欧盟预算改革的潜力与局限性研究（英文版）_194页_5mb

Summary of "Study on the Potential and Limitations of Reforming the Financing of the EU Budget"

Core Content

This report evaluates the current and potential reforms of the EU budget financing system, focusing on the own resources mechanism and the challenges of reforming it. It outlines the political, legal, and economic implications of introducing new own resources and the limitations of the existing net balance approach.

Main Points

1. Current State of Own Resources

• The EU currently relies on three own resources: VAT, customs duties, and a portion of corporate income tax.
• The net balance approach is still dominant, despite being criticized for its inflexibility and lack of alignment with EU objectives.
• The UK rebate and net balance logic originated from a weak economic rationale and a lack of clear principles for assessing excess contributions.

2. Critique of the Net Balance Approach

• The net balance approach ignores the economic and cross-border impacts of the EU budget.
• It fails to reflect EU added value and the shift in EU objectives from local to supranational.
• The system is not functional and does not ensure equity or fairness among Member States.

3. Need for Reform

• The EU budget has evolved significantly, and the current resource model is outdated.
• There is a growing need for new own resources to support modern challenges like migration, climate change, and energy security.
• The net balance instinct persists even in urgent EU-level issues, indicating a lack of reform momentum.

4. Challenges to Reform

• Fiscal heterogeneity among Member States complicates reform.
• Power and voting rules in the Council and Parliament create institutional barriers.
• National sovereignty and constitutional requirements are key considerations in any reform proposal.

Key Options for New Own Resources

4.1 Value Added Tax (VAT)

• Pros: Exists in all Member States, can be used to fund EU projects.
• Cons: Risk of tax competition, horizontal externalities.
• Potential: EU-wide VAT could be introduced, but requires harmonization.

4.2 Corporate Income Tax (CIT)

• Pros: Helps combat tax avoidance by multinationals.
• Cons: Technical and macroeconomic challenges, differing tax bases.
• Potential: A common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) is proposed by the Commission to harmonize the base.

4.3 Financial Transaction Tax (FTT)

• Pros: Could provide a new revenue stream, align with EU objectives.
• Cons: Limited acceptance, technical and legal challenges, especially regarding variable geometry.
• Legal Basis: Based on Art. 113 TFEU, with conditions for enhanced cooperation.

4.4 Carbon Levies

• Pros: Aligns with climate objectives, supports green policies.
• Cons: Technical complexity, equity concerns.
• Options:
  • Use EU ETS auction revenue.
  • Add a carbon-based element to fuel taxes.
  • Implement a genuine EU carbon tax based on the destination principle.

Reform Mechanisms and Considerations

5.1 Legal and Institutional Framework

• The TEU and TFEU provide a legal basis for reform.
• The 1970 and 1988 reforms demonstrate that package deals can be effective.
• National parliaments play a crucial role in approving reforms, especially through inter-parliamentary conferences.

5.2 Variable Geometry

• Enhanced cooperation is a potential mechanism for implementing FTT.
• The Commission’s proposal complies with Art. 326-34 TFEU and Art. 113 TFEU.
• Variable geometry allows for differentiated participation and sovereignty considerations.

5.3 Equity and Fairness

• GNI-based resource is proposed as a progressive alternative.
• Equity considerations must be integrated into the selection of own resources.
• Transparency and accountability are essential for building trust.

Future Directions

6.1 Budgetary Flexibility

• The report suggests improving flexibility in the EU budget to respond to unexpected events.
• Flexibility instruments such as revisions to commitments and payments are examined.

6.2 Decoupling Expenditures from Resources

• Generalized correction mechanisms are not sufficient.
• Dissociating resources from expenditures is necessary to align the budget with EU objectives.
• Reforming the CAP could reduce reliance on net balance logic and promote cohesion and equity.

6.3 The Eurozone Budget

• The report explores the possibility of a eurozone budget, which could enhance macro-financial stability.
• A separate budget might address asymmetric shocks and public debt pooling.
• However, legal and political barriers remain significant.

Conclusion

• Reforming the EU budget financing system is necessary but challenging.
• The net balance approach is not functional and must be replaced.
• New own resources are essential to support modern EU policies and common challenges.
• Variable geometry and package deals are realistic options but require careful legal and political design.
• The legal framework must be flexible and supportive of new revenue streams.
• Equity, transparency, and accountability are critical for acceptance and legitimacy of any reform.