Brussels, 30/01/2002 (Agence Europe) - At a special session of the Foreign Affairs Committee open to all MEPs at the European Parliament on Wednesday, the Commissioners for enlargement, Gunter Verheugen and for the budget Michaele Schreyer presented, before illustrating them to the press, the Commission's proposals on the financial framework for enlargement (see other article).
Speaking before the MEPs after Mr Verheugen, the Commissioner for the Budget, Michaele Schreyer considered that the Commission's proposal was "solid, balanced and could be financed" and that, for the Fifteen, it was a clear signal that the expenditure provided for the accession of ten new Member States would not demand a modification to the financial perspectives. It is not politically acceptable that a new Member State should be a net contributor to the Union budget, exclaimed Ms. Schreyer, who, moreover, placed emphasis on the need to see the package as a whole, without isolating this or that sector (which risks creating the impression of unequal treatment). Our proposals do not prejudge the financial perspectives from 2007, Ms. Schreyer also said, noting that the Commission did not want to predict what agricultural spending would be in 2010 or 2013.
Opening the brief debate, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Elmar Brok (German, CDU) made a point of stressing the historic importance of enlargement: "let's not create political complications" in negotiations, he pleaded, placing, moreover, this challenge in the broader picture of the debate on the future of Europe. Things will change when we no longer have constraints like unanimity for the Structural Funds, and if Parliament has co-decision in agricultural policy, he thought.
Many questions related to agricultural policy: for the enlarged Europe, we need a healthier agricultural policy, exclaimed Arie Oostlander (Dutch, EPP), also stating that they had not to be "populist" when it came to expenditure for enlargement. In my country, he said, part of the press seems to expect an "enormous economic disaster" for the Union, he complained. Negotiations over agricultural matters may create "political tensions", the Swedish Liberal Cecilia Malmstrom feared, and Dutch Green, Kathalijne Buitenweg considered that the idea of granting farmers from candidate countries aid to income relating to surface area (and that had not been envisaged at the European Council of Berlin) was "wise". German Social-Democrat, Ralf Walter thought that the Commission's proposals were reasonable, while considering that one should also consider "how things present themselves" after 2006, and Finnish Liberal Kyosti Virrankoski also thought that these proposals were "totally realistic". In Berlin, not everything was considered, he remarked.
Pernille Frahm (Danish United Left/NGL) wondered how one could hope to win referenda on enlargement in candidate countries if their citizens risked considering themselves "second class citizens".
Markus Ferber expressed astonishment that two German Commissioners, from a country that is a major net contributor to the EU budget, could be so much against the idea that new Member States being net contributors: if a country like Malta provided "more solidarity" in the Union, the CSU member would see no inconvenience. Here, answering him, Gunter Verheugen waxed indignant: you go tell candidate countries that they will be net contributors, I won't!, he shouted. He then added: so far the complaint has been that we were going to pay too much, and now we are told that "in fact, it's quite little". Personally, the Commission has sympathy for this latter position, but recalls that it is neither Parliament nor the Commission that set the "financial framework", but Member States, and that none of them are prepared to ease their stance. As for MEPs who denounce the low absorption capacities of candidate countries, he replied: that's untrue! Phare, for example, has been used to almost 100%.