Next year already… The member states' reactions to the draft EU budget for 2012 give a flavour of debates to come about the EU's financial perspectives for 2014-2020. Yesterday, I explained the differences among political leanings and among member states in this connection. The European Commission believes it has drafted a reasonable budget for next year that takes account of the budget problems facing the member states and demands that a similar tightening of the belt be carried out at EU level. Some member states back the Commission's ideas, but others say the Commission is being too greedy.
The Commission has suggested a rise of around 5% on this year's budget, pointing out that administrative spending is being cut back to an unprecedented extent, 80% of the EU's budget is actually spent in the member states to provide aid to regions, farmers and the European Social Fund, and most of the remainder is spent outside the EU for political or humanitarian reasons. Without a reasonable budget, cohesion policy is not possible, and neither is the agricultural policy or aid for the Arab Spring, other African countries and developing countries round the world. In order to protect such priority spending, the Commission suggests cutting other expenditure to ensure that the budget remains at around 1% of EU27 gross national product. The 2012 budget is part of the 2007-2013 financial perspectives and in light of the current budget spats, one can easily see why it is proving so difficult to decide on the next round of financial perspectives, and why the idea of the EU raising its “own resources” rather than relying on contributions from the member states is gaining ground.
Other issues. Other issues need to be borne in mind, however, such as:
1) Herman Van Rompuy's misgivings. Would it be right for the EU to drum up its own resources? The president of the European Council has doubts about this, fearing it would mean the end of solidarity among the member states. Current contributions to the EU budget are calculated in line with gross national product, whereby each country contributes according to its means, but a European tax would result in less solidarity.
2) What about wasted expenditure? Phasing out some spending through tighter monitoring of the funding of some programmes would actually be positive. The European Court of Auditors regularly sheds light on often flagrant fraud and abuse, and calls for tighter checks and balances and the suspension of some aid spending. An EP report by Ramona Manescu (ALDE, Romania) also calls for stricter controls and a root-and-branch overhaul of how EU funding is managed in the post-2013 period.
Other concerns: Various politicians and observers think that the European diplomatic corps managed by Catherine Ashton, with its 6,000 or so diplomats, is far too cumbersome. The Joint Parliamentary Assemblies (of MEPs and parliamentarians from other parts of the world) waste a lot of money when they become permanent bodies (meetings every now and again would be more useful). In particular, the EuroMed Parliament has proved to be pointless - damaging even - because it shored up Ben Ali and Mubarak, two pillars of the Union for the Mediterranean. Representatives of what has become the Arab Spring have never been able to speak there. The EuroMed Assembly indulges in bitter wrangling, often spending all its energy attacking Israel, to the indifference of parliamentarians from the Adriatic Sea area (luckily, they have tourism). The Balkan states had a quite different aim and were dragged into the Union for the Mediterranean without any great desire, as was Turkey.
3) Nit-picking? Herman Van Rompuy has warned about arguing over which EU institution has the power to do what and squabbling about legal niceties. Ordinary people don't give a fig about how the institutions work or the visibility of the various leaders. What they are interested in is bringing unemployment down, job prospects, tackling crime and genuine integration of immigrants.
Protecting solidarity. Some of the Polish government (and no doubt some sections of government in other member states) say that the current debate is a fig-leaf for a plan by richer member states to stop subsidising the poorer ones. If this is true, it would mean the end of European solidarity. Various eurosceptic forces would no doubt be delighted, but cutting budget deficits is a genuine requirement for what are described as the rich member states - a compulsory measure to protect common policies and other EU action.
(F.R./transl.fl)