EU budget: asking too much of member states?
The EU Commission has proposed a new budget of two trillion euros for the 2028-2034 period - around 700 billion euros more than the current budget. At the same time, less money is to be allocated to fixed areas in a bid to increase flexibility and allow for quicker responses in a crisis. Europe's press shows understanding for the ambitious sum, but also suggests improvements.
Crucial trillions
Given the state of the world, Politiken finds it completely understandable that the EU Commission wants to go the extra mile:
“It would be odd if the European Commission did not set more ambitious goals despite all the current challenges and the gloomy warnings in last year's reports by Letta and Draghi. And although a seven-year budget of 15 trillion crowns [around two trillion euros] sounds like a lot, on a yearly basis it corresponds to just 1.3 percent of the sum of member states' gross national income.”
Not the time to be tight-fisted
Sydsvenskan dismisses criticism from within Sweden of the high costs the budget entails for the country:
“Sweden's traditionally frugal attitude towards everything EU is becoming increasingly inappropriate as the bloc's responsibility and importance for the climate, security and its own international competitiveness grows. ... The interests of Sweden and Swedish taxpayers must be safeguarded in the negotiations, which are likely to last until 2027. But now is not the time to be tight-fisted – because Sweden stands to gain the most from a strong and united Europe.”
Subsidies setting the wrong incentives
tagesschau.de is incensed that in agriculture, one of the largest budget items, everything is to remain the same:
“The principle is: whoever cultivates the largest areas will continue to receive the most money from EU funds in the future. This approach has been setting the wrong incentives for decades. Mass production is rewarded, and the profit doesn't go to family farms but mainly to the agricultural industry. The biggest profits are made by investors who have nothing whatsoever to do with agriculture. ... The least that taxpayers - in other words, all of us - can expect is that the billions will be linked to conditions. Those who farm in harmony with nature deserve our support. Big investors and landowners don't need it.”
More market, less bureaucracy
Postimees also finds the continuation of direct subsidies to agriculture regrettable:
“To believe its rhetoric, the Commission says it is keen to boost the EU's competitiveness. It should bear in mind that the right way to achieve this is not through market-distorting direct subsidies, but by reducing bureaucracy and regulations and removing as many hurdles as possible for companies in the single market, which after all was the driving idea behind the founding of the EU.”
Boundless greed
This budget proposal is simply excessive, fumes De Telegraaf:
“The greed of the Brussels bureaucrats knows no bounds. The EU Commission under President von der Leyen seems to be preoccupied only with accumulating more power. ... Von der Leyen calls this 'the most ambitious budget ever'. What she really means, of course, is the most megalomaniac budget imaginable. ... The Commission is once again showing no understanding for the economic situation in the EU member states. And it is deaf to the criticism of the citizens. ... This is also an important task for a new government: firmness is needed.”
Essentially fraud
Just where is the money for this budget supposed to come from? Der Tagesspiegel asks:
“The EU is meant to finance itself from contributions from its member states. Specifically, from a fixed percentage of these countries' GDP. Until now this was set at 1.1 percent; in future it's to go up to 1.23 percent. But first the governments must agree to this increase. How likely is that? They already have problems with their own budgets. ... This new chapter in the book of Europe's destiny presented by von der Leyen is essentially fraud. The revenues and expenditures simply don't add up.”
Universally unpopular
There is no support whatsoever for this proposal, comments La Repubblica disdainfully:
“Inadequate and not at all European, say the MEPs. Too generous, say the thrifty Netherlands and Germany, which were the first countries to speak out. An attack on agriculture, cry the farmers who are already out on the streets (without tractors and fertiliser for the time being). A blow that will break the backbone of cohesion policy, say the regions. Too many taxes, say the sovereigntist right-wingers. The fact that the Commission's new budget is already so unpopular with many - almost everyone - could also be a positive sign. In any case, it is the prelude to a fierce battle of power, interests, lobbies and consensus.”
Ammunition for the far right
It's not surprising that some countries are wary of such costly proposals, Jutarnji list comments:
“In some member states such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Austria, the far right has managed to win votes with the rhetoric that their country 'always pays too much to the EU'. The governments of these countries are therefore cautious and want to avoid giving these radical political forces any additional arguments for resisting an increase in contributions to the EU budget. At the same time, it won't be possible to finance the EU's planned priorities without an increase in contributions.”
Farmers' protests guaranteed
At more than 400 billion euros, the EU's Common Agriculture Policy and cohesion policy, which supports less developed regions, currently have the biggest budgets by far, but this would change under the new EU budget. In an article in Magyar Hang, EU correspondent László Arató sees major controversy ahead:
“The Hungarian government - and others in Europe - are accusing the European Commission of wanting to cut funding for the Common Agricultural policy by 20 percent. This has sparked a heated debate in the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee. ... It is safe to assume that Europe's larger cities will once again be the scene of major farmers' protests.”