EU Budget negotiations

Scofflaw

The ongoing EU budget negotiations, which threaten to stretch into the Irish Presidency, also throw up some interesting side lights on the character of the politicians involved, such as this one:

British prime minister David Cameron has insisted that the seven-year European Union budget beginning in 2014 cannot be allowed to rise in line with “ludicrous” European Commission demands.

As a consequence of his stance Mr Cameron is facing isolation in EU negotiations later this week.

“I feel I have got the people of Europe on my side in arguing that we should stop endlessly picking their pockets spending more and more money through the EU budget, particularly when so many parts of the EU budget are not well spent,” he told business leaders in London.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/1120/1224326840196.html

I'd have to call hubris on that one - while there are undeniably people around Europe who do feel that the EU budget proposals are excessive (many without even knowing what they are, I suspect), the idea that David Cameron can simultaneously speak for all the "people of Europe" while being mysteriously isolated by their elected governments is a level of hubris that's rarely matched.

amused,
Scofflaw

Cookie_Monster

he's not wrong.
government by it's very nature wastes vast amounts of cash, the bigger the government the bigger the waste.

Scofflaw

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

he's not wrong.
government by it's very nature wastes vast amounts of cash, the bigger the government the bigger the waste.

Ideology - everyone wastes money.

As to 'big':

Irish govt spending per capita: €13,129
EU spending per capita: €294.40

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ballantine

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ideology - everyone wastes money.

As to 'big':

Irish govt spending per capita: €13,129
EU spending per capita: €294.40

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course, we can look at that in many ways. The Irish Government raised money by taxation from its people, ( and borrowing and the IMF and so on), its people vote for the government and how that money is to be spent, and thats called democracy.

Part of the money the Irish government raises in tax it hands over to the EU which then spends about €120 billion every year of taxpayers money. No citizens of the EU are allowed to vote for the eurocrats who decide how and where this money is spent, and we all know that not once in the history of the EU have the auditors been able to sign off the accounts so widespread are the anomalies and fraud within the EU, which seems powerless to prevent fraud.

Anyone within the EU who tries to stop the fraud is generally fired or "managed out", and there seems to be a real reluctance within the EU to get to grips with the appalling lack of normal financial controls.

Incidentally, these are the same officials who want to take charge of the regulation of the banks across the EU, and who also want an enormous increase in their budgets at a time of national austerity programmes.

The European Court of Auditors estimated that than nine tenths of the 2009 budget, spending that totalled €110 billion, was "materially affected" by irregularities. In other words only 10% of the EU total budget was properly accounted for.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have to call hubris on that one - while there are undeniably people around Europe who do feel that the EU budget proposals are excessive (many without even knowing what they are, I suspect), the idea that David Cameron can simultaneously speak for all the "people of Europe" while being mysteriously isolated by their elected governments is a level of hubris that's rarely matched.

amused,
Scofflaw

Of course, there is a way to find out who is right, either David Cameron or you, and thats by holding an election to find out. No doubt someone will explain to us why its more democratic to not hold elections and actually ask the people what they think :-)

It's an irony that you seem to be able to speak for the peoples of Europe by knowing they think Cameron is wrong, while at the same time deriding an elected politician for doing the same thing and speaking on behalf of the peoples of Europe.

It's a case, as usual, of all of us wanting to believe we know what others think (even Cameron), although so unpolular now is the EU across Europe that it seems unlikely many people would want to give them even more cash, especially when over 90% of it is not properly accounted for.

Scofflaw

Ballantine wrote: »

Of course, we can look at that in many ways. The Irish Government raised money by taxation from its people, ( and borrowing and the IMF and so on), its people vote for the government and how that money is to be spent, and thats called democracy.

Part of the money the Irish government raises in tax it hands over to the EU which then spends about €120 billion every year of taxpayers money.

Although in Ireland's case, of course, it gets back rather more.

Ballantine wrote: »

No citizens of the EU are allowed to vote for the eurocrats who decide how and where this money is spent,

In fact, they vote for the governments involved in deciding on the overall budget. and for the EU Parliament which votes on the details of the budget. Again, you've presented this as if the Commission (who are appointed by the governments elected by the people, and answerable to the Parliament) simply do what they like - and perhaps that's your understanding of the matter.

Ballantine wrote: »

and we all know that not once in the history of the EU have the auditors been able to sign off the accounts so widespread are the anomalies and fraud within the EU, which seems powerless to prevent fraud.

Um, no. The part of the accounts "materially affected by error" - that is, over 2% errors - consist almost entirely of the end-user payments carried out by national authorities. And the errors are errors, not fraud - fraud levels are low to start off with, and generally the fraudulent payments are recovered.

We're not too bad when it comes to EU money - our error rate on the EU money handled by national authorities is estimated at 1% - but some of the new accession states (Romania, for example) are really very bad, and our internal controls on national spending is woeful. Our fraud and error rates on welfare payments, for example, are in double figures last time I looked.

Ballantine wrote: »

Anyone within the EU who tries to stop the fraud is generally fired or "managed out", and there seems to be a real reluctance within the EU to get to grips with the appalling lack of normal financial controls.

Again, this is just parroting of UKIP press releases. The EU's financial controls are very much better than equivalent national controls - indeed, the errors come in because national financial controls are themselves deficient. The EU has never, for example, found €3.6bn down the back of a sofa.

You shouldn't really just repeat this stuff if you don't know the details, as apparently you don't. The accounts are in fact signed off, but are 'qualified' - as are the accounts of, for example, the UK government, according to their National Audit Office:

However, the Comptroller and Auditor General has raised a number of concerns about the WGA. For the WGA to be used more, it needs to be produced faster. These accounts were completed 19 months after the end of the financial year to which they relate. While the Treasury did publish an unaudited summary in July 2012, there were subsequent changes to the data. This was to correct significant errors identified both by the Treasury and the NAO as part of its audit.

The audit also revealed significant issues with the quality and consistency of the data provided by the health and education sectors. Some bodies, such as Network Rail, are still excluded from the WGA even though accounting standards require their inclusion. In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor General has raised concerns over the completeness and valuation of school assets.

Ballantine wrote: »

Incidentally, these are the same officials who want to take charge of the regulation of the banks across the EU, and who also want an enormous increase in their budgets at a time of national austerity programmes.

Again, the problem with your view is that the national bodies responsible for banking supervision did an appalling job.

Ballantine wrote: »

The European Court of Auditors estimated that than nine tenths of the 2009 budget, spending that totalled €110 billion, was "materially affected" by irregularities. In other words only 10% of the EU total budget was properly accounted for.

Nope. That argues a complete lack of understanding of what the level of error means.

Ballantine wrote: »

Of course, there is a way to find out who is right, either David Cameron or you, and thats by holding an election to find out. No doubt someone will explain to us why its more democratic to not hold elections and actually ask the people what they think :-)

It's an irony that you seem to be able to speak for the peoples of Europe by knowing they think Cameron is wrong, while at the same time deriding an elected politician for doing the same thing and speaking on behalf of the peoples of Europe.

Unlike Cameron, I haven't claimed to know what they think - I've merely expressed the view that Cameron is unlikely to be speaking for them (perhaps particularly since they're not speaking English), and the likelihood is rather strong that their elected politicians might have a better handle on what they think than a UK politician. You seem to see that as unlikely, but there we go.

Ballantine wrote: »

It's a case, as usual, of all of us wanting to believe we know what others think (even Cameron), although so unpolular now is the EU across Europe that it seems unlikely many people would want to give them even more cash, especially when over 90% of it is not properly accounted for.

And yet at this time of dissatisfaction, the EU remains more trusted than national parliaments in many countries, and more trusted than political parties everywhere bar Sweden. Worse yet, of the EU institutions, the least trusted is the Council, which is made up of the governments.

The UK is very different from other EU countries, and it remains unlikely that Cameron has really been able to look into his heart and know what the rest of Europe thinks. At best, he (and you) might have a handle on the other donor countries, but it's hard to see why exactly most people in the recipient countries would object to the EU's budget increasing - and indeed the opposition to the budget is from the net donor countries rather than the recipients.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Ballantine wrote: »

Of course, there is a way to find out who is right, either David Cameron or you, and thats by holding an election to find out. No doubt someone will explain to us why its more democratic to not hold elections and actually ask the people what they think :-)

One election for all the people of Europe?

I'm constantly intrigued at how indistinguishable euroskeptics and eurofederalists sometimes appear.

Ballantine

Scofflaw wrote: »

Um, no. The part of the accounts "materially affected by error" - that is, over 2% errors - consist almost entirely of the end-user payments carried out by national authorities. And the errors are errors, not fraud - fraud levels are low to start off with, and generally the fraudulent payments are recovered.

I could not find in the Court of Auditors report a figure for the amount of fraud payments which are recovered, as you mention. Can you point me to the figure?

http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/9766724.PDF

“The Court concludes that overall the supervisory and control systems are partially effective in ensuring the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts. The policy groups Agriculture and Natural Resources and Cohesion, Energy and Transport are materially affected by error. The Court’s estimate for the most likely error rate for payments underlying the accounts is 3.7 %.

“In the Court’s opinion, because of the significance of the matters described [above] on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 are materially affected by error.”

I have no idea where you got your 2% figure from, but it’s a little ironic you patronise me by saying

Scofflaw wrote: »

You shouldn't really just repeat this stuff if you don't know the details, as apparently you don't.

I got my details from the Court of Auditors report, and if you judge the details there to be incorrect, that’s your prerogative.

Perhaps you judge that to be “materially affected by error” is not significant, and that’s your prerogative also. Others may, and do, take a different view.

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're not too bad when it comes to EU money - our error rate on the EU money handled by national authorities is estimated at 1% - but some of the new accession states (Romania, for example) are really very bad, and our internal controls on national spending is woeful. Our fraud and error rates on welfare payments, for example, are in double figures last time I looked.

I’m not sure it’s a game of comparisons, and even if it were to compare anything to the way the Irish economy has been run seems an unwise example to choose.

Are you really saying that, because Ireland seems to have welfare fraud and error rates, then it’s ok for the EU to be complacent about €4.5 billion? There is no such thing as government’s money, only taxpayer’s money.

I am not arguing about myself, or about you, but about the perception amongst citizens that the EU is complacent about spending their (the citizens) money. You may disagree with that view, as may I, but that’s not the issue.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, this is just parroting of UKIP press releases.

Again? Having never seen or read a UKIP press release, I have never once quoted from them once, let alone “again”. Your assertion is not only wrong, but is impertinent and pejorative.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, the problem with your view is that the national bodies responsible for banking supervision did an appalling job.

You seem to miss the point. You claimed that the EU did not take powers away from the individual members, and I gave as an example the current proposals to take banking regulation out of the hands of individual states and give them to the center, to show that your assertion is, simply, incorrect.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unlike Cameron, I haven't claimed to know what they think

Scofflaw wrote: »

And yet at this time of dissatisfaction, the EU remains more trusted than national parliaments in many countries, and more trusted than political parties everywhere bar Sweden. Worse yet, of the EU institutions, the least trusted is the Council, which is made up of the governments.

You don’t claim to know what the people think, then you go on to tell us what they think? Shome Mhistake Shurley?

Scofflaw wrote: »

The UK is very different from other EU countries, and it remains unlikely that Cameron has really been able to look into his heart and know what the rest of Europe thinks. At best, he (and you) might have a handle on the other donor countries, but it's hard to see why exactly most people in the recipient countries would object to the EU's budget increasing - and indeed the opposition to the budget is from the net donor countries rather than the recipients.

I think this last paragraph displays the attitude that the EU is there for what we can get out of it, an attitude which is perceived by many to contribute to their growing concerns about the EU, which they express in the polls. It may be an attitude you, and I, disagree with, but the growing dissatisfaction across the EU is there, it’s real, whether we like it or not.

Scofflaw

Ballantine wrote: »

I could not find in the Court of Auditors report a figure for the amount of fraud payments which are recovered, as you mention. Can you point me to the figure?

Fraud figures are available from OLAF: http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/investigations/fraud-in-figures/index_en.htm

Ballantine wrote: »

http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/9766724.PDF

“The Court concludes that overall the supervisory and control systems are partially effective in ensuring the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts. The policy groups Agriculture and Natural Resources and Cohesion, Energy and Transport are materially affected by error. The Court’s estimate for the most likely error rate for payments underlying the accounts is 3.7 %.

“In the Court’s opinion, because of the significance of the matters described [above] on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 are materially affected by error.”

I have no idea where you got your 2% figure from, but it’s a little ironic you patronise me by saying

2% is the materiality criterion - that is, a set of EU accounts is described as "materially affected by errors" if the error rate is higher than 2%. That's what the discussion is about, no?

Ballantine wrote: »

I got my details from the Court of Auditors report, and if you judge the details there to be incorrect, that’s your prerogative.


Perhaps you judge that to be “materially affected by error” is not significant, and that’s your prerogative also. Others may, and do, take a different view.

The details are fine - it's your interpretation which is lacking. Not knowing what the material error threshold is one part of your problem, and not being able to distinguish between fraud and error is another.

Ballantine wrote: »

I’m not sure it’s a game of comparisons, and even if it were to compare anything to the way the Irish economy has been run seems an unwise example to choose.

Are you really saying that, because Ireland seems to have welfare fraud and error rates, then it’s ok for the EU to be complacent about €4.5 billion? There is no such thing as government’s money, only taxpayer’s money.

Which the EU wastes much less of than national governments.

Ballantine wrote: »

I am not arguing about myself, or about you, but about the perception amongst citizens that the EU is complacent about spending their (the citizens) money. You may disagree with that view, as may I, but that’s not the issue.

My point is that the perception is largely based on a combination of the EU holding itself to a far higher standard than any government, and the fitting of the outcome to a preconceived narrative which ignores the details - the conflation of error with fraud, and qualification of accounts with failure to sign off.

Ballantine wrote: »

Again? Having never seen or read a UKIP press release, I have never once quoted from them once, let alone “again”. Your assertion is not only wrong, but is impertinent and pejorative.

Not really.

Ballantine wrote: »

You seem to miss the point. You claimed that the EU did not take powers away from the individual members, and I gave as an example the current proposals to take banking regulation out of the hands of individual states and give them to the center, to show that your assertion is, simply, incorrect.

And the EU cannot "take that power" away from the Member States. The EU is so structured that it can only take over something like banking supervision if the Member States want it to - it cannot "take it from them" as you continue to incorrectly assert.

Ballantine wrote: »

You don’t claim to know what the people think, then you go on to tell us what they think? Shome Mhistake Shurley?

Those results are from the regular Eurobarometer surveys, which ask exactly those questions.

Ballantine wrote: »

I think this last paragraph displays the attitude that the EU is there for what we can get out of it, an attitude which is perceived by many to contribute to their growing concerns about the EU, which they express in the polls. It may be an attitude you, and I, disagree with, but the growing dissatisfaction across the EU is there, it’s real, whether we like it or not.

Undeniably, but drawing a line though short run data into the future is almost invariably a mistake.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

One election for all the people of Europe?

I'm constantly intrigued at how indistinguishable euroskeptics and eurofederalists sometimes appear.

No if there were elections across Europe to a European legislative body or referenda across Europe, it would diminish federalism. The EU is, of course, a federal body. If it was a single state, it would not be a federation... by er.. definition.

Euroskeptic means that you are skeptical about the way the EU is, or the way in which it is going. Feeling that the EU should not be a federation, but instead a single state would, therefore qualify as Euroskeptic, would it not?

But if your intrigue can be piqued, it's all good I suppose.

Having said all this, I'm against the idea of having pan-European elections or referenda. There are borders for a reason.
---

In relation to the budget - the real problem is that you have many different heads of state wanting different things from the budget. Simple polarisation would be a significant step up from what we currently have - which is diverse federal bickering.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

No if there were elections across Europe to a European legislative body or referenda across Europe, it would diminish federalism.

Elections across Europe to a European legislative body... such as the European Parliament, for example?

The EU is, of course, a federal body. If it was a single state, it would not be a federation... by er.. definition.

The EU is an intergovernmental organisation with some aspects of federalism. I'm not sure where the "single state" idea came from; it has a distinct whiff of the straw man about it.

I'm not even clear on what you are arguing, or why, except that you seem to be playing on the ambiguity inherent in the meaning of "state". The USA isn't a single state, but I don't think anyone would argue that it isn't a single country, and a federal one at that.

TheLastLazyGun

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have to call hubris on that one - while there are undeniably people around Europe who do feel that the EU budget proposals are excessive (many without even knowing what they are, I suspect), the idea that David Cameron can simultaneously speak for all the "people of Europe" while being mysteriously isolated by their elected governments is a level of hubris that's rarely matched.

amused,
Scofflaw

Cameron isn't isolated. There are around ten other member states siding with Britain on this issue, including Germany.

The fact of the matter is that I find it truly and utterly bizarre that, whilst EU member states are having to tighten their belts due to necessary austerity measures, the EU - which is proving that it doesn't live in the real world - is wanting to INCREASE its budget and it wants Britain, the second-biggest contributor to the EU budget which has seen its contribution to the EU DOUBLE in the last year, to pay even more to the EU so that inefficient French farmers can become even richer through the CAP (Britain pays four times more to wealthy French farmers than it does to poor African ones) and so that EU bureucrats can give themselves pay rises.

Cameron is RIGHT to call for a budget freeze; is RIGHT to say that hard-pressed British taxpayers should not have to fork out more money; and is RIGHT to tell the EU to get into the real world.

Of course, the Irish have no need to complain about a rising EU budget because they are a net RECEIVER of EU money rather than a net contributor. All those who are condemning Cameron over his stance would be the first to support him should Ireland suddenly find itself a net contributor to the EU's coffers the way Britain is.

Scofflaw

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Cameron isn't isolated. There are around ten other member states siding with Britain on this issue, including Germany.

Well, now that Cameron has rowed back somewhat on his original position, it's true enough that he's no longer isolated in the sense of being the only one looking for a budget freeze/reduction in general rather than an increase. He's done a good bit of alliance-building with the other net contributor states, which stands to the man's credit.

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that I find it truly and utterly bizarre that, whilst EU member states are having to tighten their belts due to necessary austerity measures, the EU - which is proving that it doesn't live in the real world - is wanting to INCREASE its budget and it wants Britain, the second-biggest contributor to the EU budget which has seen its contribution to the EU DOUBLE in the last year, to pay even more to the EU so that inefficient French farmers can become even richer through the CAP (Britain pays four times more to wealthy French farmers than it does to poor African ones) and so that EU bureucrats can give themselves pay rises.

Er, no. The net contribution rose by 54%, mostly due to a fall in the rebate (of 22.5%) - which fell because of a fall in CAP payments - rather than a rise in payments (5.7%).

Overall, though, I'd say that the defence of CAP is the major problem - the arguments over "eurocrats' salaries" seem to be largely smoke and mirrors, given that staff costs are about 6% of the EU budget compared to an average of about 21% of national government budgets, and about 40% for CAP.

EU bureaucrats' salaries are determined by a formula that takes in average civil service wages in the Member States together with inflation and the cost of living in Belgium. Currently there's also a crisis levy of 4%, but the fighting over the budget means that the crisis levy arrangements may expire in January, which means the first result of the drive to reduce the EU budget will be an increase in staff salaries, something which will no doubt be represented as an outrageous self-awarded pay increase.

But, given the way EU bureaucrats' salaries are calculated, the claim that governments' are seeking to impose on the EU only the austerity imposed on their own civil services is demonstrably a false claim, since EU salaries will automatically follow reductions in Member State civil service salaries - if such reductions have actually been made, of course.

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Cameron is RIGHT to call for a budget freeze; is RIGHT to say that hard-pressed British taxpayers should not have to fork out more money; and is RIGHT to tell the EU to get into the real world.

I'm not sure that a 10% reduction in the one and a half pence in every tax pound paid by the hard-pressed British taxpayer will really be significant, other than politically.

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Of course, the Irish have no need to complain about a rising EU budget because they are a net RECEIVER of EU money rather than a net contributor. All those who are condemning Cameron over his stance would be the first to support him should Ireland suddenly find itself a net contributor to the EU's coffers the way Britain is.

Undoubtedly the case - in fact, they started complaining in advance, back when we were only projected to become net contributors. But one can hardly argue that the British should base their case on self-interest and the Irish not do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw