EU Budget Summit Fails

[Annie]

What else is new?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/18/eu.summit/

Anger over EU summit failure


BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European Union nations are struggling to find a way forward after the failure of a two-day summit that produced neither a budget for the years ahead, nor a clear sign that the EU constitution will ever be ratified.

Leaders began attributing blame the moment they emerged from their fruitless talks in the early hours of Saturday.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose country takes over the EU's six-month rotating presidency on July 1 from Luxembourg, was the main target.

Summit host Jean Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister, pointedly told reporters he would make sure to miss Blair outlining his plans for the EU when he addresses the European Parliament on Thursday.

"As that is the national day of Luxembourg, I will not be listening," he said.

In two days of acrimonious negotiations, the 25 EU leaders haggled over their common spending plans for the 2007-2013 period. They failed to reach a deal.

Nor did they present a clear blueprint to save a proposed EU constitution recently rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.

Juncker said the damage caused was profound. In weeks ahead, EU diplomats and others "will tell you that Europe is not in crisis," he said after the summit collapsed. "It is in a deep crisis."

Britain was criticized for postponing its referendum on the EU constitution after French and Dutch voters rejected it. Luxembourg, Denmark and others are now also expected to postpone their votes, throwing the charter's fate into more uncertainty.

The budget debacle centered on Britain's refusal to surrender an annual rebate to reimburse it for its outsized payments to the EU coffers.

Blair's demand to link any discussion of the rebate to overall reform of the EU's agricultural subsidies -- of which France is the main beneficiary -- scuttled a spending deal.

The budget requires approval of all 25 EU member states, so it cannot go into force without Britain's approval.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw accused other EU leaders of wanting a European Union "trapped in the past" and said Britain had the support of at least four other EU states. He told the BBC that European leaders face a "fundamental change (that) no one in Europe can dodge."

Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher won Britain's EU rebate in the 1980s, arguing that part of the money her country paid into the EU's coffers should be refunded.

She argued that Britain received fewer benefits than other large countries, particularly France, which reaps more agricultural subsidies.

Blair has said he is only willing to discuss changing the rebate as part of a more in-depth overhaul of EU finances, including its common agricultural policy.

British officials have said it eats up too much of the EU's budget.

 

[padisha emperor]

UK had an advantage when its economy was bad. Now, it's good. But they refuse to leave this advantage. Normally, when you're in crisis, you have an advantage. But when you're out of this crisis, this advantage is useless, and you leave it. UK doesn't. Euroscepticism. UK was and is still not right behind EU.
Even the east countries, the poorest of EU, said that they were ready to leave some things to have a budget. But Blair say NO. That's why Jean-Claude Junker, Prime minister of Luxembourg, said that he was ashamed. Ashamed by the attitude of Blair.

(if UK would have lot of money from EU for it agriculture, Blair would never say what he said...hypocrisy)

PS : If you can, read the article of Mark LEONARD, in the "New Satesman", from London.
A real interesting atricle about the french and british situation.
France is not so bad as people say (more foreign investissments in France than in UK, and even USA. And 4th might, UK is still behind. )

 

[Annie]

UK had an advantage when its economy was bad. Now, it's good. But they refuse to leave this advantage. Normally, when you're in crisis, you have an advantage. But when you're out of this crisis, this advantage is useless, and you leave it. UK doesn't. Euroscepticism. UK was and is still not right behind EU.
Even the east countries, the poorest of EU, said that they were ready to leave some things to have a budget. But Blair say NO. That's why Jean-Claude Junker, Prime minister of Luxembourg, said that he was ashamed. Ashamed by the attitude of Blair.

(if UK would have lot of money from EU for it agriculture, Blair would never say what he said...hypocrisy)

PS : If you can, read the article of Mark LEONARD, in the "New Satesman", from London.
A real interesting atricle about the french and british situation.
France is not so bad as people say (more foreign investissments in France than in UK, and even USA. And 4th might, UK is still behind. )

Well I am unsure about the French having more 'foreign investment money' than US or UK, but why would that be PE?

Why can't the agriculture subsidies go? Seems reasonable to me, like you said, the economy is doing great now.

 

[nosarcasm]

Well I am unsure about the French having more 'foreign investment money' than US or UK, but why would that be PE?

Why can't the agriculture subsidies go? Seems reasonable to me, like you said, the economy is doing great now.

if you ever have seen the violent French farmer protests then you
know why the French will fight for it to the last breath.

 

[Annie]

if you ever have seen the violent French farmer protests then you
know why the French will fight for it to the last breath.

Reminiscent of the serf wars of Russia? Hey, I thought the French were for the collective good?

 

[padisha emperor]

France is one of the frist agriculture country. Go in FRance, you will see all the place for the fields we have. It's like in the USA, we have a country, a land, wich does that we can have a big and good agriculture.
EU gives subventions to help the agriculture, the farmers. And because France is the first or not far in agriculture, France receives lot of money from it. But Poland would have receive it too...unfortunatly UK refuse a compromise.

France has also a leadership in some other domain, these domain evocated by Blait : scuience, high techs...France is not looking for more money here. But UK wants :
- their money
- EU money

So, they want to pay, but to take back this money, and also to receive the EU subventions...

France and Germany are the 2 more important countries for the money given to the EU. They pay moer than UK. And they don't take back their money.

The UK attitude is pityful, it's a shame.

Why are they in the EU, if they always refuse to play with the rules ?

 

[Annie]

France is one of the frist agriculture country. Go in FRance, you will see all the place for the fields we have. It's like in the USA, we have a country, a land, wich does that we can have a big and good agriculture.
EU gives subventions to help the agriculture, the farmers. And because France is the first or not far in agriculture, France receives lot of money from it. But Poland would have receive it too...unfortunatly UK refuse a compromise.

France has also a leadership in some other domain, these domain evocated by Blait : scuience, high techs...France is not looking for more money here. But UK wants :
- their money
- EU money

So, they want to pay, but to take back this money, and also to receive the EU subventions...

France and Germany are the 2 more important countries for the money given to the EU. They pay moer than UK. And they don't take back their money.

The UK attitude is pityful, it's a shame.

Why are they in the EU, if they always refuse to play with the rules ?

You mean like France plays by the 'rules?'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4367149.stm

Three-year breach

...For the past three years, France and Germany have breached the rule that says government budget deficits should not be more than 3% of gross domestic product, a measure of economic growth.

Greece has also breached the limit while Italy's method of reporting on its deficit has been questioned by the European Union.

Many countries argued that the Growth and Stability Pact rules were put in place when economic growth was stronger. They say greater flexibility is now needed to increase spending in more difficult economic times.

Growth in the eurozone is expected to be less than 2% this year.

Debt fears

The BBC's Manuela Saragosa in Brussels says the new rules may alarm some critics who worry that reforms could lead to sloppy government finances, resulting in higher interest rates.

"This is not a licence to run up debt," German Minister of Finance Hans Eichel told reporters.

However, earlier in the evening, the Austrian finance minister said it would be "a bit of a joke" to exempt reunification costs for an event - the fall of the Berlin wall - that happened 15 years ago...

or maybe this?

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=34414

E.U. complains at governments' failure to implement environment rules

Source: Copyright 2004, Associated Press
Date:&nbspAugust 20, 2004
Byline: Paul Ames, Associated Press

BRUSSELS, Belgium — The European Union's head office accused national governments Thursday of letting their citizens down by failing to properly implement E.U. environment laws. It named France, Italy, and Ireland as the worst offenders.

A report by the European Commission said there were "serious shortcomings" in the implementation of legislation dealing with clean air and water, waste disposal, nature protection, and other environmental issues.

"This deprives citizens of the high level of environmental protection that they expect," the commission said in a statement.

Separately, the E.U.'s environment agency issued a dire warning Wednesday that nations had to move faster to tackle global warming or risk deadly floods, heat waves, and soaring temperatures that could melt three-quarters of the Alpine glaciers by 2050.

According to the report released Thursday, environmental cases represented one-third of all legal complaints by the commission against national governments. France topped the list of offenders, followed by Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. Nordic nations Denmark, Sweden, and Finland had the best records, followed by Portugal and Austria.

Under E.U. rules the commission can take legal action at the E.U.'s high court against governments that fail to implement European directives, which only become law after approval by E.U. national governments.

Although the European Court of Justice can levy hefty fines on governments, the complex legal process can take decades.

One ongoing legal battle between France and the E.U.'s head office dates back to 1976, over Paris' nonimplementation of rules to protect water supplies from dumped of pesticides, heavy metals, and other pollutants...

or maybe this?

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/030905123527.4sjywfn0/

EU tells France its must respect euro deficit rules


05/09/2003

European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy strongly criticised French budget policy on Friday and went on to tell Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin to his face that France had to play by euro-zone rules.

Lamy, speaking on French radio, attacked as "facile" remarks by Raffarin late on Thursday defending the deficits and warned that the EU would insist on rules being respected.

The commissioner, himself French, then had a meeting with the prime minister, saying afterwards he had insisted that France had to respect its obligations.

The exchanges have come to a head because France has pushed ahead with tax cuts, deciding to cut income tax further by three percent, even though it is running excessive deficits, far above the ceiling of three percent of output, and seems set to do so until 2006.

However, Raffarin, asked a short time later when he arrived for a festival in southeastern France if he feared a crisis with the EU Commission over his economic policies, replied succinctly "no".

The second French commisioner, Michel Barnier, responsible for regional policy, who was also attending the festival, noted that France had stressed it stood by its European commitments.

Meanwhile in Brussels the spokesman for Economic Affairs Commissioner Pedro Solbes insisted that although the commission would show maximum flexibility, nothing had changed and euro-zone countries had to respect the rules.

Lamy had been unusually blunt in his remarks on RTL radio in signalling that the commission would take a hard line with France over its breaches of euro-zone budget rules.

He insisted: "We will remind France of its obligations, in a friendly, firm way, saluting like police do when they have to make citizens respect the law.

"And then, if necessary, we will decide whether or not we have to pull out the book of traffic tickets."

Lamy said: "There can be no cheating with the common rules which have been agreed. We (the commission) have already shown quite a lot of flexibility in the interpretation of these common rules."

Lamy explicitly criticised the line taken by Raffarin who had said on French television late Thursday that French jobs came first, that he did not have to do complicated mathematics "for any office in any country" and that there was no question of France being fined by the EU for running excessive public deficits.

Lamy commented that "I find this rather facile" and rejected the impression that the commission was without sympathy, having only the view of an accountant concerned with applying in fine detail all kinds of rigid rules.

And he objected that Raffarin's remarks could be interpreted as implying that the commission did not care about growth and employment in France.

"This is a presentation which does not correspond to reality," Lamy said.

He rejected the argument that deficits were good for growth, saying: "Not if they are permanent and big. And in France the deficit is permanent and big and that is not good for growth."

He then said the French position posed the question "whether one can trample on common rules, particularly if, as is the case for France, one is concerned about one's standing."

He said France could not have both the advantages of the euro such as "low interest rates ... and at the same time not respect common rules"...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

France is one of the frist agriculture country. Go in FRance, you will see all the place for the fields we have. It's like in the USA, we have a country, a land, wich does that we can have a big and good agriculture.
EU gives subventions to help the agriculture, the farmers. And because France is the first or not far in agriculture, France receives lot of money from it. But Poland would have receive it too...unfortunatly UK refuse a compromise.

France has also a leadership in some other domain, these domain evocated by Blait : scuience, high techs...France is not looking for more money here. But UK wants :
- their money
- EU money

So, they want to pay, but to take back this money, and also to receive the EU subventions...

France and Germany are the 2 more important countries for the money given to the EU. They pay moer than UK. And they don't take back their money.

The UK attitude is pityful, it's a shame.

Why are they in the EU, if they always refuse to play with the rules ?

This left wing irrational selfishness is why the EU will fragment and fail. People who feel their government should insulate them from change and competition are asking for the impossible. Eventually they just fall behind in their ability to deal with reality.

 

[Said1]

France is one of the frist agriculture country. Go in FRance, you will see all the place for the fields we have. It's like in the USA, we have a country, a land, wich does that we can have a big and good agriculture.
EU gives subventions to help the agriculture, the farmers. And because France is the first or not far in agriculture, France receives lot of money from it. But Poland would have receive it too...unfortunatly UK refuse a compromise.

If France is a leader in the agricultural sector, why would they need subsidies? Their ability to compete should not be impeded by smaller poorer eastern countries.

France has also a leadership in some other domain, these domain evocated by Blait : scuience, high techs...France is not looking for more money here. But UK wants :
- their money
- EU money

Not true, France has very recently recieved subsidies for high tech development - Air Bus ring a bell? Are they not looking for more money as of this week?

So, they want to pay, but to take back this money, and also to receive the EU subventions...

The talks were stalled, I don't think anyone really knows for sure what the UK had in mind budget wise after their original beef with rebates had been resolved. I have a feeling France would have given their plans a non, though.

France and Germany are the 2 more important countries for the money given to the EU. They pay moer than UK. And they don't take back their money.

The UK attitude is pityful, it's a shame.

Why are they in the EU, if they always refuse to play with the rules ?

France and Germany suck up subsidies just as fast as they put money into the EU. Le Pot meet Le Kettle.

 

[padisha emperor]

It's not becaue you're a leader in a domain that you can't / don't need to have some subventions.

a SECTOR is not comparable with a private company.


For Airbus.... :blah2: my dear, the money given to airbus can't be compare with the money given to the STATE. Stop to compare so different things (Do I compare a tomato and the Empire state Building ? no - good week end for Airbus at Le Bourget.... I want to be sad for Boeing, but I'm not )

For the money : do you find it's normal to keep an advantage received when you were ni shit, if now you're in a good position ? Because poor countries from East haven't such advantages. Uk had it.
Imagine : USA get 10 billions dollars from IMF beacue USA are in the shit. Then, USA feel better, and they don't need this money. But others countries, poors, who need this money, claim it. USA say : "NO, It's OUR money, we receive it some years ago. "

Immature and childish attitude from UK


France has money from EU, fortunatly ! France gives more to EU than everybody else, except I believe Germany.
UK pay, UK get money from EU. Ok. But UK get also its advantage : EU gives back to UK the money given by UK >> UK recieve twice, and pays not really...


But you seem to not understand how EU works, and why the UK attitude is childish, and a danger for EU.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But you seem to not understand how EU works, and why the UK attitude is childish, and a danger for EU.

But the EU isn't working. That's the point. The socialists in power have created populations so selfish that they are unwilling to give up anything for the greater economic health of the continent. This is the result of socialism, a population compeletely divorced from reality.

 

[Said1]

It's not becaue you're a leader in a domain that you can't / don't need to have some subventions.

a SECTOR is not comparable with a private company.

I know a sector is not comparable with a private company, because a sector is made up of several private companies, right? If France is dominate in one sector meaning most PRIVATE companies are more successful than other EU members why do they NEED subsidies? Perhaps they seem so successful because they have been protected.

For Airbus.... :blah2: my dear, the money given to airbus can't be compare with the money given to the STATE. Stop to compare so different things (Do I compare a tomato and the Empire state Building ? no - good week end for Airbus at Le Bourget.... I want to be sad for Boeing, but I'm not )

Where did Air Bus get the subsidy - from the STATE. Where did the state get the MONEY? Air Bus is one example, I'm sure there are others. Sheesh, follow the freekin bouncing ball.

For the money : do you find it's normal to keep an advantage received when you were ni shit, if now you're in a good position ? Because poor countries from East haven't such advantages. Uk had it.
Imagine : USA get 10 billions dollars from IMF beacue USA are in the shit. Then, USA feel better, and they don't need this money. But others countries, poors, who need this money, claim it. USA say : "NO, It's OUR money, we receive it some years ago. "

Immature and childish attitude from UK

France has money from EU, fortunatly ! France gives more to EU than everybody else, except I believe Germany.
UK pay, UK get money from EU. Ok. But UK get also its advantage : EU gives back to UK the money given by UK >> UK recieve twice, and pays not really...


But you seem to not understand how EU works, and why the UK attitude is childish, and a danger for EU.

Do you think the UK are the only ones acting childish? Can you not see how and why things failed? It's called negotiation, usually ALL parties give something up. That is something YOU do not seem to understand. What did the UK bring to the table in exchange for rebates anyway, HUH?

 

[padisha emperor]

But the EU isn't working. That's the point. The socialists in power have created populations so selfish that they are unwilling to give up anything for the greater economic health of the continent. This is the result of socialism, a population compeletely divorced from reality

.


It's not exactly that.

it more that the EU population don't want to be sacrified in the name of a good good good economy.
example :

UK : less chomage than France. And today, UK seems to be in very good health. but the Human Developpment Indice (you know, from 0 to 1, 1 is the maximum) is higher in France than UK : Lfe is far better in FRance, for all the points.

So...

Europe want to have economy, but also a good life.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

.


It's not exactly that.

it more that the EU population don't want to be sacrified in the name of a good good good economy.
example :

UK : less chomage than France. And today, UK seems to be in very good health. but the Human Developpment Indice (you know, from 0 to 1, 1 is the maximum) is higher in France than UK : Lfe is far better in FRance, for all the points.

So...

Europe want to have economy, but also a good life.

How do you plan on competing with nations whose people are willing to work hard to improve their standard of living? Money doesn't grow on trees. If it did, you might get those agricultural subsidies you're whining about.

 

[Said1]

How do you plan on competing with nations whose people are willing to work hard to improve their standard of living? Money doesn't grow on trees. If it did, you might get those agricultural subsidies you're whining about.

Even the poorer EU nations were willing to give something up. You know, the nations that actually NEED subsidies.

 

[nosarcasm]

in 2004 for the budget of the EU was 94 billion Euro

47% went to subsidies in agriculture.

the biggest netto contributers, meaning money put into the EU minus
money received from the EU are per capita

Good old Luxemberg with 140 Euro p. c.
Netherlands with 124 Euro
Sweden with 107 Euro
Germany with 93 Euro
Belgium with 64 Euro
Great Britain with 47 Euro
.
.
.
France with 32 Euro

So the Brits have a point here. In the end Germany should demand
more influence or cut the money off to this subsidy game.

That money would be much better invested in some nuclear weapons
:whip3:

 

[Annie]

I really cringe at what Jacques might come up with next.


http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004756.php

June 20, 2005
French Don't Buy Chirac's Blamethrowing

Jacques Chirac appears to have run out of options in deflecting blame for the collapse of the EU constitution last month. After his insistence on holding a referendum blew up in his face as political opponents across the French spectrum lined up to torpedo the pact, Chirac attempted to lay off the failure on the British annual euro rebate. That strategy caused the EU summit to collapse in a hail of recriminations across the continent, but for some reason Chirac expected to return home to cheers for protecting French agricultural prerogatives.

Instead of cheers, however, the French president has been savaged by the French press, who haven't been fooled at all by Chirac's theatrics, at least according to The Guardian (UK):

Swollen with Gallic pride after denouncing Tony Blair's "pathetic" performance at the European summit, the president probably wondered whether the Champs Elysées would be full of adoring crowds.

As he awoke to a summer heatwave on Saturday morning, after a dawn flight from Brussels, Mr Chirac was instead greeted with headlines depicting him as the principal loser of the summit.​

Le Monde, the grand old tribune of France's intelligentsia, declared the summit a "double victory" for Tony Blair. Downing Street officials could barely believe their luck as they read that Britain had buried the EU constitution and succeeded in highlighting the "anomaly" of how the EU spends seven times more on farmers than it does on "future" projects, such as science and research.

"This new failure on Europe risks affecting his credibility in the world arena and having the ricochet effect of further weakening him on the domestic scene," Le Monde said.​

The problem comes from Franco-German blindness to the fact that most European countries don't want to tie themselves to a system that benefits the Franco-German center at the expense of their own economies -- among other worries about further integration. The Dutch have recently found out what multiculturalism might bring with the Islamist murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, while the Eastern European nations have firsthand experience with the Socialist economic model and hardly want to support yet another country's pensions with their own GDP. Britain also falls into this latter category, even with its own social spending levels far above that of the US, for instance.

In fact, EU integration seems destined for failure in an area more well known for its insistent nationalism and sovereignty than in any impulse for unification (at least, peaceful impulses). Chirac can find budgetary minutiae such as the EU rebate for debate fodder, and he might even have had a point if Chirac exhibited any flexibility on the agricultural protections and subsidies on which France insists. All of these remain secondary to the real issue of EU unification -- which is to say that Europe simply doesn't have an appetite to unite politically in any meaningful way.

Apparently, Chirac thought he could fool the French into thinking that his lack of insight somehow equated to defending the French prerogative. Instead, the French realize that his insistence on shading his eyes has made their country lose a tremendous amount of prestige, and his petulant ranting at the EU budget summit might result in a complete collapse of the portion of the EU that has actually worked for Europe's benefit. It turns out that Abraham Lincoln's warning about the folly of attempting to fool all the people all of the time even applies to the French.
Posted by Captain Ed at June 20, 2005 12:39 PM

 

[nosarcasm]

I read a German article on Spiegel online about the German
defense Minister struck. He was scheduled to visit Washington
and wanted to meet Rumsfeld. After Rummy only granted him
45 minutes and Kofi Annan cancelled their meeting he cancelled
the whole trip. Seems like everyone is waiting for the conservatives
under Merkel to come to power. Bybe byby Schroeder. :fifty:

 

[padisha emperor]

nosarcasm, you will certainly be able to answer to me : do you know the great lines of the future policy of Angela Merkel, if CDU wins ?

 

[nosarcasm]

Well its election time so they dont officially say.

But they will cut down on the welfare state. I am not sure if Angela
Merkel is tough enough to defy public oppinion to really reform it.

THe conservatives will try to smootch up to the US while keeping
France close within the EU fights.

If you can read German

This is the official party program 2002-2006

http://www.regierungsprogramm.de/

lower taxes to encourage and support hard workers.

Create non taxed 400 Euro part time jobs.

limit unemployment support

more power for the universities in choosing their students

get rid of ecological taxes

increase the childrens money (federal handout for children you have
600 euro per month for children under 3 300 Euro for 3-18.
as an incentive to have more children

keep the pension system but encourage supplemental private pension alternatives

make it optional to drop out of the complete health protection for individuals
to some kind of basic healthcare program.

zero tolerance against crime
DNA analysis mandatory for any sexual crime.
expell criminal non citizens faster and more effective

limit the influx of foreigners into Germany
if they are not willing to integrate kick em out. (parphrased)

strenghthen the military by increasing the budget to ensure the army
is ready for international missions.

That are some of the point in there.