Negotiations in the EU Council on the proposed Brexit adjustment reserve are stalled over the question of the methodology for allocating funding, while the European Parliament is moving slowly after discussions on competences between the Regional Development (REGI) and Budget (BUDG) Committees, according to information we obtained on Tuesday 16 February.
The allocation method proposed by the European Commission continues to be debated at the level of the EU Council’s Structural Actions Working Group (see EUROPE 12647/6), as it strongly favours certain Member States (see EUROPE 12635/2).
The allocation method is based on two factors, trade and fisheries, in relation to the United Kingdom. This method applies only to the first tranche, which corresponds to the pre-financing of 80% of the total envelope. For a Member State to qualify for the second instalment, it must prove that it has spent the entire amount allocated under the pre-financing and that this amount exceeds 0.06% of national GDP.
Thus, there is a fear that only certain “privileged” States will be able to access the second tranche, for example Belgium, Denmark, Ireland or the Netherlands, as they will most likely have exceeded the threshold provided for in the pre-financing. On this basis, several delegations, notably France, Spain and Italy, with the support of Poland, Greece and Romania, suggested applying the allocation method to the entire financial envelope and proposed deleting the reference to the threshold determined on the basis of GDP for the second tranche.
Furthermore, on the allocation method itself, some Member States would like to delete the calculation based on fishing activities to focus on the commercial dimension only.
Here, some Member States would like to review the method of calculation for trade. Currently, the method is based on a Member State’s trade with the United Kingdom as a proportion of national GDP. However, some Member States would like trade with the UK to be related to a Member State’s overall trade flows. This weighting would avoid giving too much preference to some Member States to the detriment of others.
Negotiations in slow motion at the European Parliament
For the time being, the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the EU has not made any proposals and is still sounding out the national delegations. Some would like to take the debate to a more political level, at the level of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper). In any case, the objective would be to be able to start negotiations with the European Parliament as early as April.
However, in the Parliament, negotiations have been delayed due to negotiations between the REGI, BUDG and PECH Committees to determine who will have control over all or part of the text. The issue was decided last week. It will be the REGI Committee that will deal with the case in depth. It will therefore be the German-speaking Belgian member of the EPP, Pascal Arimont (see EUROPE 12637/6), who will be the rapporteur of the text on behalf of the European Parliament.
The BUDG and PECH Committees will be associated under Rule 57 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, without having exclusive competences. They will each prepare an opinion and have their say on the timetable. A representative will be able to follow inter-institutional negotiations.
This debate on competences has postponed the start of negotiations between the political groups. Some are hoping for an agreement at the end of March, but this goal seems ambitious in the eyes of others. One way of speeding up the pace would be to organise extraordinary meetings, we are told. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)