The EU Budget explained

29th November, 2012 10:37 am

We are hearing a lot at the moment about the EU Budget and the wrangling surrounding it.  I thought it would be a good time to write a blog about what the EU Budget actually is and what could happen if no agreement is reached.

There are two different budgets in the European Union; one is the annual budget which sets spending levels each year.  The next, and the one causing the current controversy, is the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is a seven year spending plan for the EU. It defines the maximum amounts for each major category of spending (e.g. structural funds, agriculture, research and innovation and development spending).  The current MFF (2007-2013) is due to expire and an agreement must be reached on the new MFF by the end of the year.

Though the negotiations are ongoing, the final budget, if it is agreed, will be in the region 0.8-1trillion euros for the entire seven year period.

That is a lot of money, but still only amounts to around 1% of the EU’s GDP; this is especially low when you consider that, at the national level, budgets in the EU average 50% of GDP.  Also, something worth pointing out is that none of this money is borrowed and contributes in no way to any national debt.

The budget is proposed by the European Commission and is then amended and approved by the European Council and European Parliament.  The European Council must pass the budget unanimously for it to go through.

At the moment the Commission is proposing what they call a “freeze” in the next MFF, using the 2013 maximum expenditure level plus 2% inflation. The Commission have also placed some items, for instance the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES), “off budget”, which will have to be paid for by the member states.

The Council is split on the issue with the many of the net recipients wanting to go along with the Commission proposal (or higher) and the net contributors who want a smaller budget. Two groups emerged in the Council – “Friends of better spending” and “Friends of Cohesion”. The current Council proposal is for a EUR 79 billion cut compared to the Commission’s draft budget. The consequence of that would be to reduce the amount for structural funds (used to address inequalities between member states) from EUR 354 billion (2007-2013) to EUR 309 billion (2014-2020). CAP would also be reduced.

The European Parliament, which must approve the budget for it to pass, has made its position on the MFF clear. It believes that the level proposed by the Commission is not sufficient. The EP calls for an increase of at least 5% above the 2013 ceilings. The EP also voted in favour of scrapping rebates and correction mechanisms and reform of the own resources system (e.g. linking the EU budget to a financial transaction tax and new VAT tax).  The Labour members of the European Parliament, myself included, voted against the proposed 5% increase , preferring to support a real terms freeze.

As things stand now, if a compromise cannot be found, the maximum expenditure level, plus inflation, for the 2013 budget rolls over until an agreement can be reached.  This would result in a budget far exceeding the proposed real terms freeze.

 Mary Honeyball is a Labour MEP for London
To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • KonradBaxter

    “Also, something worth pointing out is that none of this money is borrowed and contributes in no way to any national debt”

    So where does it come from then? I’m afraid i’m not clear.

    If the EU could get its budget signed off then that would be a major step in the right direction for the whole EU.

  • Do enjoy your huge salary and perks. I understand the wine cellar in Brussels is quite extraordinarily good.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    The EU budget should be large enough to pay for the time and necessary facilities of the number of international public servants needed to oversee a free trade area. Nothing more. No need for a European Commission, European Parliament, or agricultural subsidies.

    It is very odd to state that none of this money is borrowed or contributes to any national debt. Very few nations in the EU are running budget surpluses (I can only think of Sweden and Hungary), and so all national contributions apart from those countries in surplus can be accurately described as funded by debt. If the EU stopped trying to spend its’ way into importance, the level of required contributions would fall and some of the individual nations’ austerity measures could either be eased off or the same amount of money focussed internally in Keynesian stimulus.

    • Quiet_Sceptic

      Easier said than done though – the EU like all bureaucracies will justify and defend itself and if it voluntarily started cutting it’s budgets it would be forced to contract, reduce its importance and shed staff. It isn’t going to do that voluntarily, it’s only going to do that when those funding it force those changes upon it.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        Yes, you are correct. We can only hope that this will happen, but it seems unlikely to be of volition. Alternatively, the man-made stresses in the Euro project may well cause the Euro to collapse explosively and national currencies, policies and sovereignties come back. That would be an alternative path to the same end, but one of terrifying consequences for individual citizens. Greece now has 58% youth unemployment, their futures being thrown onto the fire in the hope that middle aged Eurocrats can save their stupid little project. They cannot.

        What a crime it is that our Euro politicians have allowed this situation to come around.

Latest

  • Comment Featured Thatcher wanted the ‘managed decline’ of Merseyside. I want to manage its renaissance

    Thatcher wanted the ‘managed decline’ of Merseyside. I want to manage its renaissance

    Back in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s government came close to writing off Merseyside. There was a serious conversation about leaving our city and its neighbours to ‘managed decline’ and the tender mercies of her economic shock therapy. As her Chancellor at the time, Geoffrey Howe, patronisingly put it: ‘We must not expend all our limited resources in trying to make water flow uphill.’ We’ve come a long way since then. Since 2010, Labour has had the privilege of running Liverpool […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Burnham emerges as LabourList readers’ favourite for Manchester Mayor

    Burnham emerges as LabourList readers’ favourite for Manchester Mayor

    Andy Burnham is LabourList readers’ favourite to become the Labour candidate for Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Shadow Home Secretary announced his candidacy last week, and is up against Ivan Lewis and Tony Lloyd to go into next year’s election. Of those who voted in our survey, 45 per cent opted for Burnham, who came second in last year’s leadership election. Tony Lloyd finished some way behind with 22 per cent, while Ivan Lewis received the support of 12 per cent […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured It’s not the shared economy, stupid – but it does require a collective response

    It’s not the shared economy, stupid – but it does require a collective response

    It is often described as the sharing economy. It sounds very cuddly. All of us on a patchwork sofa, sharing a nice cup of tea… Or it’s the gig economy – because Uber drivers are all creative artists enjoying their freedom to perform… I prefer to call it the new intermediaries economy. Not as cuddly or cool but more accurate. When you get into an Uber cab the driver is not sharing her car with you, she is selling you […]

    Read more →
  • Europe News Blair: Brexit would hit living standards of society’s poorest most

    Blair: Brexit would hit living standards of society’s poorest most

    Tony Blair has weighed in on the debate over Brexit, warning that leaving the European Union would hit living standards and hit the poorest in society most. The former Prime Minister appears to make an appeal to Labour supporters – seen as an important swing demographic in the vote – in two interventions today. While Blair is a divisive, and even simply unpopular, figure in the modern Labour Party, there are hopes that he is still seen as a political “big beast” and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Patronising people with patriotism will not win 2020

    Patronising people with patriotism will not win 2020

    Labour will need to win over the socially conservative voters of today in win in 2020 – but flag waving will not make up for a lack of credible policy on welfare and spending and a real understanding of the hardship faced by working people throughout the country. Widely reported research by Jon Cruddas this week suggested that since 2005, voters that were sympathetic to more socially conservative ideas have been increasingly more likely to select UKIP over Labour on […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit