The Conciliation Committee met for the second time on Friday 15 November to try to reach an agreement between the EU Council and the European Parliament on the EU budget for 2025 before the end of the conciliation period on Monday 18 November. At the time of going to press, negotiations were still underway.
In the morning, the Council of the EU held a public session to prepare for the meeting and review the priorities of each Member State.
The European Commission has also expressed its views, going back on its June budget proposal (see EUROPE 13435/5) and its October letter of amendment. Commissioner Johannes Hahn assured that his proposal left room for manoeuvre to deal with unforeseen events in 2025, and defended the introduction of the €3 billion RESTORE proposal, as well as the creation of additional administrative posts to meet cybersecurity needs.
The vast majority of Member States were in favour of the EU Council’s position adopted in July, which they described as a “good basis” for negotiations with Parliament, with total commitments of €191.53 billion and total payments of €146.21 billion (see EUROPE 13455/8).
In its amendments, Parliament set total commitments at almost €201 billion, i.e. €1.24 billion more than the European Commission’s proposal, and total payments at €153.5 billion (see EUROPE 13510/1).
The round table of Member States also followed the agreement reached in February 2024 on the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework (see EUROPE 13360/36).
The EURI cascade mechanism, which will be mobilised for the first time with the EU 2025 budget, was at the heart of the discussions. It allows an exceptional instrument to be mobilised if it is not possible to find funding for interest payments under Next Generation EU. Two positions were reflected: the States that insist on maintaining funding for the EU’s priority programmes, despite the cost of borrowing (Romania, Estonia, Poland, Spain, Slovakia...) and the ‘frugal States’, which point out that more margin must be left in the budget to deal with unforeseen circumstances (Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Germany...). The latter want to favour budget redeployments rather than the use of special instruments. The first proposed conclusion submitted by the Commission was also divisive.
Among the incidentals were natural disasters, such as the floods in Spain and Central Europe. In this respect, the Member States supported the proposal to include the €3 billion under the RESTORE proposal (see EUROPE 13516/11) in the voted budgets. The proposal aims to amend three EU regulations to ensure that EU funds can be rapidly mobilised in the event of damage caused by natural disasters (see EUROPE 13509/5).
According to Austria, priorities need to be defined between the various expenditure items. This has not prevented several Member States from defending increases in programmes such as Erasmus + or Horizon Europe (as Parliament would like).
Heading 7, which concerns public administration, has also been extensively discussed. The Member States are opposed to the use of a special instrument in this case. Indeed, several EU countries have said they are in favour of using special instruments only if justified. However, the majority of administrative requirements relating to cyber security were supported. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)