Tomorrow, @EP_Agriculture will vote on the so-called CAP transitional regulation. The attention to this file, especially in the European Parliament has been rather low, yet here is why this might have been a mistake: (Thread: 1/7)

This file started with @EUAgri proposal for an extention of the current CAP by 1 yr. Now it is clear, that the transitional period will last at least 2 yrs: the technical extension turns into a political decision as it already affects a big chunk of the next programming period.

This file is a chance to take its name more literal and to initiate a true transition towards a more sustainable and resilient sectore, supported by a fairer system of subsidies without creating excessive administrative burden. (3/7)

There are good proposals on the table e.g. by @mbompard, which would fix known problems in the Greening: strengthening the rules for crop rotation and creating real space for nature in the landscape by deleting ineffective options from the ecological focus areas. (4/7)

All these issues would have been worthy to discuss. Yet the debate in the @EP_Agriculture was rather cut short. A session that was supposed to discuss the over 400 AMs and the compromises by the shadows barely happened. (5/7)

Now, rapp. @ElsiKatainen plans to by-pass the plenary vote in May by going directly to Trilogues. This is highly critical, as it barely saves time+kills off any debate on how more than 100bn.€ will be spend. It also harms the EPs standing in the further #FutureofCAP reform.(6/7)

Covid-19 is a challenge to the parliamentarian process, but in this light, I recommend to reconsider this idea to rush this reform through, without a meaningful debate. Let's take the additional 3 weeks and put it to a vote in plenary. (7/7)

. @EddyWax @AgraFacts