Brussels, 13/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Sunday evening in Luxembourg, the foreign ministers of the EU confirmed their differences over the financial perspectives 2007-2013. The latest version of the compromise document from the Luxembourg Presidency, dated 2 June, was received with more displeasure than pleasure. In the light of Jean-Claude Juncker's meeting with each of the Heads of State or Government, the Presidency is to present a final version of its “negotiating framework” on Wednesday, before the European Council begins its dealings. Mr Juncker met Tony Blair on Tuesday to discuss the British rebate, which seems to be the “key” to negotiations. “We are resolved to reach an agreement during the European Council”, the Luxembourg foreign minister, Jean Asselborn told the press on Monday. He believes this would “do Europe good”. An agreement requires a “balanced compromise and hence the acceptance of sacrifices, on condition that they are shared out fairly”.
During the conclave, the minister for Germany, Joschka Fischer, said his country was willing to make an effort on condition that everyone does the same. He felt that the British rebate was the key to negotiation, recalling that the situation in the United Kingdom today is no longer comparable to that of 1984 when the Fontainebleau agreement granting the budgetary rebate was signed. Germany restated its position in favour of controlling EU budgetary spending at 1% of Gross National Income (GNI) of the EU and of a concentration of cohesion funds on the new Member States. It showed a preference for a generalised budgetary correction mechanism, while the Presidency suggests specific measures for the three countries whose contribution to the budget is excessive (Germany, Netherlands and Sweden). “Germany is willing to make a move, in so far as possible”, Mr Fischer told the press, on Monday in Luxembourg, before calling on “everyone” to also make a move. He admitted that the time was not yet ripe for compromise and that it was logical at this stage in the talks that ”everyone should defend the national position”. A compromise at the European Council is possible “if everyone makes concessions”, he repeated, but it is also possible that, at the end of the Summit, the Presidency presents an interim solution, explaining the progress made. According to Germany, this kind of scenario would be positive and an option that should not be ruled out, as one must remain realistic. France considered that the Presidency compromise (EUR 875 billion, 1.06% of GNI in commitment appropriations) was still too costly and that it did not fully respect the provisions of the October 2002 summit agreement on fixing agricultural market spending and payments to farmers in 2007-2013, as it lacks EUR 6 billion for Romania and Bulgaria. The Presidency suggests keeping the agreement of October 2002 and adding EUR 2 billion for Romania and Bulgaria , while the needs for these two countries amounts to nearly EUR 8 billion. France urged for a ceiling to be placed on the British rebate and for it to be eliminated. The Presidency suggests freezing it at EUR 4.6 billion in 2007 and then phasing it out. The United Kingdom is opposed to phasing out its rebate, considering that there are still budgetary inequalities, and criticising the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which represents 40% of the EU budget although it is only to the advantage of 5% of the EU's population, the British delegation repeated. The United Kingdom has therefore called for a total re-examination of the way in which agricultural funding is spent and pointed out that, since 1984, it has paid twice as much into the EU budget than another rich country (France). Italy believes the Presidency proposal is unacceptable for two reasons: - the reduction of cohesion funds is not logical; - and the Italian contribution to the budget could increase further. Italy has called for the British rebate to be phased out. Spain asked for either a longer period for aid that it receives under the Cohesion Fund before being eliminated (end of aid from 2012 instead of 2009 according to the Presidency compromise), or “another solution” altogether. Spain, like France, Ireland and Poland in particular, called for compliance with the 2002 agreement on farm spending and for additional funding to be foreseen for Romania and Bulgaria. It protested against the reductions foreseen for fishing. Portugal considered the Presidency's compromise “unacceptable”, as it greatly reduces aid from which it benefits under cohesion policy (80% of the money it receives from the EU budget comes from cohesion policy). Portugal called for savings on CAP including, in the amounts foreseen in 2002, spending for Romania and Bulgaria. Denmark and Sweden were opposed to over-large reductions for research and training. Also, several Member States (Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal and Finland) were opposed to the cuts in funding for rural development. Austria was of the opinion that the Presidency compromise is a step in the right direction but that support for cohesion policy should be reduced still further. The Presidency document is a “real disappointment” for the Netherlands which wonders how it will be possible to explain to the public that the Dutch contribution to the EU budget will be even greater in 2007 than in 2006. Belgium regretted the fact that aid to competitiveness (research, training) incurs costs under the Luxembourg compromise and considers as inadequate the gradual elimination proposed for regional aid to Hainaut.