MEPs held a lively first debate on the proposed Brexit adjustment reserve in the European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development (REGI) on Tuesday 16 March. There were many points of convergence, but the distribution key for the funds revealed a French-led, cross-party front in the committee.
The European Commission has proposed a particularly high rate of pre-financing (80% of the planned €5.3 billion at 2018 prices), which is calculated on a factor related to fish caught in waters belonging to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and a factor based on a Member State’s trade with the UK in relation to national GDP.
Furthermore, the institution established in its proposal that the 2nd tranche could only be released if a Member State had spent the total amount of the pre-financing allocation and/or if this amount exceeded 0.06% of national GDP.
While the Belgian rapporteur, Pascal Arimont (EPP), asked during his presentation, in the name of urgency, that the thorny question of the method used for the distribution key not be opened, many MEPs—mainly French, including Irène Tolleret (Renew Europe), François Alfonsi (Greens/EFA) and François-Xavier Bellamy (rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries)—strongly criticised the method chosen by the European Commission.
For these MEPs, Parliament must improve the proposal. For fisheries, there can be no differentiated treatment between fishermen according to their origin, as would result from the proposal. The problem, they argue, is that the fisheries distribution key is calculated on EEZ catches as a proportion of a Member State’s overall catch.
Thus, a Belgian fisherman, whose activity is carried out almost exclusively in the North Sea or the Channel, would, on the basis of this calculation method, be compensated more than a French fisherman. Therefore, some people want to abolish this method of calculation. MEP Alfonsi proposed that the analysis grid be refined not at a national but at a regional level to avoid this bias.
The distribution key linked to trade in relation to GDP also introduces a bias, according to the same MEPs, by favouring Member States with very strong port activity, such as the Netherlands with Rotterdam. Trade with the UK should be compared with a Member State’s overall trade, not its GDP.
Finally, the criterion for releasing the 2nd tranche, which requires public spending to exceed 0.06% of national GDP, was also strongly criticised. In their view, this criterion excludes a large number of Member States from access to the second tranche.
Points of convergence
The overwhelming majority of MEPs agreed to bring forward the eligibility period for direct public expenditure from 1 July 2020 to 1 January 2020 to cover measures put in place before Brexit, as the UK left the EU on 1 February.
They also agreed to extend this period to the end of 2023, with some citing 2026 for the specific fisheries sector. Finally, a large proportion of MEPs agreed to exclude financial services from the scope of the reserve. Most MEPs also want to strengthen shared management by including local and regional authorities.
In the EU Council, the distribution key also generates divisions between national delegations. The Portuguese Presidency is slowing down the pace of negotiations while waiting to see how the negotiations in the European Parliament develop (see EUROPE 12659/13). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)