Brussels, 07/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - The EU foreign ministers confirmed on Wednesday 7 December after their conclave in Brussels all the reservations they have about the first compromise proposal from the British Presidency on the financial perspectives for 2007-2013. Almost all EU countries criticised the reduction of structural aid for new Member States and reduction of rural development programme funds in the EU15. They considered as insufficient the solutions proposed on the British rebate and demanded a more equitable distribution of enlargement costs. Member States are not opposed to a revision clause for the financial framework 2007-2013 (receipts and spending) but most of them demanded that reforms, mainly in agriculture, should be implemented as of 2014.
In order to bring the EU to an agreement outside the European Council on 15 and 16 December, the British Presidency is expected to present a new compromise proposal before the European Council but probably after the General Affairs Council next Monday. Council President Jack Straw announced that Tony Blair would, on Thursday, Friday and next weekend, hold consultation with several Heads of State and Government as well as with José Manuel Barroso, with a view to presenting a new proposal early next week. Today, the aim was to listen and that is what was did, Straw said, saying that they expect negotiation to be difficult but that they will do everything possible to come to an agreement. Answering press questions on the request made by French Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy for the United Kingdom to agree to renounce EUR 14 billion of its “cheque” over the 2007-2013 period (instead of the 8 billion foreseen in the British proposal), Jack Straw refused to negotiate in public. He said the revision clause must allow reform of all budget aspects still underway for the period 2007-2013.
During the meeting, Dutch Minister Bernard Bot reiterated the wish expressed in The Hague that there should be an annual reduction of one billion euro in its contribution to the EU budget, and that the British compromise should foresee nearly EUR 700 million in savings, as opposed to EUR 600 million in the June proposal. According to Mr Bot, the British compromise is “a step in the right direction” but “it does not go far enough” on this point. This proposal lacks “equity and solidarity”, the French minister said, calling on the United Kingdom to renounce EUR 14 billion in its rebate. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier considered that the British rebate was still too high and that it did not reflect the equitable part that the British should finance for enlargement. Before the meeting, the German minister had said that the British proposal was an “acceptable working base” with the potential of reaching an agreement “by Christmas” although the German government continues to call for “improvements”.
Polish Minister Stefan Meller and most of the new EU Member States including Hungary and the Baltic States, considered the compromise “unacceptable”, as it runs counter to the principle of solidarity. “Unacceptable” also, in Spain's opinion, was the logic that the poor EU countries should give to the rich, in this case the United Kingdom. Alberto Navarro, Spanish Secretary of State for European Affairs, assured before the meeting that the 18 EU countries that are “friends of cohesion” consider the British proposal “unacceptable, unjust and anti-European”. These 18 countries are ten new Member States, plus Spain, Portugal, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg. Roberto Antonione, Italian Secretary of State, was opposed to the reductions in the rural development programmes and disagreed with a project that would penalise the new Member States. Austria was also opposed to reduction for rural development and criticised the project on the British rebate. Furthermore, Vienna regretted that the compromise does not provide for solutions to the problem of its excessive budget contribution problems when improvements are proposed for Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. Luxembourg said that the British rebate should be reformed in an “irreversible manner”.
The British presidency suggests a budget of EUR billion 846.75 billion for 2007-2013 in commitment appropriations (1.03% of the EU's gross national income compared to 1.06% in the Luxembourg Presidency June proposal), as well as a reduction of EUR 8 billion in the British cheque (see details in EUROPE 9083). Before the meeting, Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg Minister, said he was “optimistic” about the chances of an agreement being reached. These proposals are not the “last word in British diplomacy”, he stressed, adding: “A lot can still happen between now and next week”.
José Manuel Barroso “reserves his position”, rejecting idea of two-speed Europe
In his speech, Jose Manuel Barroso said: 'As they stand, the proposals are not acceptable. This is not a budget for a modern, dynamic, competitive, enlarged Europe. On the ctonary, its lacks ambition and threatens to make Europe less united rather than more… This is one step forward, two steps back… time is pressing.' The President of the European Commission added: 'Even if the Member States reach an agreement, the final deal has to be made between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission… I therefore issue a serious warning: do not take the European Parliament's endorsement for granted. Also as Commission, I have to reserve my position - even if we have tried, and will try, to inject new momentum into the negotiations.' Barroso said the British Presidency's ideas sent 'a message of a Europe downsizing to the loest common denominator, to a new mini-Europe' and was 'a two-speed Europe: Lisbon and competitiveness for the EU15 and old-fashioned aid policies for the new Member States.' On enlargement, Barroso said: 'I do not accept the arguemnetn about absorption capacity. Yes, it takes time to get programmes up and running. That has been the experience of all Member States… Rather than betting on a failure, we should have mechanism that give them a change to show they can deliver. Everyone has to pay its (stet) share to the burden of enlarmgent. I would urge the Presidency to take the proposal one step further to take on board the full consequences of enlargement.'