EU budget talks collapse: Was Britain wrong to NOT negotiate in a 'European spirit'?

[Furunculus]

"A small number of member states were not prepared to negotiate in a European spirit," Jose Manuel Barroso said.

i.e. a grubby little compromise that satisfies no-one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11765707


Barroso deplores failure over EU budget
European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso - file pic Mr Barroso said many EU programmes would suffer from the budget debacle

The European Commission president says a few EU member states "dealt a blow" to Europe by blocking a deal on the bloc's 2011 budget.

"A small number of member states were not prepared to negotiate in a European spirit," Jose Manuel Barroso said.

Correspondents say the UK and some other countries rejected Euro MPs' demands for pledges on future EU funding and on the parliament's role.

In his criticism Mr Barroso did not name the countries concerned.

The talks ended in deadlock late on Monday, making it likely that the budget will be frozen at this year's level.

"I'm extremely disappointed... a solution should have been possible last night," Mr Barroso said.

"Those that think they have won a victory over 'Brussels' have shot themselves in the foot. They should know that they have dealt a blow to people all over Europe and in the developing world."
Race against time

The European Commission now has to draft a new budget, but if it is not adopted by January the EU will have to work with a budget month-by-month. The allocations will be based on the 2010 settlement.
EU countries' flags in Brussels - file pic Governments are tightening their belts - and want the EU to do the same

UK Prime Minister David Cameron had called for a budget freeze before his acceptance last month of a maximum budget increase of 2.9%.

Commenting on the failed budget talks, the UK Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Justine Greening, said MEPs had "wanted to agree extra powers for future budgets, on terms which had no place in a negotiation on the 2011 budget".

"This is something the UK, and other member states, would simply not agree to. We tried to get a deal but, in the end, no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK taxpayer."

MEPs blamed government diplomats - the EU Council - for the breakdown.

"The diplomats around the table are not willing to have a dialogue," said Polish MEP Sidonia Jedrzejewska.
Bigger debate looms

MEPs say they are willing to accept the EU governments' wish for a 2.9% budget increase - lower than the 6% that the parliament had voted for.

But MEPs want their role in setting future EU budgets to be clarified.

The discussions are particularly sensitive ahead of a bigger debate about the EU's 2014-2020 finances. Hard bargaining is expected in big spending areas such as farm subsidies and the "cohesion" budget for the EU's poorest regions.

Speaking after the talks' collapse late on Monday, parliament president Jerzy Buzek said "the intransigence of a few member states in the Council undermines the confidence of our citizens that the EU is working effectively".

MEPs argue that the Lisbon Treaty gives them an equal say in budget discussions with the 27 member states' governments, but the procedure for this is not clear.

The European Commission drafts the budget, but that is only the first stage in a long negotiating process. The Commission, like the parliament, wanted the budget increase to be 6%.

Monday's Conciliation Committee talks involved 27 government officials from the Council and 27 MEPs, representing all the EU member states.
Chart showing EU budgets since 2000

Philosophical question:
Is this really so terrible? Is it somehow sacrosanct that all EU negotiations must end in an unhappy compromise?
> Can we now conceive of nations leaving the euro without it being an existential crisis in euro-federastry?
> Is there a north european congress on the idea of an inter-governmental europe, particularly in the light of this and the new entente?

Practical question:
What should Britain do if there elements of governance that it absolutely will not compromise on?
> Such as giving the EU more money at a time when it is cutting services?
> Such as giving the EU parliament tax-raising power when we know well the words of Gladstone*?

Personally I think this is a triumph, for Britain and for the EU, finally someone has said no, and the child now knows discipline.







* "The finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which English Liberty has been gradually acquired … It lies at the root of English Liberty, and if the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison …That power can never be wrenched out of your hands… That powerful leverage has been what is commonly known as the power of the purse – the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure – your main guarantee for purity – the root of English liberty. No violence, no tyranny, whether of experiments or of such methods as are likely to be made in this country, could ever for a moment have a chance of prevailing against the energies of that great assembly. No, if these powers of the House of Commons come to be encroached upon, it will be by tacit and insidious methods, and therefore I say that public attention should be called to this."

[gaelic cowboy]

Amazing pretty much most of Europe is either bailing out other countries or the countries in question are cutting like hell and these MEP clowns want a pay rise effectively.

The Eurozone is going to have to get real soon either we create a mechanism to join/leave or we all just agree Angela Merkel is Chancellor of the Eurozone.

[Furunculus]

it is a trifle surreal!

there is another eurozone option that is seriously considered; that germany leaves because economic government is incompatible with its constitution, and the desire of its electorate........

[Louis VI the Fat]

Irresponsible brats.

The newly elected governments of Britain and the Netherlands have used budget talks for political grandstanding.

But now is not a good time. Merkel and Sarko already supported Cameron in his wish to limit spending increase to 2.9%. That ought to have sufficed. Now, in the middle of a massive crisis, the EU can not agree on its budget for 2011. Brilliant.

[Furunculus]

why irresponsible?

were they not merely extending their democratic mandate to reduce spending to the EU, just like every other department?

surely the problem lies with the EU parliament, for it would only agree to go along with the 2.9% demanded by those controlling the purse-strings, (the national governments), if they got their demand for direct eu taxation on national electorates.

why on earth should this arrogance be acceptable?

to anyone!

[Tellos Athenaios]

From what I understand what the MEP's actually want is to be acknowledged in having equal status with European Council; and considering they are to whom the electoral mandate on matters of Europe is granted by their voters that does make sense. But then there are things like taxation/long term budgets muddying the waters.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Irresponsible brats.

The newly elected governments of Britain and the Netherlands have used budget talks for political grandstanding.

But now is not a good time. Merkel and Sarko already supported Cameron in his wish to limit spending increase to 2.9%. That ought to have sufficed. Now, in the middle of a massive crisis, the EU can not agree on its budget for 2011. Brilliant.

Allowing EU spending to rise during a period of national retranchment and cutbacks is stupid.

If you support it you are a fool (moderators, feel free to censure me but I will continue to express the same sentiments.)

EU budgets do not need to rise, the EU does not have creditors to pay, national governments do. If you are serious about saving the Euro then cut the salaries of the EU Parliament and cut EU spending in line with the cuts being made by the national governments. If you do that then you will, in fact, have more money to bail out sickly looking countries should you need to.

Oh, and leave us out of it, thank you.

[Furunculus]

From what I understand what the MEP's actually want is to be acknowledged in having equal status with European Council; and considering they are to whom the electoral mandate on matters of Europe is granted by their voters that does make sense. But then there are things like taxation/long term budgets muddying the waters.

that's a dangerous thing to muddy the waters with, and it quite obviously back-fired!

besides, the EU parliament is generally considered to be a joke, and it is certainly not considered to be a legitimate mechanism for governance by the British electorate, so arguing a mandate won't fly very far here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

that's a dangerous thing to muddy the waters with, and it quite obviously back-fired!

besides, the EU parliament is generally considered to be a joke, and it is certainly not considered to be a legitimate mechanism for governance by the British electorate, so arguing a mandate won't fly very far here.

I didn't bother to vote.

[Beskar]

Problem is, Europe won't become legitimate unless it is fully democratic, but the "skeptics" (term used loosely) don't want it to become fully democratic as it will destroy their nationalism. So we ended up with a corrupt and inefficient creation no one is happy with.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Problem is, Europe won't become legitimate unless it is fully democratic, but the "skeptics" (term used loosely) don't want it to become fully democratic as it will destroy their nationalism. So we ended up with a corrupt and inefficient creation no one is happy with.

...... whose collective members have not only military and economic muscle, but also nukes (yay).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Last year, the fad was to spend spend spend out of depression. Today, the fad is to cut cut cut out of recession.
The funds for EU stimulation spending have barely arrived, or now the EU has to impose austerity measures and scale back spending.

Ah well. However that may be, the EU still need the tools to maintain financial stability, a workable budget. Not to mention an increased role for the directly elected EP.

[Furunculus]

Problem is, Europe won't become legitimate unless it is fully democratic, but the "skeptics" (term used loosely) don't want it to become fully democratic as it will destroy their nationalism. So we ended up with a corrupt and inefficient creation no one is happy with.

the problem is, the skeptics don't believe the european parliament to be a legitimate form of governance regardless of how many 'democratic' functions it is given. in short it is not deemed to be representive.

[Furunculus]

Last year, the fad was to spend spend spend out of depression. Today, the fad is to cut cut cut out of recession.
The funds for EU stimulation spending have barely arrived, or now the EU has to impose austerity measures and scale back spending.

Ah well. However that may be, the EU still need the tools to maintain financial stability, a workable budget. Not to mention an increased role for the directly elected EP.

we're cutting 50 MP's, what is the EP doing to fit in with austerity times?

[Beskar]

the problem is, the skeptics don't believe the european parliament to be a legitimate form of governance regardless of how many 'democratic' functions it is given. in short it is not deemed to be representive.

That's just silly though. That is Manchester saying that our Parliament is not legitimate form of governance and not deemed representative.

[Furunculus]

not at all, legitimacy is perceived, ignoring it leads to civil war.

[Beskar]

So, reforming the EU and actually creating a 'legitimate' union is actually fine then in your opinion? I wasn't advocating the current EU model after all.

[Brenus]

The problem is EU is not democratic, as shown in the none respect of voters. I am one of pro-EU but I don't want this Commission, and this Constitution that was imposed by our barely elected local Parliement in total disrespect with our votes.
Introduce real democracy and stop the liberal anarchy, give power to the Parliement and Institutions duly elected and I won't have problem.
But in fixing the rules of EU the Eurocrats just destroyed the aim of EU.

[Furunculus]

So, reforming the EU and actually creating a 'legitimate' union is actually fine then in your opinion? I wasn't advocating the current EU model after all.

forming an economic union, where the various national electorates agree to a transfer union to mitigate regional imbalances is fine...................... if that's what people want.

try asking the german electorate how happy they are at having to bail out greece!


The problem is EU is not democratic, as shown in the none respect of voters. I am one of pro-EU but I don't want this Commission, and this Constitution that was imposed by our barely elected local Parliement in total direcpect with our votes.
Introduce real democracy and stop the liberal anarchy, give power to the Parliement and Institutions duly elected and I won't have problem.
But in fixing the rules of EU the Eurocrats just destroyed the aim of EU.

again, that's fine if you want an EU government, then of course it makes sense that it is democratic, but first you have to accept that it is representative, and thus legitimate.

that is what is lacking in Britain at least.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Last year, the fad was to spend spend spend out of depression. Today, the fad is to cut cut cut out of recession.
The funds for EU stimulation spending have barely arrived, or now the EU has to impose austerity measures and scale back spending.

Pretty obvious, you burrow you need to start paying it back.


Ah well. However that may be, the EU still need the tools to maintain financial stability, a workable budget. Not to mention an increased role for the directly elected EP.

How will the EU "maintain financial stability", it is causing the current crisis via the Euro!

How are you so fundamentally blind?

The EU's stimulation fund doesn't have to be what is axed, axe the MEP pension scheme instead, the very concept of a pension for an elected politician as abhorrant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's just silly though. That is Manchester saying that our Parliament is not legitimate form of governance and not deemed representative.


not at all, legitimacy is perceived, ignoring it leads to civil war.

Furunculus is absolutely right, that is what happened. Sections of England and the English people deemed the government to no longer be representative or legitimate - so we had a bloody war to settle the question. Enforcing adherence to the EU as though it were a government the way some want will lead to war.

Do you know, a German told me last year that if Britian elected to withdraw from the EU we would be hit with trade sanctions! As though we were some Third World banana Republic or Rogue state, not one the most wealthy and powerful democratically governed states in the world!

Sheer Lunancy is increasingly the norm for the Europhile, it seems.

[rory_20_uk]

Rather the same approach that the Northern states took to Southern states wanting to do their own thing: "we're a democratic democracy, and we'll kill you if you don't agree".

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm taking notes of you lads IP adresses, that we can 'neutralise' you lot in the coming European civil war.

You WILL bow before our mighty superstate. :stare:

[InsaneApache]

Did anyone watch Dispatches on channel 4 last monday?

Bastards. :embarassed:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Did anyone watch Dispatches on channel 4 last monday?

Bastards. :embarassed:http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/riding-europes-gravy-train-reporter-feature
Expenses and parliamentarians: it's been a year of scandal and outrage as the British public has realised how much Westminster MPs were claiming, and for what. But the cash going to their European counterparts has escaped serious scrutiny ... until now.

Watch programme clip (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/video/series-58/episode-4/riding-europes-gravy-train)

Riding Europe's Gravy Train (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-58/episode-4) focuses on the extremely generous expenses enjoyed by members of the European Parliament along with two other areas of EU spending, the huge amounts given to agriculture and to help economic problems.
Our 72 MEPs commute between their constituencies in the UK and the sessions of the parliament held in Brussels and Strasburg. That means they have to travel, spend nights away, run two offices and pay staff, at home and in Brussels.

MEPs are paid a subsistence allowance of 298 Euros a day (approximately £260) to cover their additional costs while working in Europe. At least half of that would go on a good quality hotel near the parliament, while still leaving plenty for eating out. Some MEPs prefer to rent or buy somewhere. One MEP, who's buying a flat, admitted the allowance was more than he needed to cover his costs. And when he sells he could make even more profit – money which won't go back to the taxpayer who funded the allowances.

But there's a bigger problem with the attendance allowance: MEPs who sign in at dawn on a Friday to claim the money for the day and then disappear for the weekend. There are no parliament sessions on a Friday and few official engagements, so very little reason for most MEPs to be there.

We filmed secretly near the attendance office which opens at 7am. There were already MEPs queueing and grumbling that the office was late opening: one said he'd miss his plane, another said his car was waiting in the garage. We watched as they signed in, most of them with suitcases, and then left the building.

Among the MEPs we filmed were two British politicians, who both headed to their offices. When we approached them to ask if they felt they could justify claiming their daily allowance both of them said they had meetings during the day but admitted they were leaving later. One of them then contacted us to say his diary had changed and he was now staying in Brussels that night.

The attendance allowance is paid automatically, no receipts required. The same applies to the money given to MEPs to run their offices. They're paid about £3,500 a month, regardless of how much they actually spend. We found about 20 MEPs who under-spent their allowance by at least £10,000 last year. We asked if they'd returned the money and their parties all replied that they'd keep the cash until this parliament ends in 2014 and then repay it. So we asked how much they'd returned at the end of the 2009 session: they all said they'd only just starting keeping figures and so they couldn't tell us.

We also reveal the British MEPs who pay their partners to work for them, which is completely within the rules but it's a practice that MEPs from most other countries disapprove of. 'A family feeding system', one Austrian MEP calls it. When the parliament voted to ban the employment of close family members, it's been claimed it was British MEPs who lobbied hard to win an extension for another four years.

Travel allowances have been tightened up after some MEPs were found claiming expensive tickets and buying cheap ones. Now they have to produce receipts. But we've discovered some have found a new way of benefitting – demanding the most expensive ticket possible which maximises the air miles they're given, which they can then use for holidays and other personal travel. They are also paid additional travel allowances, on top of the ticket costs, which can give them up an extra £7,000 a year, on top of their £80,000+ salaries.
Dispatches also reveals how the huge amounts paid in grants for agriculture and economic development don't always go to the people who need them most and we confront the convicted criminal refusing to pay back hundreds of thousands of pounds of EU money.:book:

[Furunculus]

so non-one is going to offer a serious argument in favour of the proposition that Britain acted improperly, and un-european'ly in its refusal to countenance the parliaments demand for more money?

i'm surprised, i thought you 'philes were all in favour of hungarian dog therapy centres!

[Sarmatian]

so non-one is going to offer a serious argument in favour of the proposition that Britain acted improperly, and un-european'ly in its refusal to countenance the parliaments demand for more money?

i'm surprised, i thought you 'philes were all in favour of hungarian dog therapy centres!

No, you won, fair and square. EU is a disaster. You don't see it, but even as we speak I'm hanging my head in shame because I was somewhat fond of EUSSR or Euroslavia... Long live nation states, long live demos and kratos, Britannia rules the waves etc, etc...

I keed, I keed

[Furunculus]

thank god for common sense!:balloon2:

[Idaho]

There are plenty of elements of a European Union which make sense and are a good idea - standardisation of certain practices/measures, harmonisation of certain taxes and tarrifs, free movement, working, etc, plus another court to appeal to.

However the graft and corruption are unacceptable. As is the slow and steady mission creep and bureaucratic expansion.

[Furunculus]

There are plenty of elements of a European Union which make sense and are a good idea - standardisation of certain practices/measures, harmonisation of certain taxes and tarrifs, free movement, working, etc, plus another court to appeal to.

However the graft and corruption are unacceptable. As is the slow and steady mission creep and bureaucratic expansion.

broadly agreed idaho, hopefully the limited budget increase will put a crimp in the mission-creep.

[rory_20_uk]

broadly agreed idaho, hopefully the limited budget increase will put a crimp in the mission-creep.

Fat chance. I imagine they'll just spend money they don't have and ask for more later.

The positives in the EU don't require the EU. They require specific treaties covering a specific point. So as issues are not intertwined, things can be sorted out as required, and not one issues used as a point of leverage for another. Of course that would also mean mission creep is much tougher as one would have to stipulate which treaty was enabling a specific action and not just shrugging of the shoulders and saying it's in there somewhere.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Fat chance. I imagine they'll just spend money they don't have and ask for more later.

The positives in the EU don't require the EU. They require specific treaties covering a specific point. So as issues are not intertwined, things can be sorted out as required, and not one issues used as a point of leverage for another. Of course that would also mean mission creep is much tougher as one would have to stipulate which treaty was enabling a specific action and not just shrugging of the shoulders and saying it's in there somewhere.

~:smoking:

ah, if only we could have exactly that!

[Beskar]

ah, if only we could have exactly that!

What a bureaucratic and pointless waste it would be, you would make civil servants proud.

[Furunculus]

i doubt it, you would scratch out 50% of the EU's bureaucratic and 'democratic' functions overnight, as it would revert to a simple harmonised free-trade zone.

and any inefficiency in the process of managing individual treaties would be worth it for their inherent restriction on mission creep.

[rory_20_uk]

They are legally separate treaties, but can be functionally addressed together - there are many laws, but not a police force for each of them!

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

i doubt it, you would scratch out 50% of the EU's bureaucratic and 'democratic' functions overnight, as it would revert to a simple harmonised free-trade zone.

and any inefficiency in the process of managing individual treaties would be worth it for their inherent restriction on mission creep.

Actually, if we scratched out all the national departments and move the major common policies to Brussels, it would cut EU bureaucratic wastage significantly and cut domestic wastage significantly as well.

:tongue:

[Furunculus]

Actually, if we scratched out all the national departments and move the major common policies to Brussels, it would cut EU bureaucratic wastage significantly and cut domestic wastage significantly as well.

:tongue:

quite, and yet you always skip over the part where seeking a democratic mandate from the people might be desirable, to state that such an entity would be both representative of their needs and thus legitimate, why is that?

i'd have that referendum tomorrow, would you?

[InsaneApache]

Personally I'd wait until monday. I'm off out for luncheon tomorrow.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Britain has had its referendum, and it has voted pro-Europe.

By contrast, nobody has ever asked the Scots, English and Welsh if they wanted to form a British Union. Nobody has ever asked any Briton whether he agreed to delegate British defense to NATO ('defense is the first duty of the state blahblah'). Nobody has ever asked any Briton if he wanted to join a Commonwelath together with Pakistan and Uganda.
But the British have been consulted about Europe. :yes:


Moreover, Bitiain is a democratic country, The UK government acts on behalf of the people. Therefore we must assume that it is the continuing democratic wish of the British people to be part of the EU.

[Idaho]

Britain has had its referendum, and it has voted pro-Europe.

By contrast, nobody has ever asked the Scots, English and Welsh if they wanted to form a British Union. Nobody has ever asked any Briton whether he agreed to delegate British defense to NATO ('defense is the first duty of the state blahblah'). Nobody has ever asked any Briton if he wanted to join a Commonwelath together with Pakistan and Uganda.
But the British have been consulted about Europe. :yes:


Moreover, Bitiain is a democratic country, The UK government acts on behalf of the people. Therefore we must assume that it is the continuing democratic wish of the British people to be part of the EU.

Getting a bit confused there. You are saying that politicking and the absence of democracy in some areas justifies the same in others. I support democratic decisions regardless of whether they are the ones I would have chosen.

[InsaneApache]

Britain has had its referendum, and it has voted pro-Europe.

Nope. We voted for a trading bloc. :book:

[Furunculus]

I support democratic decisions regardless of whether they are the ones I would have chosen.

very much agreed!

i am not greatly in favour of direct democracy, but the only time i demand a referendum is when the question is raised; who governs me?

by common consent and civil war we have reached acceptance that the british people will consent to be government by the british parliament, if that parliament wishes to give away its authority to govern the british people to some third party then I DEMAND to be consulted on the matter.


Nope. We voted for a trading bloc. :book:

yup, the question was: "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community?"