I paesi Ue cercano di tagliare il bilancio, in teoria
CHARLES FORELLE
● In termini relativi il costo della UE è basso, €141 MD/anno, l’1% del PIL della UE, contro il 50% del PIL speso nel 2009 dai governi di 27 paesi UE, €6 trilioni,
o ma solo grandi i debiti politici, in particolare in paesi come Danimarca, UK e Olanda, dove le correnti euroscettiche sono profonde, e i rispettivi governi devono dimostrare di sapersi imporre nella UE.
– Diversi paesi UE, colpiti dalla crisi finanziaria, stanno chiedendo di ridurre il costo di gestione della stessa UE, compito politicamente piuttosto difficile.
– Nella tabella, segnati con triangolo verde i guadagni (Polonia, Grecia, Ungheria, Portogallo, Rep. Ceca, Lettonia, Spagna Bulgaria) e rosso le perdite (Danimarca, Belgio, UK, Italia, Francia, Germania), cioè quanto ogni paese incassa in più o in meno dei propri contributi alla UE.
La prossima settimana la Commissione riconsidererà il bilancio UE, con la possibile proposta di nuove imposte UE (per le emissioni di gas serra o per il viaggi aerei, che in teoria non graverebbero sui bilanci nazionali) per aumentare le entrate. I maggiori paesi sono in lite sul bilancio 2011, e non è ancora definito il modo per finanziare il nuovo corpo diplomatico della UE (SEAE – Servizio Europeo per l’Azione Esterna).
– Secondo gli osservatori non sarà possibile ridurre il bilancio, con modifiche su base annuale,
o 1. perché per gran parte è costruito secondo schemi si 7 anni – l’attuale termina nel 2013;
o 2. perché è un insieme incoerente finalizzato ad ingraziarsi l’elettorato: i fondi di “coesione” fanno felici i paesi poveri, ma tutti li ricevono dato che i criteri per averne diritto comprendono ad esempio avere un confine marittimo; così il ricco S-E dell’Inghilterra riceve €23,7mn. su 7 anni per “promuovere la competitività”, ma potrebbe ricevere fondi per altri criteri …
o un fondo per la ricerca di oltre €8MD fa per la gran parte ai paesi ricchi con le università di elite; miliardi vanno a Belgio e Lussemburgo perché ospitano la maggior parte delle istituzioni UE.
– Ad es. per il UK: il premier David Cameron deve dimostrare di imporsi nella UE, ma la cosa non è semplice:
o grazie ad un accordo ottenuto dalla Thatcher il UK si riprende parte dei suoi contributi, €5,7 MD nel 2019,
o quando il UK ha cercato di ridurre il bilancio Ula UE ha chiesto al UK di ridurre lo sconto nei contributi UE, cosa che ha fatto Blair, poi criticato in patria.
– Quest’anno si prevede che il UK critichi in particolare i sussidi per l’agricoltura, €58 MD per il 2011, una forma di ampia redistribuzione tra paesi UE come i €51 MD dei fondi di coesione.
– I beneficiari sono Francia (circa €10MD/anno), Spagna, Italia e Polonia, grandi paesi che non desiderano cambiamenti.
– La Polonia è il paese che più guadagna dal sistema in vigore finora, e che non vuole modificarlo; nel 2009 ha ricevuto €6MD più di quelli versati a Bruxelles; Grecia ed Ungheria €3MD entrambe; Lituania €1,5 MD, circa €1 000 per ogni lituano.
– C’è chi consiglia di eliminare la Commissione per le Regioni e la Commissione Economico e Sociale Europea, organismi consultivi che costano €200 mn/anno; le proposte di tagli nell’amministrazione sono continue, perché tranne i paesi che ospitano i vari organismi, Belgio e Lussemburgo, pochi altri ne traggono beneficio; ma complessivamente la spesa amministrativa è di soli €8,5MD, con pochi elementi discrezionali.
– La maggiore spesa è quella per il personale, che quest’anno dovrebbe diminuire dello 0,4%.
Il bilancio UE dipende per l’80% dal Tesoro di ogni paese, per la maggior parte da introiti doganali trasferiti alla UE.
EU States Seek Budget Cuts, in Theory
By CHARLES FORELLE
– BRUSSELS—Many of the European Union’s member countries, blistered by a financial crisis that has forced them to compress budgets at home, are agitating to trim the tab for running the EU itself.
"No one can understand why the European budget is not being subjected to the same discipline," U.K. business minister Vince Cable told the European Parliament late last week. "There is a big backlash on the way."
Complaining about the cost of Brussels is an autumnal event as regular as the changing of the leaves. But this fall, the battles are set to be unusually colorful.
– A long-overdue budget review from the European Commission, expected in the coming weeks, is likely to raise passions by offering controversial new EU taxes as a possible way to raise more revenue. The principal players in the EU’s legislative system are at loggerheads over the 2011 budget. And no one is quite sure how to pay for the European External Action Service, the EU’s new diplomatic corps, which was formed without a clear budget.
– But despite the desires of the U.K. and others, budget-watchers say, shrinking the bill will be an impossibly tall task. "For a large part of the EU budget, it’s hard to find ways of changing it on a year-to-year basis," says Iain Begg, a professor at the London School of Economics who studies EU finances.
– That is in part because much of the budget is built in seven-year "frameworks"—the current one ends in 2013—that fix the outlines of spending years in advance. Also, the EU budget is a rickety accretion of goodies for constituencies. "Cohesion" funds keep poor countries happy. A research budget of more than €8 billion ($11 billion) goes largely to the rich countries with top-flight universities. Billions flow to Belgium and Luxembourg for hosting most of the EU’s institutions.
– In relative terms, the cost of the EU is small. This year’s budget is €141 billion, or about 1% of the union’s gross domestic product. The 27 nations’ governments had expenditures of nearly €6 trillion, or 50% of GDP, last year.
– But the political liabilities are large, especially in countries including Denmark, the U.K. and the Netherlands, where euroskeptic currents run deep.
– "[David] Cameron needs to show that he can flex muscles," Jorge Núñez of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels says of the U.K.’s prime minister. In the coming negotiations, "the U.K. will make a lot of trouble."
– But the U.K.’s position underscores the delicacy of seeking cuts. The country gets part of its contribution back—€5.7 billion last year—under a deal brokered by Margaret Thatcher. The U.K.’s past efforts to pare the EU budget have been met by requests that the country trim its own rebate. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair did just that, and came under heavy criticism at home.
– Much of the U.K.’s displeasure this year is expected to be directed at EU agricultural subsidies, budgeted for €58 billion next year. Like the €51 billion set aside for cohesion funds, agriculture payments are effectively a form of Europe-wide redistribution: Money comes in to the EU budget, then flows back out to farmers and landowners.
– Big changes are, for now, "almost impossible," says Mr. Begg, since a deal on farm subsidies hammered out in 2002 is slated to run through 2013. Beneficiaries include France, which gets about €10 billion annually, as well as Spain, Italy and Poland—big countries with the sway to stall any shifts.
– Poland is by far the biggest winner in the system as it is set up now; last year, Warsaw received €6 billion more than it sent to Brussels. Hungary and Greece each netted about €3 billion and tiny Lithuania some €1.5 billion, or roughly €1,000 for every Lithuanian household.
Not surprisingly, "the Poles want to keep the old system in place," says Mr. Núñez.
– Even the EU’s most strident critics admit the system is hard to budge. "There is no low-hanging fruit in the EU budget," says Mats Persson, the director of Open Europe, a London-based euroskeptic think tank. "Everything is politically complicated."
– Mr. Persson proposes starting with some of the cohesion funds, which are meant in large part to help poor countries or regions. But everyone gets them, since eligibility criteria that include such things as having a maritime border. Thus the wealthy southeast of England gets €23.7 million in funds over seven years earmarked "to promote competitiveness," but it is also eligible for funds from large pools designated for "transnational cooperation" in northwest Europe, for counties that border the English Channel and for regions on the North Sea.
– Mr. Persson says the EU’s rich countries could keep giving subsidies to their poor peers, but agree in a sort of mutual disarmament to all stop receiving funds themselves. "It’s Paris, London and Stockholm sending money to each other," he says.
– Mr. Persson also suggests dumping the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, two "consultative" bodies charged with offering their thoughts on legislation as it wends its way through the EU pipeline. Together, they cost about €200 million a year.
– Such administrative expenses are a perennial target, since few countries besides Belgium and Luxembourg see any benefit. But in the whole, the EU’s total administrative budget is €8.5 billion and "there are very few discretionary elements in it," says Mr. Begg of LSE. At most, he says, "you’ll be able to tinker with 5%."
– The biggest expense, staff salaries, is computed under a fixed formula, which has caused controversy in past years. But this year’s salary adjustment under the formula is expected to be a decrease of 0.4%, the commission says, likely blunting much criticism.
– Attention has also turned to how else the EU might raise money besides relying on national treasuries. They are currently the source of 80% of EU funding. Most of the balance comes from customs duties passed to the EU.
– In recent media interviews, Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski suggested anew a long-debated idea: that the EU should raise additional taxes related to, for instance, greenhouse-gas emissions or air travel—much as it skims from customs duties. That would, in theory, reduce the burden on national treasuries.
But it would also raise fears of broader EU taxation and, crucially, reduce big contributors’ traditional sway over spending. Reaction from Germany and the U.K. was scathing. "The kite he was flying was shot down in flames," Prof. Begg says.