EU spending gripes
Just a very quick add to yesterday's blog. Every year the auditors and the European Commission say the vast majority of problems are not fraud, but they don't want to give examples because they fear it would undermine otherwise successful projects. Thanks to a very helpful source I have got some detail on the sort of mistakes that are made. It's not colourful, or ridiculous, or funny, but I'm pretty sure this is the sort of stuff that is typical.
The Manchester site of the Imperial War Museum got around £8m of European Union money. The whole project cost about £17m. It's a building designed by the famous architect Daniel Libeskind, whose work includes the amazing Jewish Museum in Berlin.
The Imperial War Museum North is his first work in Britain. But the auditors found "significant gaps" in the selection of the contract, including no evidence of the evaluation of the tenders, no evaluation of the interviews conducted with the 11 bidders and no evidence of the discussions with the three architects shortlisted. So the EU will ask for its money back.
Although perhaps not the sexiest of examples, it does seem to me to highlight one of the difficulties. It is not exactly a hard call to give the job to Mr Libeskind: it is somehow on a rather different plane to deciding between the North-West Building Corporation and the Corporation of Builders from the North-West. But the EU has rules that have to be followed to show that no one is cheating or doing anything improper, which must turn something of an artistic conception into a nightmare of paperwork. But without the paperwork how do you show everything is above board? As ever, those who worry the most about improper spending of taxpayers' money are also the loudest in condemning excessive bureaucracy. And does the apparent failure of those in charge of the project imply that the EU itself has failed?
UPDATE: The museum authorities say they are "not aware that there is any issue with the EU".
A statement from a museum spokesperson said that in 2004 auditors acting for the EU had asked various detailed questions "regarding the initial appointment of contractors in 1997".
"Not all of the detail that was requested, such as copies of letters to unsuccessful tenderers, was still available at that period of time after the initial tender process in 1997. However, this does not mean that proper processes were not carried out," the statement said.
The museum insists that "all processes and procedures were carried out correctly".
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
If this is true it is a major failure in process and the EU is exactly in the right to take the money back.
Complain about this comment
The bigger question is why is the EU taxing the whole of the EU population to give money to projects like the Imperial War museum in the first place.
What value was added by sending the money all the way to brussles only for it to be sent back?
Sending it through brussles certainly added to the financial overheads.
Whats the cost/benefit?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
As ever with 'public' spending (i.e. the spending of other people's money) - waste and corruption are an integral component. Hell, it's 'EU' money, so why bother to count the pennies.....
Why, though, if the powers that be wanted to build another Imperial War Museum (I guess Manchester was 'Buggins' on this occasion), did they go cap in hand to the EU? Don't we have any shame?
(I do, however, appreciate the irony of it being funded by the hard working taxpayers of once enemy nations).
As an aside, IWM North offers an interesting example of form over function. All fancy shell with little real content. (Libeskind being an example of the architectural wunderkind so beloved by the public sector. He is to architecture what Hirst and Emin are to art. In a couple of generations time people will gasp at our generation's gullibility).
Complain about this comment
You would think that with £8m at stake, proper training and guidance would have been given to those people who didn't keep the paperwork...
If the EU is going to impose these rules harshly (and it should), then the EU should also ensure that everybody has a very clear idea of what's required of them. Mistakes like this should not be common.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
the problem is not too much *paperwork* or bureaucracy.. or actually that is the real problem..
how can you control things and what is happening only by paperwork from the office, without ever going to the field??
why EU gives money only by being OK with the paperwork? i can make perfect paperwork that even the EU will be amased, but implement nothing in reality..
and EU always finds out about in last minute, when all money is gone.. and no high politicians is ever brought to jail..
if i steal 50million of EU funds, i will be glad to resign forever, and that's what they do.. no prosecution at all..
do they EU elites have immunity or they think they have?
Complain about this comment
I wonder whether the Imperial War Museum (north) also requested and received funds from the UK's National Lottery Funding Scheme as well?
Complain about this comment
and one more thing.. if someone is unable to do the job right or correct, that person must be fired on the spot.. there are others, give the opportunity to other people, job is not for life as some french may think..
we the people ask EU to apply the real CAPITALISM, noone incompetent, irresponsible and unable must be protected, stop to discrimination, let democracy breath.
the EU system should be a cycle, but never a piramid as it is now, where on the top are the elites.
Complain about this comment
Mark wrote:
"Whose fault is it that £200m-worth of European Union money (yes, your money) has been misspent in Britain? "
It may well be that "EU money" has been misspent in the UK. I have heard an interesting story.
The UK gives money to the "EU" (billions?) and gets some back. We shouldn't be doing that. If money is to be sent from London to Manchester then it should not be sent via Brussels with them taking an enormous cut. It should be sent directly. I am prepared to take it there. My cut would be much less than that of the "EU".
There is just no reason for the "EU" to exist.
Some examples:
1) Hearsay but ... A few years ago (ten?)a builder told me that his local council built an extension for a lady in a wheelchair. She had a two storey house but the extension was so that she would not have to go upstairs. All very nice.
The local council paid something like £70,000. He went in and said something like: "I would have done that for £12,000." He got the reply: "It doesn't matter. It all comes from the European Social Fund." There is a certain logic in ripping off the "EU": "We pay billions in and get less out. Any chance to even things out is to be welcomed." This will automatically result in waste. There would be less incentive to waste if the "EU" did not exist.
2) EU schools. About 94 to 96 I thought "I could teach at an 'EU' school. I have German and British qualifications." So I applied. My British salary was about £20,000. In the "EU" school I would have paid tax on my British salary but, including perks, would have got £48,000 more - tax free! £68,000 altogether!
I was looking forward to a conversation with my boss.: "But that's more than I earn!" "Yes, but I'm worth it!" It didn't happen.
My point is that the "EU" throws money about like they were training for an Olympic event in it.
3) Luxembourg. End of September, beginning of October 1998 I spent about two weeks in Germany. There was a lot on the German TV and in the German magazine Focus about the police in Luxembourg raiding a building there. As I remember it , the "EU" had diverted money which was meant to be spent in Africa to a private company in Luxembourg. It was only because it was not officially part of the "EU" that they were allowed to raid it. As soon as they did so people burnt massive amounts of receipts. Whilst I was there the reporters had not worked out what the money was being spent on. Kinnock was on German TV saying they had done a good job. I was not able to follow the story once I got back to the UK. Does anybody have more info on this?
My point here is that if you want to help Romania or Africa you shouldn't do it by giving money to the "EU". I could give reasons for arguing that if you want to help Italian victims of an earthquake, you shouldn't do it by giving money to the Italian government.
There is no reason for the "EU" to exist. Its sole purpose is to be the framework for the creation of a European Superstate. "EU"-lovers will be so proud of it. They will be like Soviet-era Russians who were proud of Soviet achievements in space but had a miserable life.
Complain about this comment
I congratulate #8 for his comment..
if there is something to learn from his comment, that is *logical+practicality*.
Complain about this comment
That is possibly the most absurd example I can imagine. It is unthinkable that even an architect with such a formidable reputation would be awarded a 'blind' contract. Of course the consultations took place. Just possibly they were not minuted but so what?
I wonder whether the paper trail was followed when Sir Norman Foster was asked to design the German Federal Parliament. What I find astonishing is that it is likely to be the very same people who complain about EU accounting procedures who will now gripe bitterly about excessive obsession with administrative detail.
Complain about this comment
The only impression that I get from the example is that EU accounting standards are much higher than most, if not all, member states. I wonder did the project pass the muster with the National Audit Office?
Complain about this comment
Excellent and informative post as ever Mark.
Post 8 raises important questions here - I was aware of University courses being subsidised by the ESF. A 'good idea', but why does the money need to go via a circuitous route via the EU ? Surely this sort of thing should be managed at local government or national level ?
If we must have an EU [and I am by no means convinced that we do ] we need democratic control, as they have in America. That would get around the argument of 'nationalism' and start slashing the bloated budgets, legalistic bureaucracy, and the killing of the enterprise culture across the continent.
Complain about this comment
I'm more interested in the €6M that's gone missing in this year's accounts. No wonder the accounts were not given a 'clean' bill of health.
I also wonder how much pressure was put on the ECA to sign off the accounts this year? Just in time for the 2nd Irish referendum and the 2009 European elections!
#11 To compare the UK Government accounting standards with those of the EU is a diversion. Brown has dragged the UK finances into the very gutter inhabited by the Commission.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone considered that the EU Funding route may be circuitous but essential as funding solely controlled by National Governments must inevitably be constrained by political persuasions whereas funding via the EU is at least granted by apolitical decision making.
One may not like what the EU Funds but at least they fund anything and everything despite rather than because of political persuasions.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
That is true, that the E.U. needs to have stream-line way of how the money is being spent.....
Complain about this comment
#13 - Sorry for the error - I should have typed ?6 Billion Euros - perhaps I could do the books of the commission?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @14 wrote:
"One may not like what the EU Funds but at least they fund anything and everything despite rather than because of political persuasions."
But that's the problem.
Firstly, funding 'anything and everything' is plain stupid. One man's 'essential project' may be another man's 'vanity', etc.
Most importantly, however, national governments comprised of elected politicians can be 'punished' by their electorate and voted out (at least in theory, anyway!).
How do we reject or eject the unaccountable tiers of supranational commissars and bureaucrats who oversee this largess of taxpayers money?
Complain about this comment
#14 Menedemus
I absolultely dispute that EU decisions are apolitical. However, your assertion that they are higlights the problem with those on the left -- they are incapable of seeing their own bias (applies to EU and the BBC).
But regardless of that, I should decide where my money is spent. I will make that decision according to my logic, politics, bias, prejudice and everything else that make me, me.
If I am not allowed to make that decision directly (a system that works perfectly well with charities/donations...) then the person making the decision should be as accountable to me as possible.
If the EU took less of our money, then we would have it in our pocket to directly fund what we value.
Complain about this comment
Oh!
I have thought of one area that 'apolitical' funding may have a place - supporting very small polticial parties - particularly where the supporters of that party are likely to be poor, and are unlikely to get funding from elsewhere.
So there could be an argument for an apolitical fund to support paries like the BNP.
I certainly wouldn't chose to give parties like the BNP anything -- but they do represent a legal point of view that is supported by a fair number of people who tend to be financially poor...
Maybe the EU has a roll supporting them?
Complain about this comment
Building Imperial War Museum North was funded in 2000-2 with money raised from Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, English Partnerships and the North West Development Agency, the European Regional Development Fund, private donors and Peel Holdings, Lottery funding was not forthcoming. The cost was £28M of which ERDF paid £8M Incidentally the original design estimate was £40M but a redesign reduced this to £28M. I was part of a massive regeneration project of Trafford park Industrial Estate and Salford Docks and has been a very popular atttraction.
Complain about this comment
Just another point: Imperial War Museum North is part of cultural complex engenered by Salford City Council and to a lesser extend Trafford Council which includes the Lowry Centre (Theatres and Art Galleries) and Media City a substantial part of which will be occupied by the BBC in 2011. The Lowry was funder by the Lottery (£51M)
Complain about this comment
# 2 the_real_truth
'What value was added by sending the money all the way to brussles only for it to be sent back?'
You can take this scenario even further. Why should the Scots send their money all the way down to London for it to be sent back? Further still; why should the people of Dundee send their money to Edinburgh just for it to be sent back? Further still; why should the people of Kirkton send their money to Dundee just to have it sent back? Are you getting the picture?
Why don't we just all keep our money in our pockets and nothing will get done?
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic @ #13
the-real-truth @ #14/15
In essence you both highlight a fundamental flaw in National Government determing how tax-payers money should be spent.
One man's essential project supported by the government of the day is definitively another man's vanity as MaxSceptic puts it.
Typically, in the UK the government of the day is elected by less than 50% of the population which means that, potentially, everything upon which that governmemt spends money could be an aversion to the majority of the electorate.
By the same token, whatever the-real-truth's political persuasion, the-real-truth gets the chance to vote in a general election to determine the political slant of his government but does the-real-truth actually agree with everything that the government of the day chooses to spend tax-payer money on - even if the government of the day IS the government voted for by the-real-truth?
Realistically, if one government spends tax-payers money on a project and the electorate feels that is a waste of money and, at the next election, the governmemt changes hands, how often does the previous project funding get reversed - dare I say that "punishing" a wasteful governemt just replaces one wasteful government with another that will waste tax-payers money just as efficiently - tax-payers money bountifully spent on what was one man's "essential project" and now spent on that man's vanity . . . . or, of course, vice versa!
The EU may be wasteful or it may be wise in how it distributes EU Funding but at least it is spent regardless of individual political convictions and despite National Government's political persuasions.
That has got to be an advantage for the common man, especially those who have a National Governmentt that will not support their "worthwhile cause" for politically motivated reasons.
Mark's example of The Imperial War Museum in Manchester is a prime example of a project that is worthwhile to some people and a vanity in the eyes of others.
Does anyone seriously think that any UK Government will spend tax-payers money funding this "Pink Elephant or Architectural Wonder" (depending on one's individual perspective!) or is it actually a good thing that The Imperial War Museum (North) is able to proceed because of rather than despite the existence of EU Funding? One man will say "Yes" and another man say "No" but without the EU those who would say "Yes" are isolated and unable to achieve their aspirations.
As to the EU funding the BNP? Nice idea if you are a BNP supporter but I think the EU, in the form of the executive arm, is apolitical by design and would draw the line at funding political motivated projects or political parties for the very reason that the Commission is apolitical.
Complain about this comment
cping500 @20 and 21,
Thank you for listing the funding sources for IWM North.
I would be interested to know the proportion of private/corporate donors as opposed to 'public' funds.
Menedemus @23,
It may just be a bit early in the morning, but I really didn't understand your comment.
For instance, you say "The EU may be wasteful or it may be wise in how it distributes EU Funding but at least it is spent regardless of individual political convictions and despite National Government's political persuasions."
Does that mean that waste is OK so long as it is 'apolitical'?
The answer is, of course, to ween ourselves off non-essential 'public' projects completely.
'Essential' works could include infrastructure items like dams, bridges, river embankments, etc.
Non-essential works are all the rest: museums, galleries, concert halls, etc. etc - desireable as they may be. If we, the 'Public' really want them, then I'm sure that we, the public, will happily subscribe to such endeavors - as will private and corporate benefactors. (Carnegie Hall, anyone?).
Does that make me a philistine? Perhaps? But at least I would be spared the knowledge that my some of my taxes (no matter how small a proportion) has gone to fund such 'culture' as Tate Modern (the 'contents') and other such abortions.
Complain about this comment
To the-real-truth (19) and Menedemus (23):
EU and the Commission being apolitical doesn't mean that political parties or groups couldn't request for funding and get it. For EU it doesn't matter who requests, but for what one is requesting and what are the results.
If BNP would request funding for a community project to advance some specif regions competitiveness or to some cultural project then I don't see any reason why if their application is well done then I don't see why they couldn't get funding.
The thing with EU is that usually eurosceptics just don't either bother to get information on different funding options or are incapable to handle such information.
Complain about this comment
@17
"How do we reject or eject the unaccountable tiers of supranational commissars and bureaucrats who oversee this largess of taxpayers money?"
1) Get rid of the incumbent Commission by asking your *elected* representatives in the European Parliament to do so.
2) How do you get rid of the equally unelected and "unaccountable" bureaucrats who oversee the vast majority of British taxpayer's money - i.e. the British civil service? You don't.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic @ 24
Just to clarify.
What you see as wasteful EU spending, another person would see as useful spending.
No, I do not see you as a Philistine. I just note that you have you feet firmly planted in the camp that sees spending on cultural excess as wasteful. There are an equal number of people who feel that Society is defined by it's cultural heritage and that cultural heritage is what we create today as well as what our forebears created.
If we stop being creative and developing our own heritage for today, we will become a forgotten culture.
The EU merely provides tha financing to help individual projects develop such cutural heritage.
You dislike the idea of it, I happen to support it. I win because the EU does provide the financial support; you win because your individual tax burden is not spent upon funding it's development.
But don't ever let me see you standing in the queue to visit this Museum! LOL
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (24):
Museums, galleries, concert halls etc.. are essential if the city and the region want to entice and keep highly educated and civilized work force in it.
PS. What is wrong with Tate Modern's contents?
Complain about this comment
I do not need the EU, nor the UK Government to decide what 'arts' and 'cultural' projects to spend my money on.
I can choose directly for myself what to support (at least I could if my wallet hadn't already been raided by these people).
If the public support spending on a project then these organisations involvement is an unnecessary overhead; if the public do not support the spending then there is no mandate for these organisations to support them anyway.
You spend your money (you can even give it to the EU if you like); I'll spend mine - thanks.
Complain about this comment
I notice there is a link to here from the 'eu lift ban on ugly fruit' story.
It is to be welcomed that the EU has finally acknowleded that it is completely 'over the top' in some areas.
I would be interested to know the total cost of the rules that it is withdrawing - from the original work in writing them, the cost of implementing them, the cost of enforcing them, the cost of the food wasted/destroyed, the additional cost paid by the consumer for 'overly high quality' produce etc.
So how much of our money was wasted on these foolish rules, and will we be compensated for our loss?
Complain about this comment
Just a general comment, why is it that all these projects have a culture involving the use of over paid architects who invariably end up creating a so called work of art that is often totally impractical for it's supposed purpose. The cost of these monsters is a bit like EU waste, it just keeps growing. I think Prince Charles got it right some years back when he criticised the carbuncles that so called 'top' architects produced at highly inflated cost.
I recall my builder father often criticising the architects employed by customers as they view their designs more as a work of art and would produce expensive, useless plans that whilst being sometimes pleasant to the eye were totally impractical. In the case of the Northern Imperial War Museum it should have simply been a building to house a museum and would have cost a lot less and not needed an overpaid artist (sorry, architect).
PS, #28 Jukka_Rohila, I cannot see how Museums, Galleries, Concert Halls are essential to attract and keep a workforce. I am pretty sure that the numbers that use these facilities are very small as a percentage of the population and furthermore tend to be those who have the time to visit them eg Dignitaries, Wives, Pensioners, Tourists etc. Your highly educated and civilised workforce have enough on their plate just working. As for the Tate, well one persons work of art is another persons pile of s**t, and quite frankly I would not waste my time on a lot of modern 'art' or artists.
Complain about this comment
I went to IWM North and thought it was a hideous eyesore. I then went in and was very disappointed with the quality of the exhibits- there was a T-34 tank, a Harrier and a Trabant. Quite what the Trabant had to do with war I don't know...
Compared to the IWM in London and Duxford, IWM North is a waste of time and money. I went to Manchester just for that and was upset at the waste of money.
Complain about this comment
#32, Magdovus,
My guess is that the Trabant was considered a weapon of mass destruction due to the quantity of noxious fumes it used to produce when it occasionally worked. I seem to recall Jeremy Clarkson testing one some years back and at the end the cabin was so full of fumes that he couldn't see out the windscreen and had to abandon it, LOL.
BTW, I too have been to the Kennington museum many times and it is a beautiful building and had an excellent variety of artefacts. I've no doubt the Manchester equivalent is just an over priced sop to the planks who keep wining and winging about anything London based and since Manchester is very pro-Labour minded they got it.
Complain about this comment
#30 The Real Truth
You might be interested to know that these foolish EU rules about which you are so scathing are identical to the pre-existing British ones before our accession to the EU.
But hey, it's all the EU's fault, right? Better off out!
Complain about this comment
#31 - Buzet23
I think maybe for the first time, I completely disagree with you. The arts are a massive stimulus to regional and local economies. It is not necessarily the people directly emplyed but the knock on effect - restaurants, bars, cafes, taxi businesses, retail outlets which follow in the footsteps of these projects.
The new spirit that was injected into Birmingham when Symphony Hall was built is one example. If you want a negative example, you don't have to look any further than Dorset, which I know you know well to see the opportunity that Bournemouth let slip by failing it's Symphony Orchestra miserably and the economic spin off to Poole when they rode in to provide a permanent venue for them.
It is simply not true that cultural investment benefits only the end users. It is a great economic benefit to many other employers and businesses and it deserves to be treated on a par with any other major enterprise.
Complain about this comment
31 - Buzet2328 and Jukka_Rohila
Tate Modern is absolutely magnificent - no doubt about it. The scale of the collection, the flexibility of the space and the extraordinary achievement of industrial archeology which turned a worthless piece of industrial space into a world class project is remarkable by any standards.
Complain about this comment
#35, threnodio,
I think you're right, we may have to agree to disagree on this subject as whilst I see benefits of having easily available recreational facilities, which includes arts as well as sports, I do find the amount of money spent on the arts, and especially weird modern art, annoyingly disproportionate to that spent on sports. I would rather have seen world class sporting facilities than world class art galleries as the knock on effect of sporting facilities is far greater than that provided by art galleries or museums, plus they're better for the health of the nation.
As for Bournemouth Vs Poole it was maybe an error on their part as certainly Bournemouth is known for being a retirement town and consequently has a lot of the type of customer that would have used such a facility i.e. pensioners. Still their loss is Poole's gain as they're both nice towns.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @27,
Thank you for your (ever) gracious response.
I am confused, however, by your sentence "I win because the EU does provide the financial support; you win because your individual tax burden is not spent upon funding it's development."
Please explain this to me: does the EU actually have any source of funds that is not a tax - directly or indirectly - on individual or corporate taxpayers?
You continue: "If we stop being creative and developing our own heritage for today, we will become a forgotten culture".
I would argue that there is much that deserves to be forgotten. Time will be the true judge of what is really culturally/artistically worthy. For every Sistine Chapel or Caravaggio, the Renaissance produced hundreds of mediocre works now long forgotten. (But at least they didn't laud and enrich the producers of pickled fish or soiled bed-sheets).
Finally, you conclude: "But don't ever let me see you standing in the queue to visit this Museum! LOL"
Which museum are you referring to? (I like most museums).
Jukka_Rohila @28 asks:
"PS. What is wrong with Tate Modern's contents?"
Nothing - other than it's not to my taste yet I 'pay' for it (and the 'artistic' cabal that engenders and encourages such garbage).
threnodio @36 wrote:
"Tate Modern is absolutely magnificent - no doubt about it. The scale of the collection, the flexibility of the space and the extraordinary achievement of industrial archeology which turned a worthless piece of industrial space into a world class project is remarkable by any standards."
I agree with you - nice building. Pity about the contents ('collection').
Complain about this comment
34. Anthony Zacharzewski
You are wrong, the *worst* part of the EU involvement on produce classes was the total ban on anything that did not fit one of their categories.
Thus making it illegal to sell huge quantites of produce that that had nothing fundamentally wrong with it.
The EU ban on 'unregistered' strains of seeds, preventing home growers buying tradtional varieties more suited for home growing is a similarly dracoinian affront to the people of europe and should be repealed immediately.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic @ #38
If you are aware of any tax you pay other than VAT that goes towards the EU please let me know.
If you never buy anything the you won't pay any tax to the EU but to be honest how used are we all, wherever we live in Europe that we don't even pay attention to VAT.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the EU Nation States are not the only countries where one pays a sales tax, a purchase tax or VAT - in those countries the tax goes to that country’s exchequer and I would dare say is even more inefficiently spent than the EU.
Customs Duties are the other source of funding for the EU and I would never know if I bought something that was priced higher because of customs duties paid or whether it was so cheap anyway that the amount of customs duty is almost negligible.
As to what one thinks of art and heritage - like EU funding . . . one person’s work of art is another persons pickled fish or soiled bedsheets. The fact is that the more a nation supports it's arts and culture, the more chance that nation has of producing a Michelangelo and a Sistine Chapel ceiling.
My point is, that left entirely to national government to subsidise art, heritage and culture, we will inevitably be all the more poor for the future.
From my perspective, the fact that EU funding was available to the project for the Imperial War Museum (Manchester) is something that has shown the EU can, just occasionally, prove itself to be of value and why I support the idea of the EU even if I dislike the EU’s political deficiencies.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic,
And oh by-the-way, my throw away comment was just the Imperial War Museum (North) at Manchester. I would not want you enjoying the fruits of the EU funding. ;=)
Mind you, if Magdovus @ #32 is correct, then it is probably the fact that the project bought a Travant and a T-34 tank for display that the ECA are questioning how their funds were misspent! LOL
Complain about this comment
Dear SuffolkBoy2,
Do you see any point in paying taxes then? My God, your money is being spent to help out someone else. Isn't it horrible?
There are certain policy areas which are tranferred to the European Communities. Such a transfer is confirmed by the representatives af all member states (it does not happen by itself). It is also based on common sense (dealing with commercial rules or environment does not make much sense in one country alone).
In the areas which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the EU, the keyword is 'subsidiarity'.
Of course, the system is not perfect. But please tell me of a better system of fund re-distribution on a European scale. Do you know any?
Complain about this comment
I am certainly not going to engage in a debate about the virtues or otherwise of modern art - especially as I would probably end up putting noses out of joint with phrases like "reactionary philistines".
I do think I need to take issue with Buzet about the relative merits of funding art as against sport. The inference of your post is that the brain is somehow different from other parts of the body and giving it healthy exercise is different from 'physical' exercise. It is not. A complete regime should include intellectual as well as physical stimulation.
I understand, however, that in the UK, investment in sport has been very substantial and I would suggest that the idea that there is an overspend compared with the arts is probably not true. That having been said, on the latest estimates I have seen, on an average Saturday afternoon, 7 times as many Brits were attending galleries,theatres, exhibitions and so on as were going to premium sporting events. This must tell you something.
Actually, I think there is a far deeper problem than that. When the National Lottery was introduced, we were promised 25% of the proceeds would go to 'culture' - meaning the arts and sport. Today the meaning of 'culture' has become so broad that is probably include topless window cleaning. In the meantime, this government has diverted lottery proceeds to all sorts of other stuff including after school clubs and even some health research. If the money had been allocated as originally intended, there would be enough to go round and we probably would not be having this exchange.
One final point is that the EU contribution to the gross national spend is relatively small and this is not really an EU issue at all. If somebody wants to start a thread on culture funding generally, I shall be happy to throw in my penny's worth but let us not run away with the idea that Brussels is funding big chunks of our cultural life. It is not.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @40,
Are all UK contributions to the EU really solely from VAT?
It was patronage by people like those well-known socialist Medicis (and of course the Catholic Churh) that funded the likes of Michaelangelo.
What real British art or artist has ever emerged from 'public' funding of the arts from the 2nd half of the 20th century up to present day? I'd really like a true, world-class example. One likely to endure for centuries to come. (Not something faddish, please).
Some contemporary literature may survive. Some plays (Stoppard yes. Pinter no). Cinema perhaps - plenty of good examples (though probably not the publicly funded films). Painting? (Freud yes. Bacon no). Sculpture (Caro? Ugh! gimme a break.......). Music? Who knows.....
As for IWM North (i.e. Manchester). I've been there twice - the first and the last time ;-)
I sincerely doubt there will ever again be queues there.
Complain about this comment
#44 - MaxSceptic
But this is precisely the problem - "nothing faddish please . . . no to Pinter, no to Bacon . . . Caro, give me a break".
Oh you don't like it so it must be bad! Only when people start to understand the principle of "one man's meat" and stop bringing their personal biases to the table can this debate be had.
And the argument that you pay the tax and it should be spent on what you like does not hold water either. Who is to say the Bacon fans don't pay as much tax as you do?
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic @ #44
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I would not dare to engage in a discussion of one man's taste in beauty compared to another man's dissimilar taste. Perhaps our UK-origin current excellence lies in artistic endeavours are that of architectural genius rather than portrait, landscape or fine art?
As a Londoner (not that I live in London but I did for many, many years) I was bleesed with the good fortune of having access to some fine sights. I now prefer to go to Vienna myself to see even more art.
Nonetheless, my good fortune of living and working in London is not evry UK citizens good fortune (or custodial sentence!) but I think it is fair that the other UK Cities do their bit to develop their heritage and artistic culture as thye see fit for the benefit of the inhabitants and future generations. If the EU can help I have no objection.
Like State or European spending, one person's funding is another man's pain in the pocket but in the grand scheme of things the UK gives the EU approximately 4.7billion GBP which is calculated as the net payment after abatement based upon our head of population and our GNI. 11million GBP for the IWM at Manchester does seem to be a very small sum in the grand scheme of developing European and the UK's Heritage although I woud dare say that I might not ever go there myself.
The contribution to the EU for all EU member states is based upon:
Customs duties. These are derived from tariffs applied to imports from countries outside the EU.
Agricultural levies. These are charged on agricultural imports from countries outside the EU.
VAT-based contributions.
Contributions based on Gross National Product (GNP).
GNP Contributions are agreed annually as a Council of Ministers budget item and it is currently 1.25% of GNP but as the VAT contribution is only approximately 0.75% of all VAT receipts to the UK Exchequor, EU Contribution is considered to be paid for out of VAT Receipts.
The UK is also entitled to keep back 25% of Customs Duties and Agricultural Levies received - again increasing the "burden" of the EU Funding onto VAT Receipts.
Anything left over out of the VAT pot is then available to the UK National Government to misspend even more badly than the EU and I do not recall seeing any facts or figures on where that money ever goes? ;=)
Complain about this comment
This whole story is what frustrates me with the E.U. I personally think it is great when nation states support cultural and sporting events. In the U.K the spending on these have never been higher, mainly due to the National lottery (already seeing the results in sporting events - well done to the G.B. Olympics team)
But the E.U should play no part in this, it is up to the individual nation states to decide where their tax money is spent. If the people do not like the decisions made they can vote the party out at the next election.
Why should, as others have said, money be sent to Brussels and then returned to the U.K. to be spent on projects authorised by the E.U. There has to be extra admin costs, if it is only 1% (likely to be much higher) that figure would be huge when looking at the overall budget.
The E.U should be there to faclitate free trade and movement of people. Funding of museums or any other cultural event is not, or should not, be in it's remit. If the E.U has time to do these extra things perhaps they have too many people working there and should be trimmed down.
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset @ #47
You seem to miss the point. The Imperail War Museum (North) is being financed by local council tax payers not the State yet the benfits to people living outside of Manchester and not contributing to the IWM(N) is nil.
This begs the question as to whetehr, by your contention, the UK State governmemt should assist Manchester to develop this project and the answer is no they did not - the EU is moving away form 100% CAP Benefits to paying towards such projects so, in fact not only is the UK paying money to the EU but we are seeing tangible monies coming back from the EU.
Whether the IWM(North) is a good thing, bad thing or a white elephant is neither here nor there as the UK governmemt can spend money just as inefficiently as the tier below (local authorities) or the tier above (the EU).
As to UK National Lottery funding, does anyone ever really question how that money is ill-spent now? And widening the remit of the Lottery Funding Organisation from just Sports, Heritage and Culture to its far wider remit by the Labour Government was one of the biggest scams through creative fraud by the Labour Government during this period of being in power.
The National Lottery has almost been equal in fraud to Hitlers volkswagen scheme which was a lottery scheme to buy a ticket for a VW to be won sometime never yet raised funding the like of which was incredible and the funds then got spent as government revenue . . . just like the UK National Lottery.
Complain about this comment
There is a social dimension to this which should be taken into account. Since cultural funding is decided on a project by project basis, it is unlikely that it will be proportional to overall expenditure but it is not unreasonable to infer that net contributors such as the UK will also be funding projects elsewhere in Europe.
The EU's cultural spend is therefore redistributive making money available to projects where the potential exists for improving economic prospects of certain locations where there is potential for culturally based activities where previously there was a contracting economy. Now if you happen to believe that cultural spending should be nationally or even regionally based, then this is added ammunition to your armoury. Why, after all, should UK tax payers be paying for restoring a ruined castle in Transylvania? (Hypothetical example - please don't ask for specifics).
The answer to that is that you would be anyway. If this money was not being 'invested', it would have to be 'donated' in order to ensure a tolerable standard of living in the absence of alternative employment. What cultural contributions do is to increase job opportunities, improve the environment and encourage tourism. In this sense, it is not so very different from what happens in the UK where there has been massive investment in the regions with precisely this in mind - inner city renewal.
Obviously, if one is opposed in principle to redistributive measures, this argument will be of little interest but, having seen it in action, I can say that the benefits go way beyond the narrow ambition of improving cultural facilities. These are important and empowering investments in their own right.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @45 and Menedemus @46
You are both right, of course, in that what constitutes 'good' art (or culture) is entirely subjective.
Should we not, therefore, remove it completely from the sphere of public funding and subsidy?
The arts flourished quite well without them.
Complain about this comment
#50 - MaxSceptic
I have looked at the American approach which is much more focused on encouraging private and corporate funding by providing generous tax breaks. It works quite well within the mainstream where there is a perceived gain in terms of public relations. In other words, chucking money at high profile and mainly 'elitist' projects makes you look good.
The problem would be on the fringes and the progressive and liberal arts would probably be damaged as would those which are economically redistributive. I would generally agree that letting national governments keep some of their money and placing it where they think fit has merit in the economies which are net contributors but would pose a big problem for the less well off countries.
Complain about this comment
#50, MaxSceptic, and threnodio
I have to say that I tend to agree with that as the subjective approach is very true, but I also understand threnodio's comment about non mainstream projects being forgotten in a commercial environment. However, one of the things about art that has always annoyed me is the snobbishness that surrounds culture, whereby to be intelligent you have to be culturally aware or as threnodio accurately puts it 'makes you look good'. I quite frankly have little time for that as it's surreal and artificial and I'm not surprised the US use that approach, I prefer to judge what I perceive as the quality of the artefact, painting or building without having to look good. I'm also sure that where you live (threnodio) is an example of excellent architecture and who knows maybe one day I'll add there to the list of beautiful cities that I've been privileged to visit to enjoy the history of.
In conclusion, I like and support the existence of Art galleries and Museums and have visited many during my years, but I'm afraid I don't like the culturally aware culture that exists since many years and maybe MaxSceptic is right in saying that this should be largely removed from state funding as it seems too easy to get public or lottery funding for hobby horses.
As an aside I say that partially because the lottery and state funding does not seem often to recognise the fantastic work done by both the lifeboat society and air ambulances which are largely funded by private donation. In some areas that I know they have been refused but in the South West they are an absolute necessity and if anything should be state funded they're it, anyway off my hobby horse now, LOL.
Complain about this comment
#52 - Buzet23
Then you will be glad to learn that some us old yachties petitioned No.10 about the new payment arrangements for the ship to shore radios used by the RNLI and Ofcom have been forced to change tack saving the Lifeboats a small fortune.
You are right, by the way. Beautiful city. Not a lot of use for lifeboats though:-)
Complain about this comment
#53, threnodio,
Now that is something, I always thought those electronic number ten petitions were just ignored, but it seems that at least one got read and if it saves the lifeboats a lot of funds then it was excellent.
Who knows, maybe we'll have an electronic EU Brussels petition facility soon but I'm sure that would never happen as the elite wouldn't like the petitions and voting.
Complain about this comment
Not sure if quite on message but was interested in the latest on the Lisbon treaty regards the Czech leaders visit to Ireland -
'On Tuesday, Mr Klaus met Declan Ganley, the head of Libertas, a pressure group that campaigns against the treaty and was a key force behind Ireland's No vote in June.
Endorsing Mr Ganley's views at a joint news conference, the Czech president said he feared freedom and democracy would "not be enhanced" by the treaty.
The Irish foreign minister said his comments were an "inappropriate intervention in the context of such a state visit", particularly given the Irish government was in negotiations with the EU about the pact.
Mr Klaus responded by calling him a hypocrite. Mr Martin's reaction, he said, confirmed his concerns about the erosion of democracy in Europe.'
Well done to Mr Klaus for standing up for democracy. Apparently it is only acceptable if leaders support the Lisbon Treaty. Interesting as the Czech Republic takes over the rotating EU presidency on 1 January 2009 - it does now appear the Lisbon treaty is finaly dead and buried and we have some leaders who are at least prepared to challenge the smug conformity that has existed.
Complain about this comment
#55, jordanbasset,
I saw that report as well and it made me laugh as it's clear the elite are not used to people standing up and saying what they think. It's a shame that the Irish foreign minister is so enthralled by the EU party line that he seems not to be open to discussion, but at least the Irish voters now know exactly where he stands and anything he now says needs to be viewed in that light i.e. I won't accept any view other than mine and I think the Lisbon treaty is essential. Which of course it is not as has been ably proved in the last few months.
BTW, another report today was that Germany is now in recession as there has been a second period of negative growth and the next is forecast to be at least as bad. It's about time the various EU leaders were honest about this as most seem still to be in denial and afraid to say openly what everybody sees with their own eyes. Certainly here in Belgium a number of factories near me have been closed for the next twelve weeks or so and whether they reopen is a question as they are mostly steel orientated.
Complain about this comment
Re Buzet 23, yes you are right, there do appear to be some people on this forum that appear to think that being part of the euro zone will protect from the economic woes the rest will suufer.
The U.K. will certainly suffer, may be even worse than Germany, however every one is in for a very uncomfortable time.
The recent report re the E.U. economy did try and say how it was, but the spin that went along with it tried to paint a more rosey future for the eurozone than was realistic.
Honesty is what is required now
Complain about this comment
Comment #2 is one I can agree with.
What on earth is the point of sending money to Brussels, them keeping a share of it and then sending some back to finance projects in my country, the Netherlands.
We'd be far better off keeping all of the money in the first place, financing the projects in question ourselves, and then we'd have money left!
And what the pro-EU crowd continually forgets: trade is very much possible without the existance of the EU.
Now, if the EU was truly democratic (representative and accountable) AND it had clear added value, I certainly wouldn't be against it like I am now. Its not that I oppose cooperation or even political integration, but I do oppose it if there is no mandate for it. And such a mandate must come from the peoples. And it must come first, before anything else is done.
Complain about this comment
Brussels is just a sponge, as far as money is concerned, and only about 40% of all the money that goes to Brussels comes back into the community. The rest is caught by the sticky fingers in Brussels and the EU.
For them to say that they can not name any fraud is like Gordon Brown telling us what his red lines are, an admission of a failure to control the money that passes through its hands.
We have enough trouble with our own politicians and I for one would not trust any of them so to ask me to trust politicians form any other EU country beggers belief. I would not trust any EU politician as far as I could throw the Strasborg Parliament.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS