“We all know - and I make no secret of the fact - that these negotiations will be difficult, that complex choices will have to be made”, declared the European Commissioner for the Budget, Piotr Serafin, on the subject of the EU’s future long-term budget, on Tuesday 18 February in Warsaw.
The post-2027 multiannual financial framework was one of the issues discussed at the informal EU General Affairs meeting in Warsaw. This first discussion with the Member States was a “very good test of the different priorities of the MFF: security and defence, competitiveness and cohesion”. The European Commissioner for the Budget noted “a broad consensus or, at least, significant convergence” on these issues.
The disagreements lie in the way the priorities are linked together, in terms of sums, and with the limits of the budget. And although Piotr Serafin asked the ministers not to focus “solely on the size” of the budget on Tuesday 18 February, there is a risk that priorities will be overshadowed if the EU budget is not sufficient to meet growing needs.
While not opposed to a European discussion on military spending, Sweden felt that this was first and foremost a national responsibility. However, according to the Swedish Minister for European Affairs, Jessica Rosencrantz, putting “pressure on Member States to increase their spending” while at the same time increasing the EU budget is “not possible”. In her view, “debt is debt, whether at Member State or European level”.
The Polish Presidency, the slogan of which is “Security, Europe”, and which will invest nearly 5% of its GDP in this sector this year, does not share this view. “Today, nothing is more important than preparing to deter threats”, said Poland’s Minister for European Affairs, Adam Szłapka. In particular, he drew on the statement made by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at the Munich conference on Monday 17 February, to the effect that European budgetary rules will exempt defense spending by member states (EUROPE 13580/6, 13582/1). The details will come later, but “the political intention is clear”, warned Piotr Serafin.
Competitiveness, which is at the heart of the discussions for the next MFF, also came up in the Warsaw discussions with regard to defence, according to Adam Szłapka: “If we are serious about security, we must have the resources to invest in it”.
Here again, the differences between Member States will be revealed in the arbitration. For Finland, according to one source, the Competitiveness Fund should not be another Cohesion Fund with envelopes pre-allocated to Member States to carry out projects at national level, but rather a fund promoting the most promising European ideas. In favour of “keeping the MFF at a reasonable level”, according to its Minister for European Affairs, Joakim Strand, Finland is calling for a “focus on competitiveness”, under the banner of research, development and innovation. On the contrary, according to this country, which is a net contributor, cohesion has “progressed in Europe, so there should not be a big increase in this type of spending”.
The Commission’s creation of a Competitiveness Fund in the post-2027 MFF is also raising doubts in some Member States. According to one source, there are rumours of cuts in funding for cohesion and the common agricultural policy. Estonia is resolute and already talking of limiting the damage, stating in its position paper that it would be essential to maintain “the safety net approach”: “the reduction in cohesion policy funding for Member States resulting from increased prosperity should be gradual and not abrupt” (see EUROPE 13580/5). For Slovenia, it will be difficult to accept an MFF with less funding for cohesion and the common agricultural policy.
“When we talk about growth, we should also work on equality”, warned Poland’s Minister for European Affairs, Adam Szłapka, on Tuesday 18 February, recalling that “since 1950”, the EU has been built on the idea of convergence. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)