The Result of the Brussels Budget Talks
I have excellent news for you! The Continent is isolated! Well, that is if you scan the broadsheets this morning. Who’d have thought that, after Brexit but while we’re still ‘In’, reporting on the EU Budget Summit is less important for them than talking about the US Presidential elections and “bullying in the Home Office”.
Oh – there are some ‘Brexit news’, one being that the blue passports will indeed return now (here and here). The other, about a possible new outbreak of the tree disease ‘Ash Dieback’, thanks to an ‘idiotic’ (sez Owen Paterson) new EU regulation which came into force in December 2019, is far more worrying. Our civil servants will of course implement that one … read all about it here.
The important news on the failed EU Budget Summit deserved just a terse report on the BBC website (here) and a more extensive article in the DM (here) while Joe Barnes of The Express reports the particulars, under the headline that “EU Leaders call it quits after 28 hours of talks” (link).
It’s important to look in some detail at why those talks failed because they will influence the forthcoming Barnier negotiations. There’s no way that the bad blood this failure has created isn’t going to affect both the Barnier Mandate and the ensuing negotiations.
For light relief we read that Mr Varadkar, the EU poodle, has turned round to bite his EU master’s hand. He is Ireland’s caretaker PM because the winners of the recent election have yet to agree on how they want to govern, in what sort of coalition. There are two reports (here and here).
Yeah, well – when Mr Varadkar was riding high on the wave of the EU’s Anti-Brexit stance, we did say that he should be careful because the EU would not ‘reward’ him. So there he now is, hung out to dry. Meanwhile, here are the numbers which caused all that bad blood:
“European Council chief Charles Michel [a former Belgian PM] has tabled a draft budget of €1.09trillion, which represents 1.074 per cent of gross national income of EU27 countries. The current long-term budget for 2014-2020 is €1.08trillion, which represents 1.02 per cent of gross national income for the EU28, before Britain’s departure.” (link)
It’s not as if this hole in the forthcoming EU Budget had suddenly appeared overnight, is it – unless the EU was still certain that Brexit wouldn’t happen, that the good old UK would still be there, available to take the blame for everything. Next:
“Germany wants to spend more on climate change while France is seeking more money for a joint defence, with poorer nations determined to keep their generous EU payouts. But the so-called ‘frugal four’ of Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden are unwilling to pay more to plug the gap.” (link)
There doesn’t seem to have been a ‘last-minute’ compromise – perhaps because there were no British pragmatic diplomats around? Instead it’s about finger-pointing and peacocking:
“A frustrated Czech prime minister Andrej Babis said there was ‘no point continuing the summit’ if the ‘Frugal Four’ refused to increase their contributions. ‘If the group of four rich countries Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria insist, we can go straight home,’ Babis said today. […] the poorer southern and eastern European nations want to keep generous EU funds coming regardless of Brexit.” (link)
Bad bad ‘frugals’! How dare they deprive the poorer EU countries from getting more money! Not only is there no compromise, the leaders have simply given up:
“They failed to make a breakthrough after a bitter dispute between EU countries wanting to turn on the spending taps and others who thought the bloc should tighten the purse strings to plug the €75 billion budgetary blackhole left by Brexit. Efforts were made to bridge the gap, but ultimately leaders decided it wasn’t worth continuing negotiations because of the vast differences in thinking.” (link)
These ‘vast differences in thinking’ seem to have come as a total surprise to the Brussels leaders. Well, they are new in their job, but even so, the moans from M Michel and Ms vdLeyen are astonishing:
“Critics say the EU’s most senior official failed in his preparations for the summit and tonight marks his first failure since taking over from predecessor Donald Tusk. The former Belgian prime minister said: “We have worked very hard to reconcile the differences of interests and opinions around the table but we need more time.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen added: “We need to continue to work hard, remain on the ball, as we have a long road ahead of us in order to reach a result.” The chief eurocrat warned the bloc would be without funds for development, border protection and research if the EU27 cannot agree an agreement on the budget by the end of the year.” (link)
They ‘need more time’? Doesn’t this sound familiar? As for the excuse that they’ve worked so very hard, implying that they therefore ought to’ve got a prize, i.e. that EU Budget: oh dear! The disarray behind the doors of those EU negotiations are vastly illuminating, for example:
“France was forced to deny striking a deal on the European Union budget that secures lucrative cash subsidies for its farmers after an embarrassing ministerial mistake.” (link)
Here’s another piece, showing that apparently the EU is really only about agriculture and forget all those hifalutin sound bites on Climate Change or M Macron’s dream EU army:
“In 2018, eurocrats spent 37 percent of the bloc’s £135 billion annual budget on agricultural projects. The Common Agricultural Policy oversees billions of euros in subsidies to farmers across the EU to help them remain profitable. France is the main beneficiary of the policy, receiving around £7.5 billion a year in cash handouts from Brussels. Whereas farmers in Latvia receive £327 million, with their counterparts in Estonia (£209m) and Lithuania (£597m) also on the rough end of the stick.” (link)
Remember – this is what our EU Danegeld was used for! That the Latvian PM was so very upset is not astonishing. He told the Express:
“Arturs Krisjanis Karins said: “The argument is quite simple, if we are going to subsidise farming, we should do it fairly. Everyone competes in the same market, everyone has similar costs – why punish or benefit some farmers as to others? They should all be on a level playing field, this is what we argue for all sectors of the single market… let’s apply it to farming as well.” (link)
There’s no ‘level playing field’ inside the EU? Who knew! Let’s also not forget that France wants more money because ‘we live in a dangerous world and must spend more on defence’, according to a French MEP (link).
And then there’s Germany … Apparently Ms Merkel is ‘furious’. She has seen the numbers and now we understand that and why the honeymoon between her and Emmanuel is dead, over, done with:
“Internal negotiating documents, seen by Express.co.uk, show Germany would be expected to make net contributions of around £18billion (€22billion). This is an increase of almost £8billion (€10billion) a year on what Berlin currently sends to Brussels. Whereas France would actually be better off by almost £1.8billion (€2.2billion) compared to the last budget with a total net payment to the EU of just £11billion (€13billion).” (link)
There’s more – here’s why a compromise is not going to happen, not least because it must have suddenly dawned on the rest of the EU member states what they’ve let themselves in for:
“The figures, which are part of Mr Michel’s proposal for an EU budget of 1.074 percent of Gross National Income, are highly favourable to Paris because of its huge farming subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy. The document shows France and Belgium are the EU’s only net contributor who will benefit from the new package – Austria, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden would all pay more.” (link)
Ms Merkel is also ‘seething’ because the usual French-German block ain’t working, and who can blame her when we read what must’ve been common knowledge amongst Brussels insiders:
“The EU Council chief has been accused of pandering to the President Emmanuel Macron’s demands to keep France’s sizeable agricultural subsidies – worth more than £8billion (€10billion) a year. Diplomats claim the budget caters for all of the French leader’s wishes […] One said: “More Common Agricultural Policy and more defence spending – this is a French budget.” (link)
A French-Belgian axis? Yes indeed – well planned by M Macron who also got that French woman Lagarde to be the director of the ECB. Why am I again reminded of Napoleon’s Empire … !
This ‘Failure in Brussels’ is important because these are the same 27 member states who will have to agree on that Barnier Mandate for the forthcoming Trade talks. The bad blood, created by France, will have repercussions. I hope our negotiators are prepared to exploit to the hilt those divisions inside the crumbling EU monolith. But as always – the proof of the pudding etc …, so:
KBO!
So ‘Brussels faces a €75 billion hole in its financing of its 2021-2027 spending plans after Britain’s departure from the bloc.’ Are we finally finding out the gross figure of how much we would have paid to the bloc if we hadn’t decided to leave?
But unfortunately we’re still paying – and it’s said that we’ll continue to do so for years. So perhaps ”would have paid” should read ”will go on paying” to the bloc.
Yes, we did decide to leave – but we haven’t yet, have we? We’re just being bamboozled.
This lot are just aggressive beggars. And we should do what it’s always wise to do with aggressive beggars – simply walk away.
So all 27 EU members have their own views upon the finances of the block ! – This is usual and to be expected, as is German annoyance with a larger amount to be paid, and France in effect needing more for their inefficient farmers. – No change at all, and all as expected !
Far be it for me to make an obvious comment on this, as I am a naughty Englishman. – After all, the problem has only arisen due to Brexit, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves ! – But my comment, which is just a question really, is what reduction is being made by the EU’s Head Office in Brussels ? – Are the same excesses to continue ? – Is the EU Super-State unable to trim its expenses without serious loss of face upon the world’s stage ? ….. Trim our expenses. – You must be joking. – You will suggest that we exist only in Brussels, and sell the other place !
I wonder how long it will be for this fact to permeate through each of the 27 member states ? – Indeed, could this be one of the reasons for Brexit, along with a knowledge of the donkey and the horse, making life easy for the pigs, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm. – ( Naughty Englishman that I am, to make such an awful parallel ). – Anyway, Orwell’s book covered Communism, so it can’t be used for the EU ! – Can it ? !
Right to draw the attention to communism. Of course it was going to be better for all if all worked together as one (sic). In working together each must give up their own idiosyncrasies and individualism thus pooling their resources and losing their identity.
The outcome is predictable. The sum of the whole is much less than the value of the individual parts and a lot less fun.
For economic, social, individual, democratic, identity, happiness, diversity and cultural reasons big is bad! It was, is and will be so.
Don’t take my word for it.
Good comments Mike. I must read Orwell again now that I’m a bit more ‘with it’. It had crossed my mind about the huge expense of the E.U.’s head office in Brussels. I remember some of our newly elected M.E.P.s being flabbergasted after the last election caused by May’s treacherous bodge. It does begin to look as though the Evil Empire will soon implode doesn’t it.
The governing system of the EU rests upon a Communist ideal Pauline, in that we all pass wealth into the centre, and the centre then passes some back for us to pay for our needs, so long as the centre agrees with those needs. – It is a sure way to eliminate individualism ! ….. Personally, I hope the EU does not implode, as it would make severe problems around the whole world. – If they were to return to a Common Market of the European continent, there would be a huge cut in their expenses, and common sense would break out. – It would even return to what I voted for in the early 1970s. – A Super-State was never voted on by the UK ! ….. Cut yourself some time to read Orwell. – He led a very individual life, and Animal Farm is gold standard, – Check the history of the Russian revolution, and that will then enhance the reading of his book.
Comment in today’s DT dated 22nd Feb 2020:
“With Britain out of the EU, the more fanatical Eurocrats would like to further centralise the project and do more with it. But there is one problem; we are taking our money with us. As the Europeans gather to hammer out a budget, they have to do so minus about £9 billion a year – a reminder that far from being a perpetual thorn in the side, the UK was a rather useful member of the club. Perhaps Brussels should have been more generous when David Cameron was trying to negotiate our membership in 2016.
Those countries that put in the most would like to give a bit less and those that take the most would like to receive a bit more (there is also a view, held strongly by France, that the worst thing to do post-Brexit would be to tighten belts, because that would imply that the UK was missed). Ultimately, the debate goes to the heart of what the EU is struggling to be – a looser federation or a future world power? – and reflects the perennial question of legitimacy. Do voters in the north of Europe really want to finance spending in the south and east? And if the money stopped rolling in, would the south and east start to question the value of the EU.
Mr Cameron was proud of his 2013 campaign for European spending restraint, but was infuriated one year later when handed an enormous top-up bill for Britain’s contribution to the budget. He warned, prophetically, that this was the kind of action that would turn whole populations against the EU. The then Taoiseach of Ireland, Ender Kenny, replied: “You sign on for Europe you sign on for the rules and rules have to be obeyed.” Six years later and we see that there is an alternative: Leave.”
“We are taking our money with us.” Well, er, not quite : for example doesn’t the Withdrawal Agreement make us liable for a hefty sum if for example European banks etc fail? Isn’t this DT article misleading since it implies we’re leaving the Europeans high and dry?.
It may well be that the WA is not worth the paper it is written on. When a ship goes down there is an acute danger that the disruption will take you with it. That is good reason to keep well away. After the stern disappears below the surface everything else is academic.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the EU and the ‘project’ of building a superstate but if they dropped all the climate change madness there would be more than enough money to keep the gravy train running.
Ok Our turn!
“Either it brings tears to their eyes, or else -”
“Or else what?” said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.
“Or else it doesn’t, you know.” Lewis Carroll
We should welcome all the EU’s problems, provided that Boris stands firm.
And therein lies the problem: BoJo ‘standing firm’ …
You read it here.
Resisting the Frankie Howard response… The essay crisis is over, the indolence of a lifetime takes control. All he has to do to go down as a great PM is stick to the job, resist the climate hysteria, push our competitiveness in energy terms to the top and we can do anything. Or he can be flagellated by a felix domestica into betraying everything we have worked for for decades.
Your choice, BJ. BJ? Are you nodding off at the back there?
JF
Oh, one more thing. A title for Alan Bond of Reaction Engines.
PM Johnson standing firm for a full Brexit ! ….. I intend to back him and the Government, right up to the point that he backs off. – If that happens he will need some friends, as I for one will be his enemy, and enemy to his Party ! ….. Until then, back him totally !