Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 101kWORD 18k
23 March 2018
Question for written answer E-001776-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Alessandra Mussolini (PPE)

 Subject:  Proposed package for post-2020 MFF
 Answer in writing 

In May 2018, the Commission will present its proposed package for the post-2020 MFF.

Obviously, losing the financial contribution of the United Kingdom will go hand in hand with the need to carefully define the priorities on which the EU budget should be concentrated in the coming years.

While the allocation of significant resources to crucial sectors such as security, defence, pressure from migration, climate change and digitalisation is desirable and in line with current realities, the idea that such allocations would penalise traditional policies such as the cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy (CAP) is concerning. These traditional policies are vital for maintaining well-being both nationally and regionally at the EU level. In this regard, the case of Italy is particularly relevant as the country’s current and potential development strongly depend on adequate spending in crucial sectors such as agriculture.

In the light of the above, can the Commission say if it is undertaking alternative assessments to prevent spending cuts to sectors which are crucial to the growth of Member States?

Original language of question: IT 
Last updated: 23 April 2018Legal notice