Brussels, 10/11/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, most EU Member States criticised the negotiation method proposed by the British Presidency with a view to an agreement in December on the forthcoming financial perspectives. Instead of focusing on the subjects that caused the letdown of the European Council in June this year (own resources), the EU Council Presidency suggested the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU (Coreper) should discuss spending structure before tackling modernisation of the budget, on 17 November. The Presidency hopes to apply the method endorsed last Monday by EU foreign ministers (EUROPE 9063), while acknowledging the fact that other points of view were expressed on Wednesday and that it will seek to take these views into account when continuing negotiations. In the light of a Presidency document, Coreper discussed the following elements of spending structure:
Increasing share of cohesion spending on competitiveness: Most delegations were opposed to this idea presented by the Commission on 20 October.
“Technological Fund”: Reactions differed to the Spanish idea of creating a new fund to increase investment in R&D infrastructure in Member States with GNI below the EU average, as set out in the Presidency document. Most countries wondered how such a project could be financed. Some countries (including Cyprus, Slovenia and Estonia) were more open. Germany and Finland, in particular, expressed opposition to the idea and Ireland was sceptical.
Better exploiting EIB financing facilities: France's proposal to create a new facility for research and innovation projects through the European Investment Bank (EIB) seems to have been accepted by most delegations.
Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Discussions confirmed that positions are divided on the Commission's idea to create such a fund. According to France, Spain, Italy (and Ireland which could accept it), it is of political interest. Reservation or opposition, however, were expressed by Germany, the Czech Republic, Finland and Estonia.
More agricultural modulation: The Commission suggested that, from 2009, the rate of transfer of funding from direct aids for agriculture (reduction and transfer of funds thus saved would go to rural development) should be increased by 1%. France, Ireland and Belgium were again opposed to the measure. According to these three countries, the measure would bring into question the balance of 2007-2013 spending fixed at the European Council in October 2002. Italy and Greece were not against the idea, on condition that the measure is optional.