EUROPE 12642/6).
However, in their letter, the Baltic States assure that upholding the July commitment will remain their “top priority”.
“Successful negotiations with the European Parliament and maintaining the EU leaders’ confirmed conclusions [...] would help to ensure a smooth ratification process of the decision on own resources in our countries”, they write.
This decision, which lends substance to the Recovery Plan (see EUROPE 12622/11), requires the approval of all national parliaments. So far, only two states—Italy and Cyprus—have ratified the text.
Red line. On Monday 25 January, in front of the European Parliament Committee on Transport, Dominique Riquet (Renew Europe, France), reiterated that MEPs could not give in to a position that “completely contravenes the regulation”.
“A regulation cannot directly allocate funds to transactions. It provides for the nature of these operations and the way in which arbitrations will be made”, he insisted, regretting moreover that this position implies changing the allocation of the general fund to that of cohesion and “is vested in the co-legislators”. (Original version in French by Agathe Cherki)