Are you fooled by the EU budget deal ?

[Hazir]

Today I read there is another 'Cameron victory' in Europe. This time supposedly he managed to get the budget down to 908bn for the upcoming 7 year financial framework. Except that he didn't. What was agreed upon for real was that the EU may spend 960bn over that period. Were the EU really to spend that money, regardless of the 908bn cap on contributions, then states would be obliged under the rules to make up for the difference. The EU does not have any independent means of financing a budget deficit and if it stays within the 960bn limit the bill will be split.

Whenever Cameron comes back home, don't believe when he tells he effectively cut spending in Brussels, because he didn't.

[RandBlade]

You must really be upset that once again the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In terms of cuts or not then you need to compare like-for-like. The €960bn figure is the absolute cap that includes various programmes etc that may not happen (and traditionally they don't all). That compares to a figure of €973bn proposed by Rompuy in November and a figure of over €1trn proposed originally.

The €908bn compares to €942.8bn over the last budget period.

[Hazir]

You must really be upset that once again the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In terms of cuts or not then you need to compare like-for-like. The €960bn figure is the absolute cap that includes various programmes etc that may not happen (and traditionally they don't all). That compares to a figure of €973bn proposed by Rompuy in November and a figure of over €1trn proposed originally.

The €908bn compares to €942.8bn over the last budget period.

Ah, so you understand a little bit of the actual system. That what matters is what is really spent, and not what is budgetted as contributions. A nice trick of smoke and mirrors though makes some people believe that the budget means there will be cuts. But even UK publications have noticed that these cuts might actually cost the UK (and others) more money.

Another nice little tidbit would be that the EU now has an actual amount guaranteed by the memberstates. Under the present budget the EU has to refund countries for the money it didn't spend. Under the new deal the EU gets to keep the money that isn't spend.

On the up-side; the CAP will be reduced to 39% of spending. Which is good news, given that it will be near impossible to get rid of it.

[RandBlade]

Ah, so you understand a little bit of the actual system. That what matters is what is really spent, and not what is budgetted as contributions. A nice trick of smoke and mirrors though makes some people believe that the budget means there will be cuts. But even UK publications have noticed that these cuts might actually cost the UK (and others) more money.

There's no smoke and mirrors involved, its just complicated which is why various figures exist and why you need to compare like-for-like, which like-for-like is a cut.

As for UK contributions then yes they are (I understand) going up which was automatically happening anyway after Tony Blair ludicrously gave away billions of our budget rebate at the last round of negotiations to get a deal, gain goodwill and start us on the path to reforming the CAP. What came from any of that? Being flexible last time got us no thanks whatsoever, cost us billions per annum and didn't remotely change the notion of us being refusenik naysayers, while the real stubborn ones (the French) got what they wanted. By being stubborn ourselves this time and actually standing up for what we believe in, we made progress towards what we wanted. Who would have thought it?

Or as Martin Schulz said - this deal went down to the "lowest common denominator", which was meant as a criticism by him but exactly what the government should be spending IMO.

Another nice little tidbit would be that the EU now has an actual amount guaranteed by the memberstates. Under the present budget the EU has to refund countries for the money it didn't spend. Under the new deal the EU gets to keep the money that isn't spend.

Got a link to more info on that? Not been covered by our media at all.

On the up-side; the CAP will be reduced to 39% of spending. Which is good news, given that it will be near impossible to get rid of it.

On the down-side the CAP will still be 39% of spending. May I say though that I read the most ridiculous criticism I have ever read against the EU today: that "the EU will be spending more [with this budget] on cows than on helping the young unemployed". Yes that's true, but good! Dealing with the young unemployed is and should be the responsibility of individual governments not the EU, dealing with cows is unfortunately still under the EU's mandate. Adding the EU and national expenditures together I'm sure we spend a fortune more on the unemployed than cows but not every level of government needs to repeat the same thing

Interesting that there's angry mutterings about this deal from some in the EP threatening to block this deal as they're unhappy with how little is being spent. I can't imagine that actually happening though as that would create quite a major crisis.

Can you acknowledge that this is on a like-for-like basis a real terms cut? Which quite frankly I'm impressed with and kudos not just to Cameron but to our allies in Germany, the Netherlands etc. As I said on the last thread I would have been content with a real-terms freeze as that was the best I thought we could actually achieve, I never actually expected us to achieve a cut. Cameron, Merkel etc (on the same side on this issue) have gone above and beyond what I expected.

[Hazir]

There's no smoke and mirrors involved, its just complicated which is why various figures exist and why you need to compare like-for-like, which like-for-like is a cut.

As for UK contributions then yes they are (I understand) going up which was automatically happening anyway after Tony Blair ludicrously gave away billions of our budget rebate at the last round of negotiations to get a deal, gain goodwill and start us on the path to reforming the CAP. What came from any of that? Being flexible last time got us no thanks whatsoever, cost us billions per annum and didn't remotely change the notion of us being refusenik naysayers, while the real stubborn ones (the French) got what they wanted. By being stubborn ourselves this time and actually standing up for what we believe in, we made progress towards what we wanted. Who would have thought it?

Or as Martin Schulz said - this deal went down to the "lowest common denominator", which was meant as a criticism by him but exactly what the government should be spending IMO.
Got a link to more info on that? Not been covered by our media at all.
On the down-side the CAP will still be 39% of spending. May I say though that I read the most ridiculous criticism I have ever read against the EU today: that "the EU will be spending more [with this budget] on cows than on helping the young unemployed". Yes that's true, but good! Dealing with the young unemployed is and should be the responsibility of individual governments not the EU, dealing with cows is unfortunately still under the EU's mandate. Adding the EU and national expenditures together I'm sure we spend a fortune more on the unemployed than cows but not every level of government needs to repeat the same thing

Interesting that there's angry mutterings about this deal from some in the EP threatening to block this deal as they're unhappy with how little is being spent. I can't imagine that actually happening though as that would create quite a major crisis.

Can you acknowledge that this is on a like-for-like basis a real terms cut? Which quite frankly I'm impressed with and kudos not just to Cameron but to our allies in Germany, the Netherlands etc. As I said on the last thread I would have been content with a real-terms freeze as that was the best I thought we could actually achieve, I never actually expected us to achieve a cut. Cameron, Merkel etc (on the same side on this issue) have gone above and beyond what I expected.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-882356.html in German. Towards the end of the article.

[Dreadnaught]

You guys pay 1,000,000,00 euros for a semi duplicative layer of government?

[Timbuk2]

You guys pay 1,000,000,00 euros for a semi duplicative layer of government?

That figure is a total for a seven-year period from 2014 to 2020.

Which equates to around 130bn Euros per year budget.

[Hazir]

You guys pay 1,000,000,00 euros for a semi duplicative layer of government?

No, not even close to that amount. I don't even understand why you would think that. Is the entire US budget spent on the federal bureaucracy ?

[ar81]

You guys pay 1,000,000,00 euros for a semi duplicative layer of government?

National governments are municipal governments. EU has only a municipal democracy, but EU by itself is organized more similar to the USSR.
EU is the real government that dictates monetary policy: exchange rate and interest rates.

[Hazir]

The big failure of the negotiations will be in the fact that there was an excessive focus on the figure of the total budget. What benefits any european who's not working in agriculture from a budget that cements the old structures and effectively reduces public funds where they might be most effective. For me Merkel, Cameron c.s. won nothing but a questionable reduction in exchange for the continuation of practises that do nothing to improve the competitive edge of the EU.

[RandBlade]

You think there's a chance in hell that France wouldn't veto serious change to the CAP.

You're easily fooled it seems into believing that the UK are the troublemakers in Europe and that nations like France are good Europeans instead of only interested in what benefits them.

[Hazir]

I don't remember ever saying a single word on how 'good Europeans' France are. The solution for the problem is quite simple; get rid of the veto altogether.

[Hazir]

I don't remember ever saying a single word on how 'good Europeans' France are. The solution for the problem is quite simple; get rid of the veto altogether.

Like we'd be spending close to €400bn on a program that most people don't want any longer. The budget could have been cut by 25% and still be a better budget for the EU. Lowest common denominator just means a budget frozen in time. It's like the rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[RandBlade]

Without the veto we'd likely be wasting a lot more on spending than we are now. No, lowest common denominator works great for expenditure.

[Veldan Rath]

Wow, get a room you two!

[RandBlade]

Which is why the US that doesn't have a veto has abolished their agricultural subsidies right?

[Hazir]

Which is why the US that doesn't have a veto has abolished their agricultural subsidies right?

How about not using a dysfunctional government as your model?

[RandBlade]

How about not using a dysfunctional government as your model?

Hey isn't that your ambition for the EU to turn into though?

Being more serious do you honestly think the EU would be any less dysfunctional than the USA if it weren't for the veto?

[Hazir]

Hey isn't that your ambition for the EU to turn into though?

Being more serious do you honestly think the EU would be any less dysfunctional than the USA if it weren't for the veto?

No, my preference would be a federation after the German model. A strong federal government where needed and strong member states where that is the most effective level of government. Which is nothing like the US system where the senate has lost its true function as representative of the state interests. Germany has proven itself to be eminently governable without vetoes or procedural obstructions. And it did so without destroying the individual characters of the Länder.

I would strip memberstates of external relations and defense, install a modicum of justice cooperation while respecting the individual traditions of memberstates, and I would put a much stricter enforcement on the single market, no longer leaving the opportunity for member states to obstruct a unified market. More specifically, I would like to see a single market for services in addition to the existing single market.

[RandBlade]

The German state has been torn asunder how many times since Bismarck? Their current version hasn't even survived a lifetime let alone centuries, hardly tried and tested with the strains of history and evolution.

The USA is relatively young itself but at least has undergone evolution and crises - external wars, slavery, civil rights and much more. To base yourself on looking at a state younger than my grandparents (and unified in my lifetime) is amazing.

Try picking a national model that has had at least a couple of centuries of problems thrown at it to define sustainability and proof.

If you think the German so-called model still in its infancy today will still be acting like it is in a hundred years, let alone more than three centuries after its foundation then you're more naive than I ever imagined possible.

[Dreadnaught]

That figure is a total for a seven-year period from 2014 to 2020.

Which equates to around 130bn Euros per year budget.

*Phew* Okay that's marginally more reasonable.

No, not even close to that amount. I don't even understand why you would think that. Is the entire US budget spent on the federal bureaucracy ?

No, it's not. Which is exactly my fear -- that the parts of the EU budget not going to duplicative bureaucracies are going towards farm subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare.

[Hazir]

*Phew* Okay that's marginally more reasonable.



No, it's not. Which is exactly my fear -- that the parts of the EU budget not going to duplicative bureaucracies are going towards farm subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare.

It would be so nice if you could only make up your mind every now and then about what government means, and not just reject government action because of your peeve of the day.

[Hazir]

The German state has been torn asunder how many times since Bismarck? Their current version hasn't even survived a lifetime let alone centuries, hardly tried and tested with the strains of history and evolution.

The USA is relatively young itself but at least has undergone evolution and crises - external wars, slavery, civil rights and much more. To base yourself on looking at a state younger than my grandparents (and unified in my lifetime) is amazing.

Try picking a national model that has had at least a couple of centuries of problems thrown at it to define sustainability and proof.

If you think the German so-called model still in its infancy today will still be acting like it is in a hundred years, let alone more than three centuries after its foundation then you're more naive than I ever imagined possible.

Oh my God, the bullcrap about 'old countries' and 'new ones'. You must be so happy still having feudal remnants in your system of government.

[RandBlade]

Oh my God, the bullcrap about 'old countries' and 'new ones'. You must be so happy still having feudal remnants in your system of government.

Its not bullcrap - countries and systems evolve as they face challenges, and as those that founded them (and remember their predecessors/what caused their creation) die of and fade into history.

You complain about the way the Senate acts now from the "USA model" but at this stage in the US's history it was still pre-Civil War and the Senate was no doubt different to today (the 17th amendment for direct election of Senators hadn't passed yet).

[Hazir]

Its not bullcrap - countries and systems evolve as they face challenges, and as those that founded them (and remember their predecessors/what caused their creation) die of and fade into history.

You complain about the way the Senate acts now from the "USA model" but at this stage in the US's history it was still pre-Civil War and the Senate was no doubt different to today (the 17th amendment for direct election of Senators hadn't passed yet).

States are not people; they either function and exist or they don't function and disappear.

And just in case you might be thinking I believe the same crazy stuff as you; I don't think the UK of today resembles the UK of 100 years ago more than it does resemble the France of today. Both are functioning on a lesser level than Germany, which makes me think the latter has a better chance of survival.

[RandBlade]

States are not people; they either function and exist or they don't function and disappear.

And just in case you might be thinking I believe the same crazy stuff as you; I don't think the UK of today resembles the UK of 100 years ago more than it does resemble the France of today. Both are functioning on a lesser level than Germany, which makes me think the latter has a better chance of survival.

Its pretty sane not crazy to judge stability based on more than just a few years - especially in a Federation as the tendency in all Federations generally is to centralise as they evolve the likelihood of the Lander serving the same function as you reckon its been proven already that it does now is extremely unlikely.

As for other nations like the UK evolving yes they have that's my point but there's more stability in the constitution and mechanisms of an older nation than a baby one in its 6th incarnation in a century. While the policies may have changed in the last century the mechanisms of the constitutional arrangements are far more stable.

[Hazir]

I could care less about 'old' systems. Unlike the UK Germany is coping in the world of today. I wouldn't want the UK to serve as a model for anything I might consider part of 'my government'.

Also, it's the UK on the verge of breaking up, not Germany.

[Dreadnaught]

It would be so nice if you could only make up your mind every now and then about what government means, and not just reject government action because of your peeve of the day.

It's sort of rich for a EU-phile to be asking me to define what government means. How about you decide what government means? It seems to be a much bigger problem over there.

[GGT]

It's sort of rich for a EU-phile to be asking me to define what government means. How about you decide what government means? It seems to be a much bigger problem over there.

"Over here" most of our problems can be traced to our two dominant political parties, and their ideology about what government means (or does). ie, public works, national investments, and taxes. Add that to our Superpower status, and trying to maintain our global importance.

US political climate is caught in disputes between public and private, "taking vs making", states vying for independence while expecting federal favors. Our problems seem more entrenched and severe than Europe's. They don't prioritize Military like we do.....but we are expected to continue acting as the premiere global military force....so others can use their Taxes for education, infrastructure, and their national building?

[Loki]

Can't be bothered to start a new thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/bu...r-bonuses.html

If the goal is to move all of European finance to New York, this will be a great regulation.