1 / 15

A BUDGET FOR EUROPE 2020 Commission budget proposals

This article discusses the European Commission's budget proposals for 2020 and explores the challenges and dilemmas faced in the current economic and political climate. It analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals and highlights the need for a strategic and policy-driven EU budget. The article also examines the concept of own resources and the potential for a financial transactions tax. Furthermore, it explores the complexities of corrections and rebates in the current financing system. Finally, the article concludes by emphasizing the cautious approach of the Commission and the likelihood of continued challenges in the budget negotiations.

harleyf
Download Presentation

A BUDGET FOR EUROPE 2020 Commission budget proposals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A BUDGET FOR EUROPE 2020 Commission budget proposals Iain Begg European Institute, London School of Economics

  2. CURRENT CONTEXT • National austerity • Somewhat dishonest discourse • Compares Member States today with EU from 2014 • Letter from 5 calling for freeze in real terms • Would imply fall in share of GDP • Commission’s impossible political position • Parliament more pro-active • But hard to see Council conceding final say

  3. THE LONGER SWEEP • Current framework put in place in 1988 • Before Maastricht Treaty – decade before the €uro • For an EU of 12, not 27 going on 28 • Total around 1.1% of GDP, but slipping • Consistently below formal ceiling of 1.24% • Remarkable stability of main expenditures • Cohesion + CAP around 75% throughout • Despite changing narratives • ‘Historical relic’ accusation (Buti & Nava) • Attempt at wide ranging review 2008-10

  4. THE EU BUDGET IS… “A result of political trade-offs rather than a well grounded allocation decision to advance European objectives…. the real needs are often of secondary importance. The EU budget should be policy-driven and based on sound analysis of the added value of EU level spending to advance our shared policy agenda.” Commission summary of consultation exercise, Nov. 2008

  5. THREE CORE DILEMMAS SO MANY ACTORS, SO MANY POSITIONS A recipe for gridlock SO MANY DEMANDS, SO FEW RESOURCES A recipe for fantasy: what can 1% of GDP buy? Simple question: public goods or distribution? TOO LITTLE LEADERSHIP, TOO MUCH FOCUS ON JUSTE RETOUR We are stuck on the wrong questions

  6. Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies Groucho Marx

  7. STRENGTHS OF PROPOSALS • Search for added value • But risks being limited in outcome • Simplification welcome, but does anyone ever come in promising complification? • Comparatively disciplined in headline totals • Despite immediate criticisms from net payers • Attempt to be strategic in relation to 2020 • Use of conditionality • EU spending through “connecting Europe”

  8. WEAKNESSES NEVERTHELESS • Lack of underlying narrative other than 2020 • Ideas might have included • Recovery from crisis • Greener Europe/climate change • Europe in the world • Dubious equations: • Smart = growth initiatives (research) • Sustainable = CAP, though greener • Inclusive = cohesion • Just too much status quo • Even span of MFF unchanged, despite opportunity

  9. The financing system is opaque and so complex that only a handful of specialists fully understand how it works. This limits democratic oversight of the system. Moreover, many Member States perceive the system to be unfair. Commission proposal on own resources

  10. OWN RESOURCES • Simple choice between: • National contributions • Genuine EU level resources (consistent with Treaty) • Ultimately, about who has the power to tax • At present, c. 90% national contributions • Proposals are: • Abolish the existing VAT resource… • … introduce a new VAT resource • And a financial transactions tax

  11. FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS TAX • Clearly, politically tempting • Notably, potential for ‘Pigouvian’ outcome(s) • However, size of tax base limited • Maybe more credible than often assumed • Less prone to tax dodging than hitherto • Especially with regulated electronic markets • But still tricky to impose unilaterally • Yet much more contentious as EU tax • Major flaw visible in just one pie chart • Even allowing for true incidence of tax

  12. THOSE MESSY ‘CORRECTIONS’ • Manifestly a bizarre system • Yet paradox that UK rebate is easy to justify • As are the many Dutch corrections • And German, Austrian and Swedish equivalents • A problem that starts with uneven spending • But then flouts ability to pay principle • New proposal is for lump-sum corrections • Unrelated to annual fiscal circumstances • But some advance in relation to incentives

  13. CONCLUSIONS • Too cautious • Yet risks immediate rejection • Already presaged in September 12th missive • Juste retour will not go away • New correction model will not solve it • But genie is out of bottle • Intriguing politics of timetable: Poles no, DK uneasy and then comes Cyprus

  14. LIKELY TO BE A DÉJÀ VU OF GROUNDHOG DAY ALL OVER AGAIN

More Related