Universal Health Coverage ‘more urgent than ever’ – UN chief
Universal Health Coverage ‘more urgent than ever’ – UN chief

Painting a gloomy picture of under-investment in health, Secretary-General António Guterres said in his video message to senior ministers: “Universal Health Coverage is not only essential to end the pandemic, it will also drive progress across all health-related SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals]”.

COVID-19 has made the need for Universal Health Coverage…more urgent than ever”, the UN chief upheld, reminding that it is also a major recommendation in the policy brief that he launched just a day earlier.

‘Global public good’

Other recommendations in the policy guidance include strengthening public health measures; coordinating a global pandemic response; and protecting other health services during the pandemic, including mental health and sexual and reproductive health programmes.

“We also call for funding for the groundbreaking ACT-Accelerator initiative to ensure everyone, everywhere, has access to future COVID-19 vaccines, tests and treatment”, Mr. Guterres said, adding that it should be seen as “a global public good”.

The Secretary-General said he hoped the meeting would “build momentum for urgent action” to transform policies and systems to deliver health and human security for all.

‘Urgency, determination and innovation’

The World Health Organization (WHO) reiterated that COVID-19 has eroded decades of progress towards ensuring that everyone, everywhere can get the health care they need without experiencing financial hardship. 

Investing in stronger health systems is not only crucial in responding to the coronavirus but also to protect people from future health threats and make health for all a reality.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the pandemic has “exposed the geopolitical fault lines of our world” and strained the solidarity “so badly needed” to address the “shared global crisis”. 

But far from derailing efforts to achieving universal coverage, “the pandemic must drive us to forge ahead with even more urgency, determination and innovation”, he told the virtual meeting. 

The WHO chief reminded nations that investing in health is not optional, but instead “the foundation for stable, prosperous and peaceful foundations and economies”.

Promoting and protecting health also promotes and protects jobs, education, peace, sustainability and more, he stressed. 
While acknowledging the crises caused by COVID-19, Tedros said that it must be a turning point, “a catalyst for making universal health coverage a reality”. 

“The only way forward is together, working in solidarity for a healthier, safer and fairer world, as if it was a matter of life and death, because it is”, the top UN health official spelled out.

Stillbirths: An unnecessary, unspeakable tragedy – UN report
Stillbirths: An unnecessary, unspeakable tragedy – UN report

A Neglected Tragedy: The Global Burden of Stillbirths, released by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), reveals that 84 per cent of these grievous episodes occur in low and lower-middle income countries.

The first-ever joint global estimates also point out that stillbirths remain a challenge for high income countries, where a mother’s level of education is one of the greatest drivers of inequity, and ethnic minorities may lack access to sufficient quality health care.

“Losing a child at birth or during pregnancy is a devastating tragedy for a family, one that is often endured quietly, yet all too frequently, around the world”, lamented UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore.  

A majority of stillbirths could have been prevented — UNICEF chief

COVID factor

And the report attests that the COVID-19 pandemic will likely lead a further rise. 

A pandemic-induced 50 per cent reduction in health services, could cause nearly 200,000 additional stillbirths over a 12-month period in 117 low and middle income countries, according to modeling done for the report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Muhammad Ali Pate, Global Director for Health, Nutrition and Population at the World Bank, and Director of the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents, spelled out: “COVID-19 has triggered a devastating secondary health crisis for women, children and adolescents due to disruptions in life-saving health services”.

Poor quality of pregnancy and delivery care; a lack of antenatal and intrapartum services and weak nursing and midwifery workforces are responsible for most of these occurrences, says A Neglected Tragedy

“Beyond the loss of life, the psychological and financial costs for women, families and societies are severe and long lasting”, Ms. Fore affirmed, adding that “a majority of stillbirths could have been prevented with high quality monitoring, proper antenatal care and a skilled birth attendant”.

Socioeconomic link

But even before the pandemic, few women in low and middle income countries received timely, high-quality care to prevent stillbirths, the report shows – with coverage ranging from less than two per cent to a high of only 50 per cent in eight important maternal health interventions, including C-sections, malaria prevention and pregnancy hypertension management.

“Welcoming a baby into the world should be a time of great joy, but everyday thousands of parents experience unbearable sadness because their babies are still born”, said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. 

Sound investment needed

Despite advances in health services from 2000 to 2019, the annual stillbirth reduction rate was just 2.3 per cent, compared to a 2.9 per cent reduction in neonatal mortality, and 4.3 per cent in mortality among children aged one to 59 months, according to the report.

However, the study maintains that with sound policy, programmes and investment, progress is possible.

“The tragedy of stillbirth shows how vital it is to reinforce and maintain essential health services, and how critical it is to increase investment in nurses and midwives”, the WHO chief upheld.

Because pregnant women need continued access to quality care, throughout their pregnancy and during childbirth, Dr. Pate stressed, “we are supporting countries in strengthening their health systems to prevent stillbirths and ensure that every pregnant woman can access quality health care services”.

© UNICEF/Loulou d’Aki

A woman who gave birth to a stillborn baby girl recovers in the maternity ward of Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza. (file)

UN chief urges greater investment in universal health coverage, starting now
UN chief urges greater investment in universal health coverage, starting now

Launching his latest policy brief, “COVID-19 and Universal Health Coverage”, Secretary-General António Guterres called on everyone to draw “hard lessons” from the pandemic, for which the world was not prepared. 

One of those lessons, he said, “is that under-investment in health can have a devastating impact on societies and economies.” 

The pandemic revealed utterly inadequate health systems, yawning gaps in social protection, and major structural inequalities within and between countries, added Mr. Guterres. 

COVID-19 has shown that universal health coverage, strong public health systems and emergency preparedness are essential to communities, to economies, to everyone,” he highlighted 

Nine months into the crisis, COVID-19 has claimed more than one million lives and infected more than 30 million people worldwide, with infections rising and signs of new waves. It has also cost the global economy $375 billion a month, about 500 million jobs have been lost so far, and decades of human development are going into reverse. 

Healthcare should not depend on financial status

Though health is a fundamental human right and universal health coverage (UHC) a key target for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), at least half of the world’s population does not have full coverage of essential health services and over 800 million people spend at least 10 per cent of their household budgets to pay for health services. 

The Secretary-General underlined that universal health coverage requires governments to increase investments in common goods for health, including surveillance and risk communication, as well as making public health programmes inclusive and equitable, without financial barriers. 

“Health treatment should not depend on financial status,” he stressed. 

Mr. Guterres also highlighted the urgent need of universal health coverage, including mental health coverage to strengthen efforts against COVID-19 as well as to prepare for future crises. 

Policy brief recommendations

The policy brief outlined five major recommendations, which include controlling further transmission of COVID-19 through proven public health measures and a coordinated global response; protecting the delivery of other essential health services during the pandemic, such as for cancer, heart disease and other diseases.

Alongside, it also calls for ensuring everyone, everywhere has access to future COVID-19 vaccines, tests and treatment; achieving universal health coverage, with increased investments in common goods for health, such as surveillance, procurement and supply chain, and risk communications; and strengthening pandemic preparedness and response.

The Secretary-General said though universal health coverage comes at a cost, the price is cheap, “when we consider the alternative.”

“I urge all to speed up and scale up investment in universal health coverage and in stronger health systems, starting immediately,” he said.

Spanish human rights attorney writes to Von der Leyen on planned violations of fundamental health rights
Spanish human rights attorney writes to Von der Leyen on planned violations of fundamental health rights

A Spanish consumers association Atty Luis de Miguel Ortega, with a coalition of other associations, has written the President of the European Commission requesting urgent response and adjustment to the law in different health issues related to the current situation of pandemic, saying that:

This institutional behavior, together with the evident collusion with philanthropic-looking pharmaceutical research, production and distribution entities, not only affects the freedom of the market but also the essential rights of citizens and consumers who are left out of the slightest decision.

At the end of the letter (which can be found below the article) request Von der Leyen the following.

1) Have associations by persons in the procedure of the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL relative to the performance of clinical trials and the supply of medicines for human use that contain genetically modified organisms or are composed of these organisms, intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease.

2) These associations are considered an interested party and their legitimacy and direct interest are recognized.

3) The file or, where appropriate, all the information related to said modification that is legitimately accessible to interested persons is transferred to us.

4) It is considered announced that if this claim is not answered within the deadline, a claim will be filed with the Court of Justice of the EU, as established in the provisions that regulate access to said jurisdiction. However, the European Commission requires acknowledgment of receipt stating the corresponding deadlines and resources.

HERE YOU MAY FAIND THE FULL LETTER

To: European Commission – President Mrs. Ursula Von der Leyen – Vice President Ms. Věra Jourová Values ​​and Transparency – Commissioner Mrs. Stella Kyriakides Health and Food Safety European Commission / Secretary General B – 1049 Brussels / BELGIUM

Mr. Luis de Miguel Ortega, as Attorney and in the name and representation of the associations indicated above [Association SCABELUM of Consumers], appears in a timely manner and respectfully SAYS:

FIRST:

That the associations mentioned in this writing, watch over the interests of consumers, especially their health rights and are concerned about the consequences that any reduction in guarantees for human health and the environment may have for the citizens they represent.

Proposing the release and use of genetically modified organisms without guaranteeing the safety of the environment and citizens, seems a crazy idea when not directly terrifying in a context of biological risk that may not only not obtain the adequate response, but may also further aggravate the situation.

The precautionary principle is established to avoid unnecessary risks and has been a doctrinal constant over the years, and in this sense it should be remembered that the seriousness of a situation, by itself, cannot be a reason for a reduction in guarantees and caution as proposed by the Commission.

It is also proposed in a confusing way, without explaining the true object of such modification, which is none other than experimentation with vaccines resulting from genetic engineering, as an experiment for use in the population, without guaranteeing safety -without causing harm-, efficacy – achieving a concrete and measurable objective- and efficiency -at a reasonable cost-.

Throughout the health crisis, there has been a lack of data transparency and an obsession to conduct experiments on human beings, avoid possible responses and treatments, and insist on a vaccine for which there is no prior experience or guarantee.

Real and effective treatments such as artemisia, hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide or vitamin C in high doses, have been banned, reviled, censored and even persecuted, pretending that the objective of the institutions and states was not life, the health and safety of its citizens, but a strange business that we fail to understand.

This institutional behavior, together with the evident collusion with philanthropic-looking pharmaceutical research, production and distribution entities, not only affects the freedom of the market but also the essential rights of citizens and consumers who are left out of the slightest decision.

SECOND:

That this part has studied in detail the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL relating to the performance of clinical trials and the supply of medicinal products for human use that contain genetically modified organisms or are composed of these organisms, intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease (Text with EEA relevance).

That said modification affects the following Directives that we have studied:

Directive 2009/41 / CE, relative to the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms.

Directive 2001/18 / CE, on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.

Directive 2001/20 / CE, on clinical trials (Directive 2001/18 / CE and Directive 2009/41 / CE).

Directive 2001/83 / EC (Article 83 of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004).

REGULATION (EU) No 536/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of April 16, 2014 on clinical trials of medicinal products for human use, and by which Directive 2001/20 / EC is repealed (Text relevant to the purposes of the EEA )

THIRD:

What we have studied in detail:

“ Coordinated EU action to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences. European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2020 on coordinated action by the Union to combat the COVID – 19 pandemic and its consequences (2020/2616 (RSP)). “

” COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The time for Europe to repair the damage and prepare the future for the next generation {SWD (2020) 98 final}”

” European Parliament resolution on the European Union’s public health strategy after COVID-19 (2020/2691 (RSP))”

FIFTH:

Having regard to the TFEU, the Commission’s Internal Regulations [C (2000) 3614], the CODE OF GOOD ADMINISTRATIVE CONDUCT FOR THE STAFF OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC, the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union ( 1-5-2019) and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (1-1-2020), we understand that there are reasons to appear before that commission.

SIXTH:

That the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL regarding the performance of clinical trials and the supply of medicinal products for human use that contain genetically modified organisms or are composed of these organisms, intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease, affects:

1) DIRECTIVE 2011/83 / EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of October 25, 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13 / EEC and Directive 1999/44 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 85/577 / EEC of the Council and Directive 97/7 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance) are repealed.

2) DIRECTIVE 2004/35 / CE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of April 21, 2004 on environmental liability in relation to the prevention and repair of environmental damage.

3) The TFEU, in its articles:

Article 11 (ex Article 6 TEC) The requirements of environmental protection must be integrated into the definition and implementation of Union policies and actions, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.

Article 12 (ex Article 153 (2) TEC) When defining and implementing other Union policies and actions, consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account.

Article 15 (ex Article 255 TEC) 1. In order to promote good governance and to guarantee the participation of civil society, the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union shall act with the greatest possible respect for the principle of openness.

3. Every citizen of the Union, as well as every natural or legal person who resides or has its registered office in a Member State, shall have the right to access the documents of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union, whatever their support. , in accordance with the principles and conditions to be established in accordance with this section.

Article 101 (former Article 81 TEC) 1. All agreements between companies, decisions of associations of companies and concerted practices that may affect trade between Member States and that have as their object or purpose shall be prohibited. The effect of preventing, restricting or distorting the game of competition within the internal market.

Article 102 (former Article 82 TEC) It shall be incompatible with the internal market and, insofar as it may affect trade between Member States, the abusive exploitation, by one or more companies, of a dominant position in the internal market or a substantial part of it.

Article 107 (former Article 87 TEC) 1. Unless the Treaties provide otherwise, the aid granted by the States or through State funds shall be incompatible with the internal market, insofar as they affect trade between Member States. in any way, that distort or threaten to distort competition, favoring certain companies or productions.

Article 191 (ex Article 174 TEC) 1. Union policy in the field of the environment shall contribute to achieving the following objectives: – the conservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

– the protection of people’s health,

– the prudent and rational use of natural resources, – the promotion of measures at international level to deal with regional or global environmental problems. and in particular to fight against climate change.

2. Union policy in the field of the environment shall aim to achieve a high level of protection, bearing in mind the diversity of situations existing in the different regions of the Union. It will be based on the principles of precaution and preventive action, on the principle of correcting attacks on the environment, preferably at the source itself, and on the principle that the polluter pays. In this context, the harmonization measures necessary to meet environmental protection requirements will include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause authorizing Member States to adopt, for non-economic environmental reasons, provisional measures subject to a Union control procedure.

3. In drawing up its policy in the area of ​​the environment, the Union shall take into account:

– the scientific and technical data available,

– environmental conditions in the various regions.

– the benefits and burdens that may result from action or lack of action,

– the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions.

4. Within the framework of their respective competences, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and competent international organizations. The modalities of the Union’s cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the latter and interested third parties. The preceding paragraph shall be understood without prejudice to the competence of the member states to negotiate in international institutions and to conclude international agreements.

4) It also affects the rights included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000 / C 364/01)

CHAPTER I on dignity, arts 1, 2 and 3

CHAPTER III on equality, arts. 24, 25 and 26

CHAPTER IV on solidarity, arts. 35, 37 and 38

CHAPTER V on citizenship, arts. 41 and 42

SEVENTH:

The Court of Justice of the European Union shall control the legality of legislative acts, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Central Bank that are not recommendations or opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament and of the European Council intended to produce legal effects against third parties. It will also control the legality of the acts of the organs or agencies of the Union intended to produce legal effects against third parties.

Any natural or legal person may file an appeal, under the conditions set forth in the first and second paragraphs, against the acts of which it is the recipient or that affect it directly and individually and against the regulatory acts that affect it directly and that do not include measures of execution.

The appeals provided for in this article must be filed within a period of two months from, depending on the case, of the publication of the act, of its notification to the appellant or, in the absence thereof, from the day the appellant had knowledge of the same.

In the event that, in violation of the Treaties, the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank abstain from acting, the Member States and the other institutions of the Union may appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to declare such violation. This article shall apply, under the same conditions, to the organs and agencies of the Union that refrain from making a pronouncement.

Any natural or legal person may appeal a complaint to the Court, under the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, because one of the institutions, or one of the organs or agencies of the Union, has not directed an act other than a recommendation or an opinion.

Based on all the above, the signatory associations request:

1) Have associations by persons in the procedure of the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL relative to the performance of clinical trials and the supply of medicines for human use that contain genetically modified organisms or are composed of these organisms, intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease.

2) These associations are considered an interested party and their legitimacy and direct interest are recognized.

3) The file or, where appropriate, all the information related to said modification that is legitimately accessible to interested persons is transferred to us.

4) It is considered announced that if this claim is not answered within the deadline, a claim will be filed with the Court of Justice of the EU, as established in the provisions that regulate access to said jurisdiction. However, the European Commission requires acknowledgment of receipt stating the corresponding deadlines and resources.

In Burgos on July 25, 2020

Original publication can be found at: https://www.scabelum.com/post/letter-to-president-of-european-commision

EU long-term budget deal must be improved for Parliament to accept it | News | European Parliament
EU long-term budget deal must be improved for Parliament to accept it | News | European Parliament

In a resolution on the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 17-21 July 2020, adopted by 465 votes against 150, with 67 abstentions, MEPs pay tribute to the victims of the coronavirus and to all the workers who have been fighting the pandemic. They underline that “people in the EU have a collective duty of solidarity.”


Positive step for recovery, inadequate in the long term

In the text, which serves as a mandate for the upcoming negotiations on the future EU financing and recovery, Parliament welcomes EU leaders’ acceptance of the recovery fund as proposed by Parliament in May, calling it a “historic move for the EU”. MEPs deplore however the “massive cuts to the grant components” and call for full democratic involvement of Parliament in the recovery instrument which “does not give a formal role to elected Members of the European Parliament”.

As for the long-term EU budget, they disapprove of the cuts made to future-oriented programmes and consider that they will “undermine the foundations of a sustainable and resilient recovery.” Flagship EU programmes for climate protection, digital transition, health, youth, culture, research or border management “are at risk of an immediate drop in funding from 2020 to 2021″, and that as of 2024, the “EU budget as a whole will be below 2020 levels, jeopardising the EU’s commitments and priorities.”


Parliament cannot accept a bad agreement

Parliament thus does not accept the European Council’s political agreement on the 2021-2027 MFF as it stands and “will not rubber-stamp a fait accompli”. MEPs are “prepared to withhold their consent” for the long-term EU budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) until a satisfactory agreement is reached in the upcoming negotiations between Parliament and the Council, preferably by the end of October at the latest for a smooth start of the EU programmes from 2021.

In the case however that a new MFF would not be adopted on time, MEPs recall that Article 312(4) of the TFEU provides for the temporary extension of the ceiling of the last year of the present MFF (2020), and that this would be fully compatible with the recovery plan and the adoption of the new MFF programmes.


Rule of Law

Parliament “strongly regrets” that the European Council significantly weakened the efforts of the Commission and Parliament to uphold the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy in the framework of the MFF and the recovery plan, recalling that the Rule of Law Regulation will be co-decided by Parliament.


New sources of EU revenue and repayment of EU-debt

MEPs reiterate that Parliament will not give its consent for the MFF without an agreement on the reform of the EU’s own resources system, including the introduction of a basket of new own resources by the end of the 2021-2027 MFF which is necessary to cover at least the costs related to the recovery plan.

They believe that the EU Heads of State and Government have failed to tackle the issue of the recovery instrument repayment plan and recall that without further cuts to key programmes or increasing the Member States’ contributions to the EU budget, new own resources is the only acceptable option to Parliament.


Mid-term revision indispensable

Parliament demands that a legally binding MFF mid-term revision enters into force by the end of 2024 at the latest and stresses that this revision must include the ceilings for the 2025-2027 period, the introduction of additional own resources and the implementation of the climate and biodiversity targets.

MEPs debate recovery fund, condemn major cuts to long-term EU budget | News | European Parliament
MEPs debate recovery fund, condemn major cuts to long-term EU budget | News | European Parliament

In the debate with Council and Commission Presidents Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen, the deal reached at the recent European Council meeting on the recovery fund was qualified as “historic” by many MEPs as for the first time, member states have agreed to issue €750 billion of joint debt. With cuts made to the long-term budget (multiannual financial framework, MFF) however, most were “not happy”.

“We are not ready to swallow the MFF pill”, said Manfred Weber (EPP). Also, S&D leader Iratxe García would not accept the cuts, “not at a time when we need to strengthen our strategic autonomy and reduce disparities between Member states”.

Many highlighted that the question of reimbursing the debt was not resolved. MEPs insisted that the burden must not fall on the citizens, and that a robust system of new own resources including a digital tax or levies on carbon for the repayment must be guaranteed, with a binding calendar. Furthermore, many underlined that “the EU is not a cash machine for national budgets”, deploring that “frugal” countries do not want to pay the price for benefiting from the single market, and insisting that no funds should go to “pseudo-democratic” governments which do not respect the rule of law and EU values.

Others were more sceptical about new own resources generating enough to repay all the debt and warned that the crisis should not be used as a pretext for further EU integration. Most however stressed that Parliament is ready for swift negotiations to make the necessary improvements to the Council’s common position.

MEPs now vote on a resolution to wind up the debate, which will serve as a mandate for the upcoming negotiations with the German Presidency of the Council of the EU. The result of the final vote will be announced in plenary today at 17.30.


Click on links to view individual statements

Charles Michel, President of the European Council

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission

Manfred Weber (EPP, DE), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D, ES), Dacian Cioloș (RE, RO), Nicolas Bay (ID, FR), Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, BE)

Robert Zīle (ECR, LV), Martin Schirdewan (GUE/NGL, DE)

Closing remarks by Charles Michel, President of the European Council

Future EU financing and recovery: MEPs to assess summit outcome | News | European Parliament
Future EU financing and recovery: MEPs to assess summit outcome | News | European Parliament

meta facebook

To wind up the extraordinary plenary debate, scheduled from 9:30-12:30, MEPs will adopt, on the same day, a resolution on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), an Own Resources system and a Recovery Plan for Europe.

Commenting on the outcome of the European Council meeting of Heads of States or Governments from 17-21 July in Brussels, the President of the European Parliament David Sassoli said on Tuesday: “After days of discussions, European citizens expect an agreement that lives up to this historical moment. We are worried about a future where European solidarity and the Community method are lost. The European Parliament has set out its priorities and it expects them to be met. The multiannual financial framework must be able to address the main challenges facing Europe in the medium term, such as the Green Deal, digitalisation, economic resilience, and the fight against inequalities.”

“New own resources are needed immediately. We also need measures to ensure the effective defence of the rule of law. Furthermore, Parliament has repeatedly called for the end of rebates. If these conditions are not sufficiently met, the European Parliament will not give its consent. COVID-19 is still here and we are seeing new outbreaks in Europe. More than ever it is necessary to act quickly and courageously.”


Follow the plenary live
on EbS or the European Parliament’s webstream.


Next steps

The Council will now finalise its mandate to enter negotiations with Parliament on the planned MFF for 2021-2027, own resources reform and the recovery plan. Parliament will have a final say on the MFF before it can enter into force. The current multiannual budget runs out on 31 December 2020.

MEPs will set out their conditions in Thursday’s plenary resolution. The EP’s negotiating team will take up negotiations with the German Presidency of the Council of the EU as soon as possible.