Does it make sense that whenever there is an emergency or crisis in Europe, or outside Europe, money is taken from cohesion policies? Doesn’t this compromise, in the medium term, cohesion policy and its objectives?
I understand the question, but we have to be pragmatic. It is not possible to explain, for example, in a situation like the pandemic or aid to refugees in the situation in Ukraine, that, if resources are available for a certain policy, that policy is not addressed just for the sake of it. That’s not the main problem. In my opinion, the main issue is that when using resources from a policy, such as cohesion policy, what needs to be done is to create rules and safeguards a priori to ensure that there is a good balance between the nature of that policy as a policy long-term policy and structural investments, and what may be unforeseen, extraordinary events that occur. That is why, in my European Week opening speech, I talked about flexibility with predictability. Why not do it this way? In other words, continue debating the allocation of resources without taking into account this weighing of interests and, in essence, decide almost in panic mode? Because, obviously, emergencies happen. Unfortunately, in recent times we have this experience. And, therefore, the main question that arises is to recognize, obviously, that it is not possible to explain that, if there are resources available in a policy and in an emergency, those resources cannot be mobilized. The important thing is to guarantee that, when making such a decision, there are rules defined a priori that allow for achieving a good balance between, in this specific case, cohesion policy, its nature as a long-term structural policy, long-term – Term investments and what the need may be to respond to extraordinary events.
As far as I know, the Committee of the Regions proposes that the European Commission’s Ukraine Facility be increased from 50 billion to 60 billion. Is this something that has already been decided? What does the Committee of the Regions want with this?
It was decided today, that is our opinion. That was what we were asked to do and, in essence, our opinion on this topic. Naturally, there are other European institutions that are relevant, but our obligation is, from the perspective of regions and cities, to ensure that this mechanism, together with all the considerations about the importance of local and regional power, also constitutes a strong instrument to put highlight these aspects and ensure their compliance.
Aren’t you afraid that the new war in Israel could compromise Europe’s commitment to Ukraine?
In reality, it is not a question of fearing it or not. It is a matter of being clear that the world does not happen as we want. The world happens as it happens. What we have to be the best prepared to face events, even when this translates into unforeseen events, in which resources sometimes have to be reallocated. But obviously being clear that there is no dispute of priorities between one situation and another. The European Union rightly has commitments in both situations and obviously must assume and fulfill them. But they are different situations from this point of view. Let’s say that with Ukraine there is a commitment that goes beyond the situation of armed conflict. Ukraine is a country, like others, a candidate for the European Union and this obviously requires a series of obligations on the part of both parties, including the Ukrainian one, in compliance with the requirements that, like any other country, it must meet to be one. a candidate. This approach also has implications, scaling up also has implications for the availability of resources. But last Monday, at the joint press conference I had with Commissioner Elisa Ferreira, I had the opportunity to highlight this aspect. Obviously, no one ignores the importance of discussing and debating resources, but it is important that, from a political point of view, this situation is not reduced to who wins and who loses, because it is in the interest of everyone, including all countries. of the EU, of the Union as a whole, to proceed with this enlargement. The reasons have been highlighted many times and this is an aspect that must be taken into account, naturally.
In relation to the European Week of Regions and Cities, what would you highlight about what happened here this week?
Firstly, the fact that regions and cities are increasingly asserting themselves as a level of government, not only unsurpassed in terms of their importance in making Europe a reality, but also in what has to do with the Committee of the Regions, asserting -increasingly the result of these examples, as a true political assembly, representing this level of governance throughout Europe. According to the idea, this European Week of Regions and Cities made it possible to highlight two aspects: one related to Ukraine, our unquestionable solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. And, secondly, the absolutely essential importance of a free, independent, or rather independent, properly financed and respected local and regional power in Ukraine. Regarding the third aspect, always in relation to the European Week of Regions and Cities, the issues related to the debate on the future of cohesion policy and, in this context, I would link the elections to the European elections. what do I want to say with that? This is a debate that takes place after 2027, but the European elections are a fundamental moment to reaffirm, in essence, the need for commitments, for concrete positions in relation to this issue. I also highlight the decision that was taken to hold the tenth Summit of the Regions and Cities of Europe, which will take place in March next year, in Mons, here in Belgium, in the context of the Belgian presidency of the European Union and which will be a great moment of participation and which also coincides with the thirtieth anniversary of the Committee of the Regions, which held its first plenary session in March 1994.
Source: TSF
