The EU budget battle - and what is behind
Népszabadság Online, 15 July 2004
Language of the original publication: Hungarian
A fascinating performance, repeated every seven years, has been just launched with the presentation of the EU financial framework (the 2007-2013 budget) proposal by the European Commission. From here to the end of the exercise, we will have the opportunity to admire the impressive contrast between European leaders’ rhetoric and realities. The privileged target of the first attacks will be the Prodi Commission’s proposal - since it matches the fine words with concrete figures.
In this connection, one might begin by dissipating some misunderstandings. First, contrary to stereotypes, the Union’s budget is rather small. It amounts to only 1% of the Member States’ combined GNI (gross national income), whereas this value is 45% in the case of their national budgets and is around 20% when it comes to the central budget of federal constructions such as, for instance, the United States. Second, within this common expenditure, the functioning of the Community institutions – being generally referred to as money pits – actually do cost merely infinitesimal sums. The Brussels Commission and the European Parliament taken together are less “expensive" than the municipality of the city of Paris alone, to take one example. Third, even if everyone is talking now about the potential increase in the Community budget, the question is: increase compared to what. The "unacceptable" ambition of the Commission proposal still remains in the framework of 1,24% of the EU’s GNI, as it was envisaged in the Maastricht treaty. In 1993. In other words: 20 years (plus the accession of a dozen of poor Member States and the announcement of many gigantic projects) before the expiry of the prepared new financial package.
If the Commission had prepared its proposal by counting on an ideal atmosphere within the EU (instead of the one which reigns there today) or if it had planned a little more than the vital minimum - those who refuse it would have at least some pretexts at hand. However, it is not the case. Those who would reduce the figures advanced by the Commission will not be able to dissimulate that they find even minimum Europe too much.
As Pat Cox, outgoing president of the European Parliament has rightly remarked: ”In too much of European policy and politics, there are gaps between rhetoric and realization, between lofty conclusions of agreements at Summits and delivery of product in the end. This is not the time to do Europe on the cheap, nor is it the time for short termism, retreat or hesitation. Of course, some short-term sacrifices may be necessary. None of that should allow us to forget that Europe will have reached adulthood and needs more than pocket-money”.
(Hajnalka Vincze, The EU budget battle - and what is behind, Népszabadság Online, 15 July 2004, 9,300 characters)
Back to Publications | Printable version