afternoon - General Affairs Council
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
Council of the European Union European Council
Follow its sittingsPiotr Serafin
By now, it is more likely that they will be fragmented and uncoordinated. This means higher bills for taxpayers overall. We see right now Putin escalating his aggression against Ukraine, tensions in transatlantic relations and trade disputes intensifying. We know that we will need to have more common projects, not less.
And if more common projects are needed, we also need to have resources to fund them. Given these turbulent times, we also know that there will continue to be many unknowns. That is why we created space to cater for unforeseen developments. Yet unfortunately, many of the cushions, reserves and margins have been cut. So we will again have to navigate future storms with our hands tied behind our backs.
This is a political choice, but not a good one. A lot has been said about the volume of the EU budget and why it needs to be cut. If you read some statements, you might think that the Commission has proposed a huge budget increase. So let me put things in perspective. In December 2020, we agreed to a budget amounting to around 1.13% of GNI, with 750 billion euro of NGEU on top to power the recovery.
Today, the challenges before us are not smaller, if anything they are greater and more structural.
Yet at precisely the moment when we are collectively calling upon Europe to do more, we are discussing a budget that would amount to around 1.0% of EU GNI in investments, excluding NGEU repayments. In other words, 0.11 percentage point smaller compared to the size of our economy than the one we agreed in 2020. Let me also give you a simple comparison. How many days of economic output are required to finance the EU budget? The answer is about four days.
In other words, the entire EU budget is equivalent to what the European economy produces in just four days. So roughly speaking, by January the 4th, the EU budget is covered. What would the Commission proposal for the next MFF change? It would bring that figure from around four days to roughly four and a half days. So by lunchtime, 5th of May, the EU budget would be covered.
Now compare with the national budgets. Across the EU, national government spending represents almost half of the economy. In calendar terms, this is roughly six months of economic output, compared with just around four days for the EU budget. That puts the scale of the EU budget into perspective.
Ladies and gentlemen, before I conclude let me also say something on the revenue side. I welcome that the presidency has kept the package of new own resources on the table. The leaders can now decide on a balanced and ambitious package of new own resources. The Commission stands ready to assist in calibrating the final package. Finally, as the Commissioner in charge of public administration, also a short word on the administrative costs.
My point here is quite simple. Delivering on our ambitions also requires equipping our institutions in a way which allows us to implement existing and new tasks adequately. The cuts proposed by the presidency jeopardize that goal. Thank you.
Thomas Byrne
Thanks very much, Piotr, and thank you for those comments which we take very seriously. Thanks for your praise for the Irish presidency. Our job of course is to reconcile the balance of views around this table today, and those views can be quite divergent at times. And our objective was to bring them closer. I think we've done that, but I'll pass the floor to the member states now.
Member states have three minutes to speak and I would be really grateful if you'd stick to the time because we have of course three intergovernmental conferences after this meeting that we have to get done. We're scheduled to finish after nine o'clock I think, so we can't keep putting that back later.
So I will start with Xavier Bettel. And Tom then, yeah. Xavier and then Tom, yeah.
Xavier Bettel
Ok, merci beaucoup. Tout d'abord un merci pour le travail qui est accompli. Je connais le boulot que c'est, ce ne sera jamais facile. Je vous l'ai déjà dit, je n'étais pas le plus fort en maths mais faire beaucoup plus avec beaucoup moins, ça va être difficile de réussir à le faire. Première chose, il faut savoir nos ambitions.
Speaker 5
Tout le monde dit qu'on va faire plus, on va faire plus, on va faire plus mais avec moins de personnes. Donc vous comprendrez que le point de vue toujours des du personnel, le moins quatre est quelque chose qui me tient à cœur et qu'il est très difficile de pouvoir le faire et surtout avec moins de moyens. Personne ne veut céder, que ce soit à l'agriculture, que ce soit les fonds de cohésion, tout le monde dit qu'il faut garder la même chose mais on doit faire plus. Et donc pour certains, le plus facile ce serait bien sûr d'aller emprunter sur les marchés. Je dois vous recommander que la crédibilité de l'Union européenne aussi est celui de sa stabilité financière et que si les générations futures devront rembourser d'abord quinze ou vingt pour cent de leur budget juste parce qu'on a vraiment trop dépensé à un moment, il faut le garder ça aussi à l'œil.
Quand on voit que la compétitivité, quand on voit Horizon Europe, quand on voit l'innovation, quand on voit la sécurité, la défense, si ce ne sont pas des priorités, je pense que nos citoyens ne nous comprendraient pas. Il y a des incertitudes qui existent aujourd'hui. Et les incertitudes sont internationales. Ça ne sert à rien de dire qu'on sait exactement ce qui va se passer.
Et ce que vient de dire Piotr est tout à fait juste. Si on dit que les sept prochaines années on les prévoit sans crise, sans réponse, c'est pas connaître la situation actuelle. Ça fait sept ans qu'on joue les pompiers. L'Union européenne est un peu le pompier au niveau international et au niveau droit. Si on prive la Commission et nous-mêmes des moyens aussi d'avoir une certaine flexibilité, je tiens à vous dire que ça sert à rien après de vouloir donner des leçons aux autres comme quoi qu'ils restent immobiles parce que l'argent est malheureusement aujourd'hui ce qui est une réponse à beaucoup de problèmes.
Je répète quelque chose que j'ai déjà dit et j'espère que ceux qui la dernière fois ont tous avec frénétiquement soutenu la proposition des recommandations spécifiques pour le semestre européen comprendront un jour que peut-être la Commission peut décider l'argent qui vous est alloué. J'ai été très surpris de voir qu'un grand nombre de pays ont été pour, je l'ai déjà dit, je tiens à remercier aussi la présidence irlandaise qui a compris mes inquiétudes. On ne peut pas avoir des recommandations qui de facto soient contraignantes après au niveau budgétaire, je l'ai déjà dit, je le répète encore aujourd'hui.
Concernant le corps et le Tédor, je suis tout à fait d'accord que l'on doit trouver des moyens de financement nouveaux. Mais que dans ce cas-là le Luxembourg paye sept fois plus que d'autres États membres moyens ou deux à cinq fois, il faut qu'il y ait quand même une proportionnalité. Je l'ai déjà dit, je le dis encore une fois, toute rentrée d'argent doit être proportionnelle aussi. Et je sais que le commissaire Serafin sera créatif pour trouver des choses où on ait quand même un équilibre. On ne peut pas demander à des pays, moi je suis contributeur net.
Comment est-ce que vous voulez que j'explique à mes contribuables qu'on va payer plus, qu'on va recevoir moins, qu'on a moins d'ambition, mais qu'on va être même disproportionnellement devoir payer beaucoup plus que d'autres ? La rubrique 4, je vous l'ai déjà dit, pour moi c'est important, car la plupart du temps on demande de faire plus mais on veut engager moins, je ne sais pas comment ça se passe. Et puis les rabais, comment est-ce que vous voulez que j'explique aussi qu'on continue les rabais ? On veut faire plus avec moins, donc les rabais je pense qu'il est sérieusement aussi temps d'en discuter. Et voilà, j'ai respecté mon temps.
Thomas Byrne
Merci Xavier. I'll call Tom and then Chris Fearne if you want to speak after Tom.
Tom van de Beek
Yes, thank you Thomas and thanks to you and the Irish presidency for this new negobox. It's not an easy task. We must address Europe's challenges and that requires a modern EU budget that is affordable and also focused on our strategic priorities. Those are competitiveness, security and defense, and migration. And these are exactly the topics that our leaders will discuss later this week.
But let me be clear, for the Netherlands this negotiation box is simply not a basis for an agreement. The savings are too small and mostly in heading two and three, and they are exactly the wrong areas.
We cannot cut investments in competitiveness or Europe's geopolitical strength. Reducing the flexibility reserves reduces our capacity to effectively react to unforeseen circumstances. We need further savings to get to several hundred billion euros compared to the Commission proposal. The bulk of additional savings must come from substantial further reductions in the NRPP envelopes for agriculture and cohesion. Also a fairness correction to our GNI contribution will be crucial for a negotiating outcome that is financially sustainable for us.
The same holds for the need to keep the retention rate of customs duties at 25%. On loans, we remain firmly opposed to financing part of the NRPP with loans and cannot accept a preemptive borrowing facility to future crisis. More common debt is not a substitute for making the necessary budgetary choices. The latest report from the European Court of Auditors highlighting persistent spending errors and growing debt-related pressures only reinforces the need for greater budgetary discipline. Let me also mention a number of positive elements.
We're content with the savings on administrative expenditure.
All members are lowering their administrative expenditure, so the Union cannot be an exception to this. And we're also positive that the funding for Ukraine is untouched. Equally important is ensuring that EU funding is firmly anchored in respect for the rule of law. We are therefore pleased to see that the strong safeguards remain an integral part of the proposal, and they should remain a cornerstone for the next MFF. In the spirit of compromise, we are open to the introduction of new own resources with the exception of CORE.
However, new own resources alone cannot square the circle. They must be assessed as part of the overall package, taking into account the broader financial implications of the next MFF and the own resources decision. Summing up, we're nowhere near an agreement yet, and I would like to call for finding more savings while retaining our modernization. Thank you.
Christopher Fearne
Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. And I have to start by saying that I think you did a pretty good job from a situation which at the onset seemed to be somewhat impossible.
But you know the story, because Ireland has a very religious tradition like Malta. You know the story of King Solomon, when faced, from the Bible, when faced with two women pulling a baby and both of them saying the baby is mine. King Solomon said, look, just so that everybody is slightly unhappy, because I keep hearing this, a good outcome is if everybody is slightly unhappy. So King Solomon said, just to keep both of you slightly unhappy, we'll split the baby in half, it'll be fair and everybody will be slightly unhappy, but it will be fair. And I don't think this is what we want.
So being slightly, all of us being slightly unhappy is not, I think, the right outcome we want to look at. I think Ines, and I'm paraphrasing, but Ines I think yesterday said this. And she said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that the MFF is very important, very, very important, but the European Union is much more important than the MFF. And therefore, I don't think we should all be slightly unhappy because we got what we wanted out of the MFF, because we pulled the baby more than the other side and we got slightly more than the half of it. But we should all be happy because we have a live baby, we have a live Union after the whole process.
And the MFF can be a tool to make the Union stronger, and should be a tool to make the Union stronger.
So yes, we should have cohesion because cohesion makes our lives better, it increases the standards of all the regions within the European Union, including new member states when we have the enlargement. But we should also have a budget for security, we should also have a budget to have a European AI industry. So it's not just a question of whether we pull one way or we pull the other. I think we need all of this and we need to be, we need to be sensible about this. Of course, what we must not do is, what the MFF must not do is it must not destroy economies of any member state.
So for instance, Malta has been against European-wide taxation on gaming and on digital because that will give a severe blow to our economy. And we don't want to do that, nobody wants to do this. So yes, so I think you're maybe not King Solomon, but you've done a very good, a very good job. There are some things which we would like to see changed. For instance, we would like the N+2 or N+3 at the end of the period.
We would also like to see more flexibility in the implementation conditions of our NRRPs. We would like, for instance, for home affairs to be decoupled from environmental targets. But these are things that we can discuss and our leaders will discuss over the next few days.
So on the whole, I think congratulations, you've done a good job. And my appeal for everyone is to let's all try and be happy that we have a stronger union rather than being slightly unhappy because we got a bit of what we all wanted.
Gunther Krichbaum
Thomas, thank you very much and thank you also for your try of squaring the circle. Thank you for your engagement, but now I will continue in my mother tongue so that you can use the case of the cases, the headset. Wir haben natürlich den jetzigen Vorschlag der Präsidentschaft zur Kenntnis genommen, müssen aber genauso offen auch sagen, dass wir hierin keinerlei Grundlage erkennen können für eine Einigung, da kann ich Tom nur beipflichten. Wir haben schon im Vorfeld gesagt, wir brauchen eine Kürzung um mehrere hundert Milliarden Euro bezogen auf den Kommissionsvorschlag. Warum?
Weil es auch sonst für ein grundsätzlich starkes Land wie die Bundesrepublik Deutschland nicht finanzierbar wäre. Es ist nicht finanzierbar.
Und ich würde vielleicht zumindest auch die Kolleginnen und Kollegen bitten wollen, mindestens mal für eine Sekunde ins Kalkül zu ziehen, dass der Haushaltsgesetzgeber nicht an diesem Tisch sitzt, in Form meiner Person, sondern der Haushaltsgesetzgeber ist der Deutsche Bundestag, ist das deutsche Parlament. Und da müssen die Dinge am Ende des Tages auch verabschiedet werden. Deshalb, nicht nur dass der Kommissionsvorschlag viel zu hoch angesetzt war und die jetzt vorgenommenen Kürzungen von Irland nicht ausreichend sind, die vorgenommenen Kürzungsvorschläge von Irland gehen auch noch in die falsche Richtung. Sie schlagen sich überhaupt nicht nieder in der Rubrik eins, dafür aber umso mehr in der Rubrik zwei, und da reden wir über die Future Oriented Technologies. Da geht es um unsere Zukunft.
Da geht es um Themen wie künstliche Intelligenz, neue Technologien, Space etc. etc., aber vor allem auch Sicherheit, Security, Defense, das sind alles die Themen, die für unsere Zukunft entscheidend sind. Und deswegen möchten wir noch mal dringend appellieren, tatsächlich hier in medias res zu gehen. Und ich kann eines nur noch einmal deutlich sagen: Wir wollen, um jedes Missverständnis auszuschließen, eine Einigung erzielen bis zu diesem Ende des Jahres. Aber nicht mehr um jeden Preis. Wenn wir es nicht schaffen bis zum Ende des Jahres, dann ist das halt so.
Dann ist es halt so, dann nehmen wir das Jahr 2027 dazu. Sorgfalt vor Schnelligkeit, das ist in jedem Fall unser Ansatz. Es muss die Modernisierung sich ausdrücken, damit wir wettbewerbsfähiger werden, denn wir verlieren an Wettbewerbsfähigkeit jeden Tag. Die großen Konkurrenten sind China, sind die USA, darum geht es, dass wir uns entsprechend auch aufstellen. Bei den Eigenmitteln, wir sind grundsätzlich offen für eine Diskussion, sollten allerdings, was die Höhe angeht, hier keine Wunder erwarten, lehnen COR als Eigenmittelinstrument ab.
Und selbstverständlich, auch das soll erwähnt werden abschließend, es ist richtig, dass mit der Rückzahlung von NextGenerationEU jetzt begonnen wird und die Schulden nicht der nächsten Generation vor die Füße gelegt werden. Abschließender Satz, da bin ich ganz bei Kommissar Serafin: Wir müssen in die Zukunft denken, denn wer vor sieben Jahren gefragt worden wäre, was heute tatsächlich die Lage der Welt ausmacht, wir hätten hier alle erkennbar die falsche Antwort gegeben. Keiner hat den Krieg in der Ukraine voraussehen können, keiner hat voraussehen können, wie die Reaktion, die Handelsreaktion Amerikas uns gegenüber sind, etc. etc. etc.
Wir brauchen auch ein Restmaß an Flexibilität, sonst wird eine Zukunftsfähigkeit mit diesem mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen nicht zu machen sein.
Benjamin Haddad
Thank you very much, Thomas. I'll speak in French. Merci à la présidence pour ce travail sur la boîte de négociation qui sera examinée. Effectivement, c'est un travail difficile et je le rappelle, la France est favorable à un budget qui reflète les grands défis auxquels notre Union est confrontée. Mais ce budget ne doit pas remettre en cause les politiques traditionnelles comme la politique agricole commune et la pêche qui sont les garantes aussi de notre souveraineté alimentaire et donc aussi de la réduction de nos dépendances dans ce monde d'instrumentalisation de toutes les relations.
Il doit veiller à garantir la stabilisation des contributions nationales, ce qui est impératif dans un contexte de consolidation des finances publiques. Les coupes proposées par la présidence montrent bien le risque de vouloir résoudre l'équation budgétaire seulement à travers les dépenses. Pourquoi ? D'abord parce qu'on a coupé principalement sur le pilier 1, le pilier compétitivité qui est pourtant essentiel pour nos investissements d'avenir et la modernisation du prochain budget. Ensuite parce que même avec ces coupes, la stabilisation des contributions nationales n'est pas assurée.
Et c'est pour ces raisons que nous estimons que les chefs d'État et de gouvernement doivent regarder en priorité au prochain conseil le volet ressources. Seul un travail sérieux sur le paquet de nouvelles ressources propres peut permettre de résoudre cette équation budgétaire. Sinon, il sera impossible de créer les conditions d'un accord. Les nouvelles ressources propres ne sont pas qu'une obligation de moyens, c'est une condition sine qua non si on veut pouvoir créer les conditions pour avoir un accord dans les prochains mois. Nous ne pouvons pas reporter ce débat à une énième feuille de route.
La préservation du paquet de ressources propres de la Commission dans la boîte de négociation est bienvenue, mais les progrès restent limités, ne permettent pas de sécuriser l'équilibre financier du prochain cadre financier pluriannuel. D'abord, la proposition de hausse du taux d'affectation de la ressource CBAM de 75 % à 90 % pourrait être portée à 100 %. Nous l'avons déjà proposé, y compris pour les ressources traditionnelles comme les droits de douane. Deuxièmement, le mécanisme de phasing-in pour ETS serait de facto un nouveau mécanisme de correction qui viendrait impacter le rendement attendu de la ressource. Donc nous devons donc poursuivre la discussion sur les ressources propres pour sécuriser a minima le volume initial qui avait été proposé par la Commission et garantir le caractère authentique et effectif de ces ressources.
Et on l'a déjà dit, il faut aussi maintenant un examen approfondi des ressources propres qui ont été proposées par le Parlement européen, en particulier la taxe sur les services numériques qui coche beaucoup des cases de ce qu'on essaie de faire. Ces travaux devront aussi permettre de dépasser les demandes de rabais qui sont contradictoires avec la volonté de moderniser le budget. Juste sur les piliers. S'agissant de la rubrique 1, plusieurs éléments de cette nouvelle boîte de négociation sont utiles. Je pense par exemple à la sécurisation de l'application d'un taux de cofinancement unique par type d'intervention de la PAC et aux modifications apportées sur les recommandations pays.
Nous devons aller plus loin sur la PAC, notamment sur les taux de cofinancement de certaines mesures, le montant de la réserve agricole et la prise en compte des spécificités des régions ultrapériphériques par des taux de financement similaires à ceux du POSEI. Par ailleurs, la France demande à nouveau l'actualisation des données de référence pour le calcul des enveloppes nationales. Sur la rubrique 2, le Fonds européen de compétitivité est fondamental pour répondre au constat du rapport Draghi et au contexte géopolitique que nous connaissons. Il doit rester une priorité, mais des coupes seront inévitables sans une solution robuste sur la préférence européenne, et en particulier dans le domaine de la défense. Et donc je réitère la demande française de faire remonter l'article 58 du règlement FECT dans la boîte de négociation, sinon ça sert à rien d'avoir un fonds de compétitivité.
La dotation de l'instrument InvestEU doit être adaptée à l'objectif de renforcement des instruments à effet de levier.
Sur la rubrique 3 pèse le principal effort, malgré un contexte international marqué par une multiplication des crises, mais on doit préserver quand même certaines régions qui sont quand même prioritaires pour nos intérêts. Je pense à l'Afrique subsaharienne et la zone Afrique du Nord, Moyen-Orient. Préserver aussi les montants de garantie et de moyens de la Banque européenne d'investissement qui réduisent la capacité d'investissement de l'Union. Et enfin, l'absence de regroupement des dépenses administratives au sein de la rubrique 4 est regrettable et contraire à la lisibilité des dépenses de l'Union, et donc cela devrait être réintroduit. Merci beaucoup.
Marek Eštok
Thank you Thomas, I will continue in Slovak. Ďakujem, ďakujem írskemu predsedníctvu a osobne tebe Thomas za prácu, ktorú si urobil pri príprave nového negociačného boxu. V prvom rade oceňujem, že írske predsedníctvo nepristúpilo k ďalšiemu znižovaniu obálok alokácií pre kohéziu a spoločnú poľnohospodársku politiku. Myslíme si, že teraz nie je čas naozaj na znižovanie ambícií budúceho rozpočtu, a tak ako to uviedli 17 lídri vrátane slovenského premiéra v spoločnom liste z 2. októbra a priatelia kohézie v spoločnom vyhlásení, potrebujeme silný a ambiciózny rozpočet, ktorý dokáže reagovať na rastúce výzvy a napĺňať naše spoločné priority.
Mám také tri hlavné okruhy našich pripomienok, chcem sa podeliť s nimi. V oblasti vùdavkovej časti považujeme navrhované škrty za príliš ambiciózne a rozsiahle, ktoré nekorešpondujú zároveň s ambíciou Európskej únie posilniť naše postavenie ako globálneho aktéra. Aj Slovensko má platiť viac a za to má dostať menej. To znamená, my takisto chceme, aby sme našli kompromis medzi týmito dvomi stránkami. V tejto súvislosti chcem zdôrazniť, že už doteraz Slovensko stratilo viac ako štyridsať percent kúpinej sily práve v dôsledku vojny na Ukrajine, konfliktu v Iráne, obchodnej politiky Spojených štátov.
A toto všetko očakávame, že bude zohľadnené aj v rozpočte. V kapitole dva nemôžeme podporiť ďAlšie znižovanie finančných prostriedkov pre nástroj na prepájanie Európy. Stále vidíme tento nástroj ako dôležitý príspevok aj k posilňovaniu európskej bezpečnosti. Ćo sa týka konkurencieschopnosti, pripomínam, naša pozícia je jednoznačná. Ak chce byť Európska únia konkurencieschopná ako celok, každý jednotlivý región v Európskej ùnii by mal byť takisto konkurencieschopný.
To znamená, že tá konkurencieschopnosť je úzko previazaná aj s kohéznou politikou. Nejde o nejaké rozdávanie peňazí, ale o zvyšovanie konkurencieschopnosti životnej úrovne občanov. A dotknem sa aj Európskeho fondu pre konkurencieschopnosť. Tam naozaj ešte stále nevidíme nejakú akceptovanú geografickú rovnováhu. Čo sa týka spoločnej poľnohospodárskej politiky, len jedno slovo.
Vzhľadom na historicky danú štruktúru poľnohospodárstva na Slovensku stále trváme na dobrovoľnom zastropovaní podpory pre veľké farmy a vyňatie nákladov na pracovnú silu. Rovnako treba zreálniť aj podmienky na čerpanie peňazí z N+3 na N+1. Čo sa týka príjmovej časti, tam presadzujeme spravodlivé rozdelenie finančného zaťaženia. Sme veľmi kritickí, čo sa týka nových zdrojov v oblasti CBAM a ETS. Pri ETS vnímame návrh ako začiatok hľadania kompromisov.
Žiadame však viac informácií ku graduálnemu zavádzaniu ETS odvodu pre členské štáty ako Slovensko, ktoré sú oprávnené využívať modernizačný fond. A takisto pri CBAM nemôžeme súhlasiť so zvýšením sadzby odvodu zo CBAM, ktorá dokonca presahuje pôvodný návrh. Na záver len chcem potvrdiť, samozrejme, tak ako doteraz, budeme určite konštruktívny partner a budeme sa snažiť pomôcť írskemu predsedníctvu nájsť kompromis. Ďakujem.
Jessica Rosencrantz
Thank you, Thomas, for your efforts to advance these discussions. I understand that holding the presidency in this situation is challenging, given that the Commission has put forward a highly expansive budget proposal, which places a heavy burden on Member States' national contributions at a time when public finances are already severely strained. However, we do not consider Saturday's negotiating box to be a basis for agreement. The letter signed by Sweden's Prime Minister and five of his counterparts called for reductions of several hundred billion euros. If we are to reach an agreement by the end of the year, we need an overall budget volume that can realistically be financed by those who bear the main financial burden.
This is not the case in the revised negotiating box. The figures that have been put on the table still represent a widely unaffordable increase. The revised negotiating box places the largest cuts under headings two and three. Further reductions across all headings are necessary, especially heading one.
We have been clear from the beginning that we support the Commission's modernized approach focused on competitiveness, security, and defense. Now, modernization is sacrificed while the budget remains far too large. Therefore, significant work remains before an agreement can be reached. We want an agreement, but it requires a smaller budget, cuts especially in heading one, and GNI corrections with figures. Sweden remains opposed to new own resources, but also, like many other colleagues have said, they do not solve the financial equation.
I also support what my Finnish colleague will say on the NSPAs. I trust that we will find a solution to this issue during these negotiations as well. Thank you.
Ignacy Niemczycki
Thank you so much, Thomas. And first of all, I wanted to thank you and your whole team for your intensive work on that issue. As you know, Poland and 16 other member states have advocated in joint Friends of Cohesion declarations for an ambitious EU budget. The proposal moves us further away from this ambition.
So we do have serious concerns about the overall scale of the proposed cuts. The MFF level has fallen to 1.02% of GNI when we exclude Next Generation EU representing a significant decrease but also compared to the current MFF which is 1.13% of GNI. So we are very close to the 1% level. The NGEU repayment is a consequence of past decisions and should therefore be excluded from discussions on the size of the budget. We therefore strongly reject calls for further cuts amounting to several hundred billion euros.
We need a budget that matches our ambitious ambitions. We note the fact that national allocations for cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy remain unaffected. This is only right as already in real terms in the Commission's proposal these allocations were subject to double digit reductions. However we are concerned about the cuts to agricultural reserve, the defense spending under ECF and military mobility. The future budget must reflect the security threat posed by Russia.
In this context democratic resilience is also essential.
It will be supported through the Agora EU programme, which faces disproportionate cuts compared with other programmes under heading two. We welcome the prospect of further work on new alternative own resources. However, this should lead to more concrete results. We regret that the proposals put forward by the European Parliament have not been reflected in the negotiating box. The negotiating box still fails to address the regressive nature of the overall own resources system, so less wealthy member states would pay more.
We oppose GNI-based rebates which increase the contributions of less affluent member states. We have noted the possibility of phasing in of ETS as an own resource, but again, I have to make it absolutely clear: Poland will not accept ETS as an own resource. Thank you.
Fernando Sampedro Marcos
Thank you, Thomas, and thank you, Piotr. Before continuing in Spanish, we recall and reaffirm the letter sent by the Friends of Cohesion leaders to the Irish presidency on October the 2nd. This is not a time for Europe to lower its ambition. 1.02 of the EU GDP is far from enough.
The growth generated in just the four first days of the year is not enough. Spanish children know too well that it is worth to wait one more day, that it makes a difference because it's the day they receive their presents from the Three Wise Men. This is also what we are hearing from the European Parliament and the Commission. Estamos entrando en una fase decisiva de las negociaciones. Agradecemos los esfuerzos de la presidencia, pero lamentamos los recortes adicionales introducidos en la propuesta.
No podemos aceptar un recorte adicional del 8% respecto a la propuesta de la Comisión. Europa no puede asumir más responsabilidades con menos recursos. Este no es el momento de reducir la ambición europea. Respecto a la rúbrica 1, las asignaciones nacionales de cohesión, PAC y pesca han sufrido ya reducciones significativas en términos reales respecto al marco financiero plurianual actual. Nos preocupa el fuerte recorte del mecanismo de la Unión precisamente cuando necesitamos más capacidad para responder a catástrofes naturales.
En la PAC, el ligero aumento de los pagos directos sigue siendo insuficiente. Rechazamos la cofinanciación nacional de la PAC y la pesca así como su regionalización y defendemos que los Estados miembros decidan los tramos de degresividad.
Sobre la rúbrica 2, no podemos aceptar los recortes al Fondo Europeo de Competitividad ni a InvestEU. Necesitamos reforzar la inversión, movilizar capital privado y mantener el impulso a la descarbonización y la transición digital iniciado con NextGenerationEU. Debemos ser conscientes de lo que implican estos recortes y miremos, por ejemplo, el importante recorte del 30% a AgoraEU, muy superior al de otros programas, que en la práctica supondría menos apoyo a la cultura, los medios de comunicación independientes y la sociedad civil. Y no podemos reclamar mayor ambición en la lucha contra el antisemitismo y otras formas de odio y discriminación y al mismo tiempo reducir recursos europeos destinados a combatirlo. Lo mismo aplica, por supuesto, a las políticas sociales.
También debemos integrar la resiliencia climática en nuestras inversiones. Invertir en prevención y preparación es invertir en competitividad ante las catástrofes climáticas. Sobre la rúbrica 3, lamentamos el recorte desproporcionado a Europa Global, que debilita nuestra credibilidad internacional. No debemos desatender regiones estratégicas como el norte de África, Sahel y América Latina.
En materia de fronteras exteriores necesitamos un enfoque 360 grados con una referencia expresa a las fronteras terrestres de la Unión Europea con África, que son las más desiguales de todo el planeta. Y respecto a las dificultades, y en pleno respeto a las dificultades que algunos Estados miembros tienen para incrementar sus contribuciones nacionales, todo el respeto, pero sí podemos. Yes we can, there is a solution. Debemos explorar los recursos propios, el pago gradual de la deuda de NextGen y la emisión de nueva deuda. Los ciudadanos no van a entender que cuando necesitamos enfrentar la recuperación de la pandemia sí emitimos deuda conjunta, que cuando necesitamos financiar y apoyar por supuesto a países terceros muy importantes como en el caso de Ucrania también emitimos deuda conjunta, y cuando se trata de financiar nuestras prioridades para los próximos años no vayamos a hacerlo.
Así y sabiendo además que esto contribuiría a fortalecer el rol del euro como activo seguro. Por tanto, recursos propios, España mantiene su reserva sobre el ETS, pero también pago gradual de la deuda y mantener la posibilidad de endeudamiento conjunto y por eso pedimos también mayor flexibilidad para Catalyst Europe permitiendo presentar solicitudes hasta 2032. Gracias.
Thomas Byrne
Thanks Fernando, I'll call on Tasos followed by Jacob and if I could ask members as best they can to stick to the time.
Anastasios Chatzivasileiou
Thank you Thomas and first of all congratulations for the hard work required to bring the negotiations to this stage. We would like to thank also Commission Serafin for his stamina all these weeks. At the same time, dear colleagues, we cannot yet see our common concerns sufficiently reflected in the proposal we received. This is not ambitious enough to match the scale of the challenges facing our Union. We have all endorsed the messages of the Draghi and Letta reports and we say that Europe needs to become more competitive, resilient and strategically autonomous, but we cannot credibly pursue these ambitions without providing the resources to deliver them.
And this is the fundamental question we should ask ourselves, dear colleagues. Are we aligning our financial priorities with our political ambitions or are we widening the gap between the two? So the figures are difficult to reconcile with the objectives we have collectively set ourselves. 13% less for competitiveness. 13% less for defense.
42% less for the EU facility. 35% less for the civil protection mechanism. Those reductions are particularly difficult to understand when unforeseen events and natural disasters have become a recurring reality. We cannot strengthen Europe's resilience by weakening the very instruments designed to respond to those crises.
And the same applies to migration and energy security. And we take note of the fact that the package of own resources has been maintained in the framework together with the related amendments. And we should build on the proposal and ensure that our level of ambition is matched by adequate and non-regressive and sustainable resources. And a credible and robust package is necessary, dear colleagues. All proposals made by Member States and the European Parliament should be thoroughly examined.
And we should avoid a package which disproportionately affects the economies of the poorer Member States. Therefore, all the proposals, including one of the ETS, will have to be carefully calibrated so that they are not regressive. And we see the merit of a more gradual repayment of NextGenerationEU as well as exploring targeted common borrowing. Also, we maintain our opposition to rebates. And we should be clear about national allocations because their preservation is a political necessity.
It's an investment in cohesion, the single market, and the European economy as a whole. And it's not about making a choice between cohesion and competitiveness because they are mutually reinforcing pillars of a stronger Union. Let us also not overlook the fact that the proposed resources for the European Competitiveness Fund are twice those available under the current MFF.
Ultimately, dear friends, the next MFF will send an important political message across Europe at a time of geopolitical and economic uncertainty. We need a budget that strengthens citizens' confidence in Europe's capacity to protect, to compete, to respond to crisis, and to prepare itself for the future. We must be ambitious and realistic, but realism does not mean adapting our ambitions to an insufficient budget. Realism means providing the resources necessary to achieve the objectives we have collectively set. Thank you, Thomas.
Jacob Jensen
Thank you, Thomas, thank you for presenting a revised negotiation box. We acknowledge the efforts of the Irish presidency and understand that you've faced a very difficult task of bridging diverging interests. We've also from the Danish side been very clear: we need a budget that is financially responsible in terms of overall volume, as well as ambitious in terms of modernization. Although the revised negotiation box proposes a lower overall expenditure level, the overall level is still much too high.
The numbers now on the table are unrealistic, especially given the fiscal situation in many member states. For this reason alone, the revised box is not a basis for agreement. We are not close to a landing zone. Together with others, we've called for reductions of several hundred billion euros to secure a financially responsible and realistic budget. And this remains our position.
In order to reach realistic spending levels, we must prioritize. The revised negotiation box is once again shifting balances in the wrong direction. We are scaling back on the priorities that the European Council will be discussing this week. While all headings should be critically assessed, national envelopes and traditional spending areas like cohesion and the CAP cannot be exempt from reductions as we move towards a compromise. We remain constructive but also aware that we are still very far from an agreement.
Thank you.
Dace Melbārde
Thank you, Thomas.
And first of all, I would also like to express sincere appreciation to the Irish presidency for its dedicated and diligent work on the updated negotiating box. We commend the presidency's active efforts to listen to all member states and navigate deeply divergent perspectives and expectations on the next MFF. We do recognize the preservation of funding for national envelopes under the first pillar as important element of the October 22 Friends of Cohesion letter. We also welcome the steadfast emphasis on continued support for Ukraine. Nevertheless, seeking a more satisfactory agreement remains a work in progress, requiring us to look beyond immediate constraints and focus on what is necessary to build a resilient future for our Union.
And it leads me to the very concept of the MFF, which role is to equip the Union with the means required to fulfill its common policies. As Europe confronts deep new structural needs and external threats, an ambitious MFF is not optional. In our view, it is a baseline for our collective credibility. Now, what we are still missing in the negobox and what causing us concern.
First, we regret that it doesn't support our common security needs and specific socio-economic challenges for us as the eastern border country. As you know, Russia's war against Ukraine continues into its fifth year. The economic, social and demographic impacts are felt particularly acutely in these frontline regions, and that is a reality clearly recognized in the Commission's report, but not yet by the MFF. Against this background, reducing funding for defense and security departs from our shared priorities, and we call for renewed efforts to find better solutions regarding the proposed adjustments to the defense window of the European Competitiveness Fund, military mobility and CEF Energy, which is aimed at strengthening critical infrastructure. It will be exceedingly difficult to explain to our citizens why we cannot find sufficient resources for our defense and security in today's environment.
Furthermore, while Rail Baltica requires sufficient backing, the proposed 11% reduction to CEF Transport moves us farther from our objectives and realities. Regarding the Common Agriculture Policy, Latvia values the ongoing dialogue on farmer support, and we remain dedicated to fostering a true level playing field across all member states. And to complete, we see that we have to intensify our work on the new own resources, and Latvia stands fully ready to engage constructively with the presidency, President of the European Council, and all partners to achieve more balanced and future-oriented agreement. Thank you.
Tamara Weingerl Požar
Thank you, Thomas. Let me first thank you and your team for the efforts to present the revised negotiating box. I can sympathize with the burden of addressing the concerns of all member states and commend the Irish presidency for all you have done.
First, we acknowledge that the negobox maintains the corrected national envelopes for cohesion and CAP. This is essential for a balanced MFF and should be seen for what it is: a correction of the disproportionate cuts initially proposed by the Commission, which would represent a loss of nearly 14% of our national envelope and were therefore absolutely unacceptable for Slovenia. Second, I regret that further cuts were proposed to the initial Commission proposal. While we understand the considerations that have led the Presidency to propose these reductions, we continue to believe that this is a wrong signal. The leaders of 17 Member States were clear in their letter to the President of the European Council on the 2nd of October that we need a new budget which is commensurate with the challenges ahead of us.
So let me add to that that we will not be able to support any further work that introduces linear cuts to all headings of the MFF.
In our view, it is important to ensure adequate support for key priorities such as competitiveness, research like Horizon EU, large-scale infrastructure investment through the Connecting Europe Facility, including boosting capacities for military mobility, as well as funding solidarity actions under the EU facility and the key strategic future investment, that is enlargement. Third, on the revenue side, we maintain our existing concerns about the regressive nature of the proposed package of the new own resources, and we were expecting more substantial proposals to correct this. At the same time, we understand the rationale behind leaving the package mostly untouched, the sensitivity of this requires input from the European Council, but there the issue of regressivity also requires priority work, particularly regarding the tobacco, e-waste and the ETS resources. Therefore, allow me to reiterate that we firmly oppose the lowering of collection costs for customs revenue, which is maintained in the negobox, as well as we object to the reintroduction of GNI-based rebates. And finally, Thomas, let me note that we regret that the decommitment rules for NRPPs were left unchanged in the negobox.
This seems like an obvious element to address as it would benefit everyone. On one hand, it would facilitate the implementation of policies and on the other, it would significantly flatten payment profiles, which would reduce the annual payments that Member States make into the EU budget.
So this should be seen as a win-win scenario for the next stages of the negotiations. Thank you.
Joakim Strand
Thank you, Chair, Commissioner, dear colleagues. I would like to thank the Irish Presidency for your efforts to take the negotiation process forward. The proposed negobox is a step in the right direction, but the overall level is still too high. Further savings are needed. We support the priorities set out in the Commission's proposal to deliver on our common European objectives.
We also support the modernization and balance across headings in the Commission's proposal, but the balance is once again weakened due to the unbalanced targeting of cuts. All MFF headings, including Heading 1 and the cohesion spending, must be part of the effort to bring the overall level down. I would also like to stress that any changes in the own resources system must be transparent and fair. It is possible to deliver a responsible budget that delivers on our ambitions based on a modernized structure. For that, significant work remains to be done.
As I have pointed out before, new priorities such as competitiveness, including research and defense, including military mobility, are very important for us and for the EU, as well as strong support for Ukraine.
And in the NRP context I have to highlight the common agricultural policy and home funding. We still miss some elements in the negobox such as the northern sparsely populated areas. And our special situation on the Russian border and as net contributor must be taken into account. On the new own resources we are ready to move forward with CBAM, EU waste and TEDOR proposals but not with CORE and ETS. We oppose new debt-based investment instruments, Catalyse Europe and Crisis Mechanism.
Concerning administrative expenditure under heading 4, we have a clear position that we cannot agree on the Commission's proposal to add 2,500 new posts. This should be clearly stated in the negobox. Finland is ready to continue the work constructively on an MFF that meets our challenges in a fiscally responsible manner. Thank you.
Andrea Metelko-Zgombić
Hvala lijepa Thomas.
Zahvaljujem irskom predsjedništvu na velikom trudu uloženom u pripremu revidirane pregovaračke kutije, no ne možemo biti zadovoljni predloženim smanjenjem ukupnog iznosa VFO-a za čak 8% u odnosu na prijedlog Europske komisije. Podsjećam na pismo čelnika 17 država članica od 2. listopada u kojem se poziva na ambiciozan i snažan VFO koji će omogućiti ostvarenje naših strateških ciljeva, izgradnje snažnije, konkurentnije i otpornije Unije. Ne možemo očekivati da će Unija s manje sredstava moći učiniti više. Naime, sadašnji prijedlog podrazumijeva da bismo za sve naše prioritete izdvajali u stvari 1,02% BND-a, što je značajnije manje nego u sadašnjem VFO-u u kojem izdvajamo 1,13% BND-a. Ovo mislimo da ovo nije vrijeme da Europa smanjuje svoje ambicije.
Pozdravljamo očuvanje nacionalnih alokacija u prvom stupu za kohezijsku, zajedničku poljoprivrednu i zajedničku ribarstvenu politiku, koje ne samo da su ključne za uravnotežen razvoj regija, već istodobno jačaju konkurentnost, otpornost jedinstvenog tržišta, pa i našu europsku suverenost.
Zabrinjava nas značajno smanjenje sredstava za EU Facility jer se time slabi zajedničko djelovanje Unije u izvanrednim okolnostima, migracijskim krizama kao i sve češćim i razornijim prirodnim katastrofama. Ključno je da provedbena pravila budu jednostavna i provediva uz dovoljno vremena za korištenje sredstava te će se Hrvatska između ostalog zalagati za n+3 odnosno n+2 i očuvanje stope sufinanciranja za regije koje prelaze u višu kategoriju razvijenosti. Žao nam je vidjeti predloženo smanjenje u drugom i trećem stupu. Zahtjevi pojedinih država članica za dodatnim smanjenjem ne smiju dovesti do toga da Unija nije u mogućnosti financirati zajedničke prioritete kao što je jačanje europske konkurentnosti ili globalno djelovanje. U povećanim geostrateškim izazovima Unija mora jačati svoju ulogu i sposobnost djelovanja, osobito u susjedstvu.
Stoga ostajemo pri stajalištu da je u okviru geografskog stupa Europa i proširenje nužno osigurati vidljivu pretpristupnu pomoć zemljama zapadnog Balkana. Smanjenje sredstava za Sredozemlje, a čiji strateški značaj za EU sve više raste, također nije dobra poruka i može otežati provedbu pakta za Sredozemlje. Glede prihodovne strane i novih vlastitih sredstava, za Hrvatsku TEDOR nije prihvatljiv zbog snažnog regresivnog učinka.
CBAM nam je prihvatljiv, a u vezi prijedloga ETS-a, novog prijedloga, zadržavamo rezervu i tražimo dodatna pojašnjenja. I konačno, pozivamo irsko predsjedništvo i Europsku komisiju na daljnji rad na vlastitim sredstvima u razmatranje i prijedloga Europskog parlamenta, pri čemu je za Hrvatsku, pri čemu je Hrvatska otvorena za razmatranje digitalnog poreza kao jedne od mogućih dodatnih opcija. Hvala.
András BÍRÓ-NAGY
Dear Thomas, dear Commissioner Serafin, dear colleagues. I would like to sincerely thank the Irish presidency for their hard work and the inclusive process in the run-up to today's Council. Generally speaking, the new negobox is a good basis for further discussions, but much effort is still needed. We welcome that the cuts were not done in programs that we could not accept. Nevertheless, I would like to join those colleagues who expressed criticism with the new version of the negobox, as some key Hungarian priorities, such as the size of our national envelope, regressivity on the revenue side, and the implementability of NRPP, were not addressed in the revision.
I would like to remind the presidency to the joint statement of 17 Friends of Cohesion Member States, a clear majority in the Council. There we called for increased resources for the farmers and the regions. The EP is going to argue the same, so there is still work to be done. Providing sufficient resources for farmers in case of unforeseen crisis is necessary. Therefore, decreasing the budget of the unity safety net is a mistake.
Unfortunately, the new Negobox missed an opportunity to bring a new momentum into the discussion around the revenue side. The new Negobox failed to address the excessive regressivity Hungary is facing already in the current MFF, and which will become even worse in the next MFF. The new customs code would put enormously big additional burden on Hungary, therefore the revenues stemming from handling fee should remain at the national budgets for the whole next MFF, not just for 2026 and 2027. The excessive regressivity of any new own resource should be avoided as a principle. This could be handled either horizontally or one by one in the Negobox.
The same goes for the plastic own resource as well. We should not forget the implementing rules of the NRPP either. The current proposal is going to risk the absorption of the fund.
This is politically but also economically unacceptable. We have to take seriously the possibility of the late adoption of the plans due to its complexity and it should not lead to automatic loss of resources. Our chapter-based approach and chapter-based proposal is simple. The list of chapters and their allocations would be approved by the Council, while detailed measures, indicators, targets and milestones would be subject to Commission approval only. This approach would allow chapters to be approved progressively without delaying the implementation of the entire plan.
Furthermore, open-ended list of the documents in the policy reference framework is unacceptable. We are not against a timely agreement, but a deal would be reachable only when our red lines will be taken into account as well. As we prefer quality over speed, we are ready to constructively negotiate on the next MFF as long as it takes. Thank you very much.
Clara Staicu
Thank you very much, Thomas. First, a word of appreciation for the Irish presidency's efforts on this device negobox. It was no easy task.
I would like to start by mentioning the joint letter on behalf of 17 Friends of Cohesion leaders that stressed the central role of cohesion and CAP while pleading for an ambitious budget. This letter is our core benchmark for the upcoming discussions. On the content of the negobox, we have a few preliminary remarks, although we are still studying the document. First, we remain unfortunately in a logic of cuts, which diminish the level of ambition of the next MFF. And we are finding now ourselves to a volume with 8% below the initial Commission proposal, getting even farther from an ambitious budget.
Secondly, with except for two targeted changes, we still don't have additional clarity on the own resources package. We insist on the need to advance with concrete steps on the new own resources based on proposals for adjustments that could feed the reflection, and here the Commission could contribute to this process. With respect to the more specific picture and the headings. On Heading 1, we appreciate that the strong message sent by 17 leaders was correctly perceived by the Irish Presidency and that national allocations for these two policies under NRRP are not affected.
On the implementing conditions, we also notice several positive elements, such as the connection between NRRPs and the CSRs under European Semester, the confirmation of co-financing rates for types of regions, also the flexibility on the front-loading in CAP or the increase on the level of capping for large beneficiaries. We still have a long way to go and several very important issues. For the horizontal rules, the general decommitment rule, we insist for the current N+2, N+3 to be maintained. We also continue asking for a general climate target of 30%. On cohesion, we need to have a special treatment and proper implementation conditions for the eastern border regions.
On CAP, the voluntary nature for degressivity and capping remain a must. Confirming a 10% minimum amount for rural target under NRRP is not sufficient. Although we recognize the efforts in modifying the degressivity scale, we will not reach full external convergence. For Romania, there's an undue impact that will affect larger farms. On the heading two, as already pointed out repeatedly, we need to ensure an extensive access for all member states to the European Competitiveness Fund.
In some cases, the proposed reductions within this heading are disproportionate when compared to the relevance of the objectives they respond to.
I'll only give a few examples: the defense industry, the energy and military mobility, as well as the civil protection mechanism. The proposed increase by the Commission in their case was fully justified by geopolitical and security developments. This is precisely why we shouldn't give in to the logic of cuts. We also reiterate the particular relevance of the necessary investments on the eastern flank, where a tailored solution for specific needs on this flank is required. Last word on heading 3: we have similar remarks in respect to the reductions, especially for the enlargement and Europe pillar, as well as for Middle East pillar, which, considering the current developments, should be prioritized.
Inês Domingos
Thank you, Thomas, and I will speak in Portuguese. Queria começar por agradecer à presidência irlandesa o esforço e o empenho na procura de um equilíbrio entre as diferentes posições. O próximo quadro financeiro plurianual deve estar à altura dos desafios que a União Europeia enfrenta.
Este objetivo não é contudo compatível com a redução do nível de ambição refletida nesta proposta. No que respeita à rubrica um, assinalamos o realismo dos montantes propostos para a política de coesão e para a PAC, que consideramos constituírem o limiar absolutamente mínimo para que estas políticas, que já são substancialmente reformadas e modernizadas, continuem a cumprir os objetivos que lhes são atribuídos pelos tratados. Reparem que as reduções nos montantes para a PAC e para a coesão já foram muito significativas na proposta original da Comissão. Recordo que no atual quadro financeiro a PAC e a coesão representam 68% do total. Na proposta da Comissão, a totalidade dos pacotes nacionais desce para 45%.
Há ainda uma questão essencial para Portugal e que não foi contemplada: o financiamento das regiões ultraperiféricas, que são um ativo geoestratégico da União Europeia e, contrariamente aos rebates, o seu tratamento específico está de facto consagrado nos tratados no artigo 349.
Lamentamos também a falta de ambição da proposta em matéria de competitividade, nomeadamente a redução das dotações do InvestEU. No que diz respeito aos recursos próprios, saudamos a manutenção do pacote proposto pela Comissão, só com novos recursos próprios será possível garantir os meios para a ambição do orçamento. É positivo que a presidência tenha tido em conta a taxa de mobilização mais elevada para as receitas provenientes do CBAM, bem como a introdução gradual do recurso baseado no ETS para os Estados-Membros elegíveis ao Fundo de Modernização. Mas temos de agir rapidamente e com determinação na concretização deste cabaz de recursos próprios. A possibilidade de rollover da dívida do NextGenerationEU devia ter sido incluída na negotiating box.
E quanto aos rebates, reiteramos que a obtenção da sua manutenção não é aceitável. Não possuem base jurídica e a nova estrutura modernizada em todas as rubricas para o QFP não justifica a sua existência. A sua manutenção contraria o princípio de uma repartição equitativa do esforço financeiro entre os Estados-Membros. Obrigada.
Claudia Plakolm
Thank you very much, dear Thomas, dear Piotr, dear colleagues, I will switch to my mother tongue German. Zunächst ein herzliches Dankeschön, dir lieber Thomas und deinem gesamten Team des irischen Ratsvorsitzes für die Vorlage der neuen Verhandlungsbox. Wie bereits gesagt und mehrfach erwähnt, ihr hattet es absolut nicht leicht, aber wir schätzen die vielen Gespräche im Vorhinein und auch, dass ihr die letzten Monate immer ein offenes Ohr hattet. Und wir sehen auch durchaus, und mit dem möchte ich beginnen, positive Entwicklungen, zum Beispiel die Kürzungen in Heading 4 Verwaltung und die explizite Streichung der Option auf eine Personalerhöhung. Das ist genau die Art von politischer Priorisierung, die wir bei den Budgetplanungen vornehmen müssen.
Speaker 37
Es wurde ja schon erwähnt, dass das auch national bei vielen Ländern der Maßstab ist, daran werden wir von unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürger schlussendlich gemessen werden. Nichtsdestotrotz ist das Gesamtvolumen weiterhin sehr weit von unserer Zustimmung entfernt und der Vorschlag ist keine Grundlage für eine Einigung. Und allen, die uns immer vorwerfen, dass wir zu frugal hier sind und nur die Kürzungen vor Augen haben, auch der aktuelle Vorschlag würde in laufenden Preisen ein Plus von 49 % gegenüber der aktuellen Finanzierungsperiode bedeuten.
Das ist in Zeiten nationaler Budgetkonsolidierungen, wenn die Regierungen aller Mitgliedstaaten jeden Cent zweimal umdrehen müssen, einfach nicht darstellbar und auch nicht realistisch. Nicht jedes politische Problem kann mit zusätzlichen öffentlichen Geldern gelöst werden und nicht jede Herausforderung ist auch eine europäische Priorität. Um den Standort Europa beispielsweise vorwärtszubringen und die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu stärken, braucht es auch andere Maßnahmen, zum Beispiel die konsequente Entbürokratisierung oder die Mobilisierung privater Gelder, genauso auch leistbare Energiepreise. Das sind Maßnahmen, wo wir abseits der öffentlichen Mittel wirklich einen großen Sprung vorankommen können, punkto Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Unsere Forderungen zum MFR bleiben aufrecht.
Erstens, der Vorschlag muss weiterhin um mehrere hundert Millionen Euro reduziert werden. Derzeit ist die Lücke zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit bzw. zwischen dem Vorschlag und einer realistischen und finanziell tragfähigen Landezone einfach zu groß. Alle Rubriken müssen ihren Beitrag leisten. Die Einsparungen bei der EU-Verwaltung gehen in die richtige Richtung und sollen in den weiteren Verhandlungen nicht wieder aufgeweicht werden. Zweiter Punkt, für Österreich bleibt die Fortführung des BNE-Korrekturmechanismus von zentraler Bedeutung.
Wir begrüßen, dass das weiterhin als Option in der Box enthalten ist.
Drittens: Wir müssen den Schwerpunkt auf jene Fonds legen, die einen spürbaren Mehrwert für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger im Alltag bedeuten. Dazu zählt auch eine starke und wettbewerbsfähige Landwirtschaft, auch ein starker wettbewerbsfähiger ländlicher Raum und Regionen sowie Forschung, Horizon, Erasmus, Infrastruktur. Viertens: Neue gemeinsame Schulden sind keine Lösung. Es wurde bereits von Grundte erwähnt, diese verlagern nur die Verantwortung auf die nächsten Generationen. Dann wird es leider dem Namen NextGenerationEU tatsächlich gerecht.
Das sollte nicht unser Ziel sein. Fünftens: Neue Eigenmittel können Teil des Gesamtpaketes sein, lösen aber weder das Volumenproblem noch die finanzielle Belastung der nationalen Haushalte. Und zuletzt noch ein Wort zu den nächsten Monaten und Verhandlungen: Österreich unterstützt weiterhin das Ziel einer Einigung bis Ende 2026. Für uns ist aber die Qualität des Kompromisses ausschlaggebend. Danke schön.
Sigitas Mitkus
Thank you, Thomas. Thank you, Piotr. Now I switch to Lithuanian. Pirmiausia norėčiau padėkoti Tomui ir jo komandai už darbą rengiant atnaujintą derybinį paketą.
Teigiamai vertiname tai, kad išsaugoti nacionalinių ir regioninių partnerysčių planų finansiniai paketai, jų nemažinant. Taip pat išlaikytas konkrečioms valstybėms narėms skirtų programų finansavimas, įskaitant Ignalinos programą ir specialią tranzito schemą. Išlaikytas Komisijos numatytas finansavimas Ukrainai. Tai žinoma svarbūs elementai, kuriuos būtina išlaikyti tolimesnėse derybose. Vis dėlto norėčiau pabrėžt, kad turime dar daug dirbti siekiant sutarimo.
Na, o bendra atnaujinto derybinio paketo kryptis nuvilia ir kelia susirūpinimą. Jeigu norim stiprios Europos, konkurencingos ir saugios, turim turėti ambicingą ir tinkamą biudžetą visų iššūkių finansavimui. Taigi, sunku suprasti, kodėl dabartinėmis geopolitinėmis ir saugumo aplinkybėmis siūloma toliau mažinti konkurencingumo fondą, ypač jo gynybos langą ir Europos infrastruktūros tinklų priemonės, įskaitant karinį mobilumą, finansavimą.
Taip pat būtina užtikrinti tęstinę paramą strateginės svarbos dvigubos paskirties projektams, tokiems kaip Rail Baltica ir numatyti Europos bendro intereso gynybos projektų finansavimą Europos konkurencingumo fonde. Antra, derybiniame pakete vis dar nėra tinkamai atsižvelgta į specifinius valstybių narių, besiribojančių su agresorėmis Rusija ir Baltarusija, poreikius. Europos Sąjungos rytų pasienio regiono poreikiai privalo būti pripažinti horizontaliu Europos Sąjungos biudžeto prioritetu, numatant tinkamas finansavimo galimybes nacionaliniuose ir regioniniuose partnerystės planuose, Europos infrastruktūros tinklų priemonėje ir konkurencingumo fonde. Taip pat svarbu užtikrinti galimybes vidaus fondo lėšomis stiprinti atsparumą hibridinėms grėsmėms, Europos infrastruktūros tinklų priemonės energetikos lėšomis stiprinti ypatingos svarbos infrastruktūros atsparumą ir apsaugą. Trečia, būtina užtikrinti pakankamus ES krizių valdymo pajėgumus.
ES priemonė turėtų būti pagrindinis instrumentas reaguojant į krizes, todėl jos finansavimas neturėtų būti mažinamas, o NRPP lankstumo suma sumažinta iki 15 %.
Šiame kontekste norėčiau atkreipti, kad yra diskriminacija tiesioginių išmokų srityje ir lygis Lietuvos tesiekia 79 %. Na ir galiausiai apgailestaujame, kad pajamų dalyje nematome aiškumo ir reikšmingos pažangos. Ačiū.
Ivanka Tasheva
Thank you very much, Thomas, and thank you from our side as well for all the work done and the efforts to present the revised nego box. We know that it's not an easy job. At the outset, I would like to recall the recent joint letter signed by the leaders of 17 member states, including Bulgaria, which called for the preservation of the overall funding levels for the cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy in the next MFF, and we appreciate that you took this to heart. We take note of the proposed overall reduction of the size of the next MFF.
However, we continue to believe that the current geopolitical and economic context calls for sustained ambition at the European level. We therefore continue to appeal for a sufficiently resourced MFF that safeguards adequate funding for the treaty-based policies while at the same time provides the necessary means to address competitiveness, security and defense, reaction to crises or energy and transport connectivity among others. While competitiveness and the EU's strategic autonomy are rightly gaining prominence on the European agenda, this should not come at the expense of the Union's established policies. As I mentioned, they should be treated together. We welcome the approach of keeping the national and regional partnership plans outside of the scope of the proposed reductions.
In our view, preserving member states' allocations is essential and we would not be in a position to support cuts to them. Regarding the proposed reductions, we remain convinced that across-the-board cuts, whether applied horizontally across programs or at heading level, should be avoided. Such an approach risks undermining established policy objectives without adequately accounting for the specific needs and added value of individual programs.
We regret to see that the revised negotiation box retains the N+1 decommitment rule. We consider the continuation of the N+3 rule to be a more appropriate approach, allowing Member States and beneficiaries sufficient time to implement programs effectively while taking account of the practical challenges associated with implementation. We underline again the importance of ensuring comprehensive and adequately resourced support for the EU's eastern border regions, taking into account their particular security, economic, and connectivity challenges and their strategic importance for the Union as a whole. We regret to see that no tangible improvements are proposed to address the excessive regressiveness among the proposed new own resources and changes to the current ones. Behind the overall high ambition of the MFF, we have to elaborate also on an individual Member State's level.
We have to guarantee that the developments both of the national allocations and of the total national contributions are comparable and synchronized. Any risk of unjust financial burden on national budgets has to be avoided. Only a fair package could be sustainable and acceptable.
To conclude, we remain constructive in finding in a timely manner the right balance on all elements of the MFF so that both the Union's and the member states' interests are duly protected. Thank you.
Kyliaki Kask
Yes, thank you very much chair. Estonia has always supported the ambition of the Commission's MFF proposal and therefore we are disappointed to see the proposed cuts according to which we would end up with an MFF amounting to 1.02% of EU GNI excluding NextGen repayment or 1.12% including it. The ambition has been reduced to below the level agreed in the current MFF at the time of adoption, as if there were no additional challenges ahead of us. From our perspective, it is not the time for Europe to lower its ambition and we stand by the letter of the 17 leaders sent in the beginning of October. On the positive side, we appreciate the presidency has taken into account our concerns and kept the cuts to heading one to a minimum.
As a member state bordering an aggressor, we stress that many proposals on military mobility, on connectivity and defense are moving in the wrong direction. Moreover, regrettably, there is not a single meaningful reference to addressing the geopolitical reality of member states bordering Russia and Belarus. It is evident that additional financial support is much needed for these regions. Regarding the implementation conditions of the NRPPs, we are disappointed not to see a targeted solution for EU co-financing rate for us. Estonia consists of a single transition region, resulting in a very low NRPP EU co-financing rate compared to other member states with comparable levels of prosperity.
As a country directly bordering Russia, we consider the proposed cuts to the ECF defense and CEF unacceptable. The Irish presidency's negotiating box does not adequately reflect the current security situation or the needs arising from it, particularly in terms of defense investment, military mobility, cross-border connectivity and countering hybrid threats, including the protection of critical infrastructure. Regarding implementation of CEF, continuing with the current 85% EU co-financing rate in CEF transport is critical for the eastern border member states. On the Ukraine reserve, we must seek a specific solution to the interest costs. These must not come at the expense of the support foreseen for Ukraine.
And finally, on the revenue side, we remain strongly opposed to the ETS own resource, also mentioned by others.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to even mention rebates given the cuts proposed in the negobox. Thank you.
Vincenzo Celeste
Thank you, Mr. President. I will switch to Italian. Faccio eco a quello che ha detto il ministro spagnolo: non è questo il momento per l'Europa di ridurre drammaticamente le ambizioni dell'Unione Europea. Questo è un passaggio della lettera dei 17 leader del 2 ottobre che rappresenta per noi il punto di riferimento. L'Italia, ricordo, aveva espresso sin dall'inizio forti riserve sulla proposta della Commissione perché era una proposta che, nel tentativo di adeguare il bilancio alle nuove sfide come difesa e competitività, finiva per indebolire gravemente politiche essenziali come PAC e coesione.
Non solo: il nuovo meccanismo di distribuzione di fondi determinerebbe anche un taglio ingiustificato delle dotazioni italiane nel momento in cui i contributi dell'Italia aumentano sensibilmente. Ricordo a tutti che l'Italia è contribuente netto dal 2001.
La nuova negotiating box della presidenza irlandese ha sicuramente fatto un buon lavoro lasciando inalterate le allocazioni nazionali, un elemento essenziale, ma va poi nella direzione opposta, quella di introdurre ulteriori tagli. È stato detto, il risultato è di passare a un bilancio pari all'1,02% dell'RNL europeo. Tra l'altro, poiché ho sentito molti che hanno parlato di ridurre a 1%, già ci siamo, non capisco dove altro dobbiamo ridurre. Non solo ulteriori tagli non sono accettabili, ma occorre anche reintegrare alcuni che sono stati fatti e che sono molto negativi. Innanzitutto la EU Facility, gli strumenti di flessibilità, il commissario Šefčovič lo ha spiegato molto bene.
In secondo luogo bisogna reintegrare InvestEU, che ha proprio il compito e lo ha svolto con molto successo di mobilitare risorse private aumentando in modo più che proporzionale la capacità di investimento europea. E a chi dice che il taglio del bilancio sia indispensabile per far quadrare l'equazione finanziaria, ricordo che non mancano le soluzioni.
Non abbiamo lavorato abbastanza sulle nuove risorse proprie per cercare di tener conto delle preoccupazioni espresse da diversi paesi che pure sono disponibili a discutere costruttivamente su di esse. Ci sono anche altri strumenti, un calendario più graduale di rimborso di Next Generation EU o in caso di necessità forme mirate di indebitamento comune. Noi siamo anche disponibili a valutare un intervento sul tasso di chiamata della risorsa IVA o sulla risorsa RNL. Il tema della sostenibilità dei contributi nazionali poi esiste, ma non certo la soluzione sta nel chiedere ad alcuni stati membri di reperire risorse per pagare i rebate di altri stati membri, tra cui alcuni che contribuiscono meno della media in rapporto al proprio reddito nazionale. Bisogna poi lavorare ancora sulle regole di attuazione.
In materia di politica agricola, reintegrare la riserva agricola, fare in modo che i fondi del target rurale possano essere destinati prioritariamente alla PAC e non genericamente a misure in aree rurali, ferma restando la possibilità di impieghi alternativi. Sulla politica di coesione chiediamo che anche altre categorie di regioni possano vedersi riservate delle risorse minime, come avviene per le regioni meno sviluppate.
Quanto alle raccomandazioni specifiche per paese, chiediamo che sia sciolto ogni collegamento fra dimensione delle allocazioni nazionali e obblighi imposti dagli Stati membri e chiediamo regole credibili per prefinanziamenti e disimpegni. Per la competitività chiediamo che il principio di neutralità tecnologica trovi esplicito riconoscimento nel Negotiating Box e chiediamo che vi sia un'attenzione forte in Global Europe per risorse per l'allargamento, Medio Oriente, Nord Africa e Africa subsahariana. Grazie.
Speaker 21
Grazie mille. And now I'll call Peter from Belgium, followed by George from Cyprus.
Peter Mooz
Thank you, Chair, and first of all, I would like to thank the Irish Presidency for its efforts in producing this revised Nego Box. However, the Belgian government remains seriously concerned about its budgetary impact on our national finances. Any agreement must strike the right balance between our shared European ambitions and the budgetary realities faced by Member States. From our perspective, the revised Nego Box falls short of achieving that balance. In this proposal, our national contribution will still increase by 44%.
Speaker 46
Such an increase, almost by half, is simply not affordable given our budgetary situation, so the overall volume must go down further. We firmly insist on maintaining the collection costs for customs duties at 25%.
As one of the Union's main gateways for goods, Belgium bears significant responsibilities in the collection of custom duties and in safeguarding the integrity and security of the internal market. We would also note that the 5 million top-up for cohesion countries introduced in the previous negobox and the ETS related correction now being proposed largely favor the same group of Member States. Both adjustments have a negative impact on the Belgian budget. We remain supportive of a modernized and simplified MFF with a stronger focus on emerging priorities. Strengthening Europe's competitiveness must remain at the heart of our common agenda and we note that excellence and merit remain the guiding principles in pillar 2 for what and we are grateful for that.
At the same time the MFF must continue to support the Union's traditional policies. We need a common agriculture policy that ensures an adequate income for farmers as well as cohesion policies that respond to the needs of all regions. Belgium welcomes the alignment with the NRPP partial general approach regarding the recognition of Member States' constitutional and institutional structures and that is important for us and we are grateful for that. Under pillar 2, Belgium is concerned by the substantial cuts proposed to the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Given the increasing frequency and complexity of crises facing the Union, sufficient resources for preparedness and response must be preserved.
And finally, as regards Global Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, the MENA region and the European Neighborhood should remain priority regions where we should be a predictable partner.
We also underline the important role of the European Investment Bank in delivering the Union's external objectives. Thank you.
Georgios Zodiates
Thank you, thank you, Chair. Believe us, we know firsthand how impossible the job you have is. We all agree around the table that we face major challenges in the decade ahead and that we need to step up to meet them. The question is whether the resources and instruments currently on the table will be sufficient to deliver on our shared ambitions. Take, for example, the growing frequency of unforeseen events, including natural disasters, migration crises, which are increasingly becoming the norm.
Speaker 50
Yet, at a time when we need to strengthen our capacity to respond, we see key instruments reduced significantly. The same, unfortunately, has to do about competitiveness. Resources allocated are reduced by millions. Research and Horizon Europe face a 10% cut. Widening component that is aimed to help countries strengthen their research and innovation is again reduced at a time when we're all working together to close these gaps.
As Cyprus, we also particularly welcome the preservation of national allocations as stipulated by the letter of 17 member states. We believe that these allocations are essential for delivering our common European priorities. We also support the more targeted approach to country-specific recommendations. It is indeed essential that recommendations directly relevant to the scope and supported interventions of the national and regional partnership plans guide their implementation, ensuring a clear link between policy priorities and the funding available. We note also the progress made on the common agricultural policy provisions and the additional flexibility introduced for member states.
But don't, don't let me be on the negative side.
Georgios Zodiates
We also welcome the continued emphasis on the external dimension under heading three as well as the preservation of humanitarian assistance. The increase of flexibility in the ceiling for transfer from the home affair funds to general allocation, which provides member states with greater flexibility, is also to be seen in positive eye. At the same time, there is still other things missing from the box. Let me just mention the specificities for single region island member states.
The final package must provide higher co-financing and support for single region member states to adequately reflect their structural constraints, including insularity, transport constraints, and energy isolation. Implementation must be ambitious but at the same time realistic. We call for sufficient programming certainty from the outset and retention of the N+3 decommitment rule as an appropriate safeguard for proper implementation of long-term investments. And on the revenue side, we heard a lot of colleagues saying that increases are not acceptable. Actually, for Cyprus, we face one of the highest percentage increases in total contributions, approximately twice the European Union average.
We continue to regard the GNI-based system as the fairest, most transparent, and predictable basis. We also do not support ETS 1 and CORE as new resources. We believe that even though the new provision of the ETS might be welcome, it does not go far enough. At the same time, we remain open to new own resources that generate fresh revenue, provided that they avoid disproportionate burdens and do not divert existing national revenues. Finally, and I can close here, we maintain our position that financial instruments should remain within the MFF ceilings.
We therefore have reservations about the proposed crisis mechanism outside the ceilings and the potential exposure of the Union to contingent liabilities. On rolling over the Next Generation EU debt repayments, we remain open but cautious. We must avoid creating a precedent that could transform an exceptional instrument into a permanent common financing mechanism without the necessary political consensus. Thank you, Chair.
Vlady Tomšík
Thank you, Chair and Commissioner, for your comments. First, I want to thank the team of presidency, both in Dublin and Brussels, for the hard work preparing the new negobox, as the task has been far from easy. As our State Secretary mentioned earlier, we think that we are now moving to the phase where the debate must take place at leaders' level. And so far, we rely on the basic rule that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that applies for both expenditure and revenue. We remain fully committed to reaching an agreement by the end of the year and ready to work constructively on it.
Speaker 53
And for this to happen, we need to give the MFF the political attention and time it deserves.
Thomas Byrne
That's the Irish response to that, you're very welcome. I will now ask Commissioner Piotr Serafin to respond briefly to what Member States have said.
Piotr Serafin
Thank you, Thomas. I will be short. I will also use this moment to correct because I understand I was not clear enough at the beginning. So I think I was clear that when it comes to the size of what we are discussing here, we talk about four days of the economic output of the EU. So by the end of the 4th of January, this was my message, the EU budget is already covered.
This is the size. The increase was not the 60% by the Commission, the increase would correspond to the, if you would like to put it in time, to the lunchtime on the 5th of January. So that was the Commission proposal. Now with the box of Thomas, we are back to the 4th of January. This was on the comment on the size.
What I wanted to say, I think that we should be all aware that frankly speaking, the question of our capacity to act together is not necessarily the question of ambitions.
It is the question of necessity. If we can, because I believe as Europeans we can be proud of ourselves. We can be proud when it comes to the way we react into the collapse of the post-Cold War global order, both in economic and security terms. We have demonstrated to the whole world that our reaction is to act together. And that has started already with the pandemic, then reaction to the war in Russian aggression in Ukraine, trade tensions with the US, trade tensions with China.
That's only our, the only our only asset in the current environment. But to act together, we need also to put resources. We have to, we need to have common pool of resources. And this is the only message I would like to leave to you. And the last point, I have heard many of you saying, okay, time, timing is not more important, I mean, quality matters, not the timing.
Again, I also would like to warn you. The biggest value of the European Union in the current order is predictability and stability.
The MFF, the fact that we have a long-term plan, seven-year plan for our budget, contributes to predictability and stability. The sooner we will reach this agreement, the better for us, because we need the EU budget and our citizens need the EU as an anchor of stability, and the stable, predictable European Union is also needed in the world. And that's what I'm going to say. Thomas, thank you very much.
Thomas Byrne
Thanks, Peter, and thanks everybody for the contributions today. Indeed, this will set the scene for a probably robust discussion among the leaders at the European Council later in the week. We honestly believe that we've reached a really important stage in the process for negotiation. As presidency, no matter what anyone says, we are the servants of the member states. We have to reflect what the member states are telling us, and unfortunately they are telling us two different things broadly.
So we have to bring the compromise together, and that's what we've attempted to do. And we do believe that the negotiating box strikes a delicate balance. We believe it's the right balance to constitute the basis for the final stages of negotiations. And quite honestly, I believe that the constructive discussion here today proves that point. Throughout the final stages, we must continue to work collectively to advance our shared objectives.
We need to do this for the benefit of our citizens, of our communities within our borders, and indeed those we support further afield. So thank you, Peter, thank you member states. The discussion will continue at the level of the leaders, but we remain at the service of the member states in this endeavor. I'm going to conclude the GAC then, the General Affairs Council at this point. There's nothing further formal for me to say, except that the IGC with Albania, we will commence that at 5:15.
And we just have to prepare the room for that. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.