Brussels, 07/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - As already reported, MEP reactions to the British Presidency's first proposals on the 2007-13 financial perspectives have been very negative, especially those of the new Member States' representatives (see below and EUROPE 9083). In a press release, President Borrell, who shares President Barroso's negative viewpoint, said, “What is not acceptable must not be accepted”. Josep Borrell warned that “the establishment of the EU budget is the result of an inter-institutional agreement. In short, without the agreement of Parliament and the Commission, there can be no financial perspective. (…) The proposed cuts (…) affect cohesion policies in particular. (…) We cannot now go back on our undertakings and agreements. Those countries that were beneficiaries of cohesion in the past cannot forget about these principles when others are due to benefit from them. In a spirit of fairness, the burden must be shared by everyone. A budget is the reflection of a project. Certain Member States must therefore guard against gaining from the budget but losing out on the European project.”
In the political groups, there has been a general outcry. EPP/ED President, Hans-Gert Pöttering asserted, “It sends the wrong signal. (…) My group will not accept the current proposals, because they penalise the poorest and weakest”. Reimer Böge, rapporteur for the temporary committee on the 2007-13 financial perspective, declared: we will not negotiate on anything less than last June's Luxemburg proposal. He also noted, “If there is no agreement next week, it's not the end of the world. The budget (for 2007) can be set using the annual procedure or by extending and modifying existing rules. If that were the case, the calculation would be based on the final year of the current financial perspective, that is the 2006 budget, which gives reasonable room for manoeuvre” (see EUROPE 9078 and 9081). Mr Böge, who reproaches the Commission for being too late in taking its stance on this matter, criticised the British Presidency in terms both of what was said (this package “is above all geared towards national interest”, something that is “unprecedented”) and on the way it was said ( Jack Straw held his press conference in London and not Brussels). The Austrian Othmar Karas was indignant: it was “a slap on the face” for new Member States, London “wants to maintain its own well-being on the backs of the poor countries of central and eastern Europe: it's an flagrant breach of the fundamental principle of solidarity to which the United Kingdom has itself so often appealed”. Forza Italia MEP, Antonio Tajani stated in a press release, “We cannot share the British position: it does not contribute to the development of Europe and it doesn't help Italy. That is why the European Popular Party and the Italian Government are right to seek changes (…) in line with the requests of the European Parliament and the Commission”.
PES group President, Martin Schulz, was of the opinion that “a 'low budget' Europe” would not work, and asked where, in the British proposal, was “the much heralded reform of the outdated European agriculture policy?” Speaking for Democratici de sinistra MEPs, Gianni Pittella (2006 budget rapporteur) and Nicola Zingaretti said, “Italy is the country that will come off worst”, and went on, “every country in one way or another will receive partial compensation” for the budget cuts, net contributors will see their contributions reduced, France will be able to count on the 2002 agriculture agreement being maintained, the new Member States “will receive funding, though at a reduced level” (according to the principle of “little, but right now”), the Iberian countries will receive the “Madrid Technological Funds”, while Italy, like the other net contributors, would pay less into the EU budget but would suffer cuts to the rural development chapter.
Silvana Koch-Mehrin of the ALDE group reproached the Presidency for not taking citizens' disaffection into account, saying, “the gymnastics over the figures and calculations that are not transparent will convince no one”, going on to say that the proposal did not resolve the problems of the British rebate or agricultural subsidies which “are costly absurdities in the EU budget”.
Helga Trüpel of the Greens/EFA was appalled and found it “disgraceful” that the British, who were so much in favour of enlargement towards the east, should be undermining solidarity with the new Member States. “The Blair proposal is un-European in spirit”, she protested.
EPP/ED MEPs from new Member States form united front against “humiliating” proposal
On Wednesday, EPP/ED MEPs from the new Member States reiterated to the Press that the British proposal was “completely unacceptable”, “cynical” and even “humiliating” “This proposal does not reflect the historic task of reunifying Europe. On the contrary, if approved, it will create new lines of division in Europe, psychological, budgetary and cultural divisions” between old and new Member States, said Hungarian Jozsef Szajer, stating that he was speaking on behalf of the whole EPP/ED group. “Our message to the governments of the ten new countries is clear: 'stay strong'” and just don't accept anything at any price, said Mr Szajer. Pole Janusz Lewandowski pointed out that Parliament wanted a balanced and fair budget, while the Presidency's proposal sought “mainly to keep British privileges”. Latvian Valdis Dombrowskis ejected the “absurd” proposal which would mean that a country could not receive European aid above a level equivalent to 3.66% of GDP, as against 4% previously; this, he claimed, would have the effect of punishing more heavily the poor countries with their lower GDP. He also emphasised that Tony Blair was contradicting himself: last June, “he was demanding reform of the CAP, but there is nothing about this in his proposal. He wanted to concentrate structural aid on the poorest countries, but he is doing exactly the opposite by reducing their regional funds”. Hungarian Laszlo Surjan opined that the proposal confirmed “the total failure of this Presidency”, while Estonian Tunne-Waldo Kelam rejected the British argument that the new countries would probably be able to spend the totality of the funding allocated in the budget. He felt that, in Estonia, absorption capacity is more than sufficient. Slovaks, Jan Hudacky and Edit Bauer underlined the significant losses that their country - one of the poorest of the new members - would suffer if the British proposal were approved. In conclusion, Lithuanian Vytautas Landsbergis said, “Great Britain, but not great in spirit”.