Belgian rapporteur Pascal Arimont (EPP) once again insisted on the need to leave the method of allocating the Brexit Adjustment Reserve for the first tranche of funding untouched, but said he was open to reviewing the criteria for allocating the second tranche of funding, during a rather lively exchange, on Thursday 22 April, in the European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development (REGI).
For the Belgian MEP, things are clear: the Adjustment Reserve should first and foremost be seen as an emergency instrument, with a small envelope (€5 billion) and intended for the Member States most affected by the UK’s exit from the EU, in the same way as the EU Solidarity Fund, he said. One cannot open up financial assistance to all Member States when it is specifically one Member State that is affected by a natural disaster.
However, he accepted the idea of having a wider redistribution of the second tranche, i.e. the remaining billion once the pre-financing is fully used. There is a possibility that the threshold of 0.06% of GDP to qualify for this second tranche, which de facto prevents a large number of Member States from benefiting from the reserve, could be reviewed.
His approach was generally welcomed by the shadow rapporteurs, with many highlighting the delicate balance struck in the European Commission’s calculation method, such as shadow rapporteur Tsvetelina Penkova (S&D, Bulgarian), who asked that the eligibility period not be touched either.
German MEP Martina Michels (The Left) also fully supported the rapporteur’s approach. However, she stressed the importance of integrating the principles of combating global warming, fighting inequality and respecting the principle of partnership.
The Italian MEP, Raffaele Fitto (ECR), also supported the rapporteur, before indicating that he wanted to tackle the threshold of the second tranche and also broaden the distribution to cover the agri-food sector and take into account the demographic dimension of certain Member States.
On the other hand, French MEP Irène Tolleret (Renew Europe), again opposed the consensus and reiterated her desire to review the allocation method to ensure fair and transparent access for all Member States (see EUROPE 12679/10).
The MEP argued that a French fisherman should be compensated at the same level as another fisherman and that it could not be otherwise. This position was also defended by François-Xavier Bellamy (EPP, France), rapporteur on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, and Valérie Hayer (Renew Europe, France), rapporteur on behalf of the Committee on Budgets.
Outside the circle of shadow rapporteurs, the coordinators, Andrey Novakov (EPP, Bulgaria) and Constanze Krehl (S&D, Germany), said they were very surprised by the number of amendments tabled (around 800). Mr Novakov expressed his “disappointment” that MEPs had decided to modify the allocation method decided by the European Commission, something he had never seen before, he said.
“The French had been well briefed by the capital”, a source told us, recalling that each change in the method of allocation of the reserve fund could only be decided on the basis of precise modelling to determine the economic impact country by country.
The votes on the opinions are expected to take place in the respective committees on 10 May, while the vote on the ‘Arimont’ report is scheduled to take place in the REGI Committee on 25 May.
On the EU Council side
In the EU Council, talks are progressing, despite the fact that they have stumbled on the distribution key (see EUROPE 12647/6). Member States have reportedly decided not to touch the allocation method for the first tranche. However, it is said that they would like to see a single allocation method for both bands. They envisage a three-stage funding with 40% of the fund being released in 2021 and 30% in 2022 and 2023. A vote to decide the EU Council’s position is expected to be held on 29 April at an ad hoc meeting of national ambassadors (Coreper). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)