Brussels, 21/11/2005 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels on Monday, the ministers of foreign affairs of the Member States of the EU stuck to their respective guns in negotiations on the financial perspectives 2007-2013, pending the proposed compromise which the UK Presidency intends to put to them before their conclave of 7 December. Several countries voiced pessimism about the chances of reaching an agreement at the December summit, given the Presidency's stated intention of modifying the compromise put forward in June by the Luxembourg Presidency (and agreed to by 20 Member States). A majority of countries stressed that they were unable to go beyond the proposal of the Luxembourg Presidency; only the Netherlands, Sweden and the delegation of the United Kingdom called for a substantial modification to the package put forward by the Luxembourg Presidency. Certain delegations, including France, Portugal, Hungary and Belgium, said (to varying degrees) that the UK Presidency would be to blame for any breakdown in negotiations and ensuing crisis if it continued to refuse to make any concessions on its budgetary rebate. "The Presidency will have to take its responsibilities: either it comes forward in the next few days with a package including a fair division of the costs for enlargement (...), or it will condemn us all to failure, which would be a very heavy responsibility to have to bear", warned the French Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy. His Finnish counterpart Erkki Tuomioja appeared somewhat disappointed, five months after the start of the UK Presidency, which had still not put forward any detailed proposal: "as there is nothing further to be said, I will say nothing", he is reported to have commented. The Belgian minister Karel de Gucht even wondered aloud whether the British strategy was based on "courting failure".
On the substance, the ministers reiterated their positions. Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden drew attention to what they described as the excessive level of their contribution to the budget, with a particularly firm stance on the part of the Netherlands. Many countries (including Italy, Spain, France, Poland and Portugal) stated the view that the current volume of the British rebate is no longer justified. Discussions were short lived on the creation of new funds proposed by the Commission (to fight the effects of globalisation) and by Spain (to develop research and innovation). Sweden and Germany reiterated their opposition to the idea. The plan of the Commission to increase the proportion of cohesion expenditure destined for competitiveness was criticised by several countries. On the modernisation of the budget, several countries, including France, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus and Slovenia took position against any revision of Community policies before the end of the forthcoming financial perspectives, in 2013. Estonia, Denmark and Sweden seem to support the British delegation (and/or Presidency: Ed) in favour of an ambitious reform, as soon as possible, of various policies (particularly the agricultural and cohesion policies). France pointed out that the common agricultural policy (CAP) had been reformed on several occasions, unlike the British rebate.
At the press conference, Jack Straw confirmed that the proposals of the Presidency would contain "significant changes" on the June compromise. In the view of the Budget Commissioner, Dalia Grybauskaite, the fact that the Presidency has chosen to present its detailed proposals at the very last minute may be a "serious problem", because this may not allow the delegations enough time to analyse them before the conclave of 7 December. In her view, Monday's debate showed that "more or less 22 delegations" more or less support the compromise of the Luxembourg Presidency, and the three are opposed to it. "As far as we are concerned, the European Council of December represents a test for the ability of the EU to take decisions", the Commissioner added, who feels that the UK Presidency "carries a heavy responsibility". On the subject of the British rebate, Mr Straw stated that the United Kingdom pays "much more France, two and a half times more, despite the rebate". Ms Grybrauskaite replied to Mr Straw that it was "dangerous to play with figures these days, because the accounting methods you use are very different to those used by the Commission and the other 24 Member States". "Between 2007 and 2013, the British rebate may increase by 64% unless changes are made, solely due to the costs of enlargement, whereas the budget proposed would increase by just 11% during this period", the Commissioner explained. "All the Member States must move", not only the UK, Ms Grybauskaite emphasised.
Ms Grybrauskaite went on to review the idea that if the European Council of December breaks down, the 25 would be able to reach agreement at least on the budgetary envelope for structural actions 2007-2013, in order to avoid penalising the new Member States, which run the risk of not receiving their funds on 1 January 2007. "I do not believe that it is possible to make a decision on just one element of the budget. It is a package, and it must be approved as such", she said.