Brussels, 27/01/2005 (Agence Europe) - The Italian delegation of the PES at the European Parliament is fighting to save the current cohesion policy, which is danger of having to pay the costs for the battle going on between Member States on financial perspectives. It welcomed the Italian government's position, which for a while now is distancing itself from the “club of six” - the countries calling for more rigour: Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Sweden, the net contributors to the EU budget, which want the Community budget ceiling to be set at 1% of Gross National Income (GNI) in the EU (EUROPE 22 January p 11). This is the result of the debate held on Wednesday in Brussels between the main Italian members of the Socialist group in charge of the dossier of the EU financial framework.
The president of the Italian delegation in the Socialist group, Nicola Zingaretti, declared that the position of the six “net contributor” countries would mean a decrease in the EU's financial resources as the EU would be left with the bitter taste of reneging on their goals for an EU with a greater role. He said that the EU's political role needed strengthening by reinforcing cohesion policy and competition. According to Zingaretti, this reduction in the budget would hit Europe hard, as well as the south of Italy. According to Claudio Fava), vice president of the regional committee, a 1% ceiling on the EU's budget would reduce cohesion funds from EUR 336 bn to 180 bn (162 bn of which has already been committed to the new Member States). Only EUR 18 bn would go to the 15 older Member States. Italy would lose from between EUR 10-21 bn out in its southern regions over the period 2007-13.
Gianni Pittella, member of the temporary EP committee on financial perspectives and rapporteur for the 2006 budget illustrated the “considerable gap” between the Prodi Commission proposal for the financial period 2007-13 and that of the “six misers of Europe”: EUR 220 billion (EUR 1020 bn, according to the Commission draft, as opposed to the Six's EUR 800 bn). Pittella said that the position of the Six put the process for ratifying the European Constitution in danger (public opinion risks being let down by a reduction in the EU's budget), as well as the completion of EU enlargement planned in 2007, neighbourhood policy, the Lisbon strategy (already weakened), the role of the EU as a serious action on the world stage and cohesion policy. He said that their struggle for keeping the cohesion policy was essential because it involved the main instrument in the construction and reinforcement of the European social model. According to Pittela, this policy should not only be used for helping the poorest EU regions but regions that were simply poor too. He indicated that “We cannot agree to a principle which is in fact just the statistical effect of enlargement, whereby regions covered by Objective 1, could miraculously find themselves unable to meet the conditions for structural fund beneficiaries. He said that a budget was need that also responded to the needs of the ten new Member States and those of the regions in older Member States that are still experiencing difficulties. Pittella said this explained why they had to support the Commission proposals (EUR 336 bn for this policy) and reject all attempts to renationalise cohesion policy (as asked for by the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Sweden: Editor's note). Mr Pittella also considered that it was imperative that negotiations on the next financial framework were finished by the end of June. As there is little hope for success under the British presidency they risked losing out on the new programmes.
Mr Pittella congratulated the Italian government for the official position it recently adopted which “was approaching our position”, who also said that several members of the government assured us that they were defending the Prodi proposal. It is necessary to work “in cohesion” with the countries of the south and explain to countries in the east (beneficiaries of structural funds) that the “club of Six” “also damages their interests” (“if from 2006 there was a sharp reduction in cohesion funds, it would be their turn next”). It will also be necessary to “look at the British cheque again and the possibility of funding agricultural market spending”, he added in a personal capacity. He also thought that they might include a measure that would subtract the contribution of countries to the EU budget in the calculation of the stability pact.
According to Mr Fava, the Luxembourg presidency and Portugal would agree to revise the European Council agreement in October 2002 and freeze agricultural spending in 2007-13 but Jean-Claude Juncker said that he did not intend to open up this dossier and get his fingers burnt by trying to get it open (see EUROPE 5 January p 6).