The EU budget marathon

 

Countries approach the budget negotiations from different directions, Gavin Hewitt explains.

Related Stories

Nothing focuses leaders' minds like money and budgets. The voters may not be able to follow much of the EU's business but they usually can follow what funding goes to Brussels.

However when it comes to the EU, nothing is quite what it seems. Riddles and enigmas are all wrapped together. It is enough to say that all countries do not begin from the same starting point when they assess the budget, nor do they use the same criteria.

To add to the complexity there are different ceilings for payments and for commitments. In such a world it may be difficult to judge whether leaders have got what they promised. Such is the EU budget!

The day will begin with 15-minute interviews. The leaders - beginning interestingly with David Cameron - will one by one go and see the President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso. Prime Minister Cameron promised that he would be "negotiating very hard for a good deal for British taxpayers and European taxpayers".

At this meeting the leaders will lay out their negotiating positions. Only in the evening will they get together and the open haggling will begin. Herman Van Rompuy hopes the interviews will provide him with the information to forge a compromise.

On the surface an agreement looks difficult. A brace of Eastern and Central European countries - particularly Poland - want the budget to increase. Many other countries, including Britain, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, want it reined in. That is the fundamental fault line.

The Commission had initially set out a budget costing over a trillion euros, which would have been a 5% increase. A second proposal was put on the table by Herman Van Rompuy.

That amounted to 80bn euros less. Using 2011 prices, it would cap payments made during the seven-year period at 940bn euros. That proposal has become the focus of the negotiations.

British pressure

The British see it as a useful starting point but insist Mr Van Rompuy "must go further". Depending on the method of calculation, the Van Rompuy proposal could be interpreted as a small cut in the ceilings as compared to the previous budget, but for Britain there are two problems.

Firstly it would require the UK to make a concession on its rebate, which is worth around £3bn a year.

That, according to British officials, is non-negotiable. Since it was won by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 it has acquired totemic status. Without it the British contribution would almost match that of Germany. Other countries, particularly the French, have the British rebate in their sights.

The other problem is that the British judge the budget on what is spent, what the UK Treasury actually pays to the EU.

Quite deliberately, Downing Street has not provided its target figure in the negotiations. It wants some room for manoeuvre, but my understanding is that their target remains significantly below that of Herman Van Rompuy - somewhere just under 900bn euros, compared to 940bn.

Even if Mr Van Rompuy were to satisfy the British, it would only deepen his problems elsewhere.

Poland and Spain are just two nations insisting that more funds should be spent on economic development in order to close the gap between the richer and the poorer countries. The Spanish and Italians say they are at risk of becoming net contributors and have said that is "unacceptable".

The French have threatened to use their veto if farming subsidies are reduced. Some other countries like Denmark are fighting for a rebate of their own. So every step towards the British position creates problems elsewhere.

Domestic politics

The Germans are not far from the Van Rompuy proposal and are prepared to compromise. They are protective of their neighbour Poland and do not want to see an important ally losing out.

But, like the British, they want to see a cut in administrative costs and want to see the budget rebalanced towards projects that enhance growth and innovation, with less money for farm subsidies.

If a deal is done by Friday, when the summit is due to end, it will be a major achievement. The expectation is for the meeting to run into Saturday or to collapse. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already spoken of having to return at the beginning of next year if no deal is done this week.

Britain does not want to be blamed for failure. Downing Street - unlike when the British veto was used in December - has been making the calls and trying to find allies. There are countries which would be happy to see the UK painted as the fall guy once more.

Britain feels strongly about the budget but has a much more important fight coming up. That is over banking union. That will directly impact on the City of London. David Cameron will not want to waste goodwill on the budget when he will need every bit of support he can gather to protect the UK's financial sector.

Even so, his ability to compromise will be limited by his backbenchers, who see the budget as an opportunity to draw a line in the sand over EU spending.

It should be remembered that if no deal is reached, then the 2013 budget will be rolled over with a 2% increase in inflation. In that event decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and Britain would have less influence.

 
Gavin Hewitt, Europe editor Article written by Gavin Hewitt Gavin Hewitt Europe editor

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 15.

    11.d_m

    My point precisely. Without the EU, would those countries still represent 52% of our trade? Or, would many (i.e those that we haven't subsidised) be so poor as to contribute little in trade?

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 14.

    A simple thought experiment is useful when trying to understand what the EU is, and what it says it is.

    Imagine that the USSR wanted to invade the baltic states, and as it's causa belli it claimed to be increasing economic benefits for both states, by reducing border tariffs and barriers to trade between baltic and soviet states.

    After all, bigger is better, right? Bigger is better for trade.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 13.

    One thing for sure it will be a fudge yet again, by the great un-elected EU Pollies.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 12.

    @1 'The way it works is like this: EU are 'paid' by the national governments. And the EU re-distributes those funds to the national governments - according to their requests/need'

    This ends up with EU criteria projects which are prescriptive and Guvnt agencies seeking overblown projects simply to keep staff employed not based on actual need. Furthermore all members are after the same pot

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 11.

    9 CO

    "...good for trade?"

    ===

    If the EU is UK's biggest trading partner--some 52%--then doesn't that imply that the trade is mutually beneficial. The EU benefits as much as the UK.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 10.

    @6. DynamicEntrance
    I suppose you are in favour of increasing the budget still further then - probably also of total united states of Europe. Perhaps have a look at what it is doing for the UK - increased unemployment (EU rules used to force imports here, higher tax, higher cost of living decreasing competitiveness, increased costs of rules), loss of control... the downsides plentiful, no upside

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 9.

    2.kane

    "The facts are, we get less out than we pay in."

    Same goes for England relative to the UK. Time we went our own way? What about the various regions? Time London left the UK?

    3.d_m

    "Not once in, what is now, 32 or 33 years, has the UK gotten more back than it paid in."

    The UK government/taxpayer has spent more money than it got back. Has this been good for trade though?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 8.

    6.
    DynamicEntrance
    "This is, of course, your own speculation until you can provide solid figures to prove your claim, only then does it becomes fact."

    Incredible, it's as if it's your first day on the subject.
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2052433/Chart-How-does-Britain-pay-EU-does-back.html
    you can choose from many different sources.
    NET CONTRIBUTOR = PAYS MORE THAN TAKES OUT.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 7.

    Spain and Italy do not want to move to being net contributors. Poland wants handouts. Just about sums up it up

    And at this time some in Europe think somehow they will be better of without the UK net contributions. Europe is just weaker without the UK. These bozos have enough on sorting out the Eurozone without fighting somebody who helps pay the bills. It is just part of their derangement

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 6.

    @2

    This is, of course, your own speculation until you can provide solid figures to prove your claim, only then does it becomes fact.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 5.

    David Cameron has an opportunity to make a deal with Angela Merkel on the budget. They are both moving in the same direction albeit at different speeds. There is a long term advantage for Britain to come closer to Germany. It will require a compromise on Cameron's part but it will prove more important than satisfying his own backbenchers.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 4.

    "..their target remains significantly below that of Herman Van Rompuy - somewhere just under 900bn euros compared to 940bn."

    900 is "significantly" less than 940? OK. Sure. 5% is "significant".

    With all due respect to Hewitt, we are being sold a pup.

    All one reads about on the BBC is the "fight" for the UK in Brussels. In reality, their snouts are in the trough, lobbying for the public's money.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 3.

    Not once in, what is now, 32 or 33 years, has the UK gotten more back than it paid in.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 2.

    The facts are, we get less out than we pay in. Simple, doesn't matter what type of window dressing you want to tart it up with.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 1.

    Be nice if the BBC could point out - one day - that that vast majority of the "EU Budget" is not spent by the EU. It is spent by the national governments.

    The way it works is like this: EU are 'paid' by the national governments. And the EU re-distributes those funds to the national governments - according to their requests/need.

    But hey, don't let facts get in the way!

 

Page 7 of 7

 

Features

  • Baby being handed overFraught world

    The legal confusion over UK surrogate births


  • Bad resultsBlame game

    The best excuses to use when exam results don't make the grade


  • Police respond to a shooting in Santa MonicaTrigger decision

    What really happens before a police officer fires his gun?


  • Child injured by what activists say were two air strikes in the north-eastern Damascus suburb of Douma (3 August 2014)'No-one cares'

    Hope fades for Syrians one year after chemical attack


  • Lady AlbaGoing Gaga Watch

    Social media's use ahead of the independence referendum


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.