2017年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_Between_a_rock_and_the_Multiannual_Financial_Framework_2页_158kb

EU 2013 Budget and the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) Analysis

Core Content

The document provides an analysis of the European Union's 2013 budget, highlighting the disconnect between public criticism and the structural realities of the EU budget system. It emphasizes that the EU budget is designed to be inflexible, with the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) serving as a long-term budgetary plan agreed upon by member states to prevent frequent revisions.

Main Points

• Budget Increase in 2013:
  The 2013 EU budget shows a 2% increase in commitments and a 6.8% increase in payments compared to 2012. This has led to criticism in the media, but the author argues that the critics are not grounded in reality.

• Purpose of the MFF:
  The MFF was introduced to avoid annual budget disputes and ensure long-term stability. Any changes to the 2013 budget would require a renegotiation of the MFF, which is unlikely due to the need for unanimous approval among all member states.

• Payment Mechanism and n+2 Rule:
  The n+2 rule allows for payments to be made up to two years after the commitment, meaning that projects committed in 2011 can still be paid in 2013. This flexibility is essential for long-term infrastructure and complex programs.

• Current Payment Levels:
  The actual payments for 2012 are €129 billion, well below the MFF's €141 billion appropriation. The EU budget as a share of GNI is 0.99%, compared to the projected 1.08%. This trend has been consistent over the past two decades, with the share of EU budget expenditure in relation to total EU government expenditure falling from 1.93% to 1.87% between 2008 and 2009.

• Impact of the Financial Crisis:
  The apparent increase in EU budget expenditure as a share of GNI between 2008 and 2009 was a statistical anomaly caused by the financial crisis, not an actual increase. In reality, payments in 2009 were lower than in 2008.

• National vs. EU Expenditure:
  Member states often overlook the economies of scale and savings that can result from EU-level actions. For instance, the European External Action Service (EEAS), despite higher administrative costs, could lead to overall savings in public expenditure.

• Political Criticism and Misinformation:
  The author criticizes the lack of substantive analysis in current budget debates, suggesting that the discussions are more about political posturing than real policy impact. He argues that reducing the EU budget would not necessarily reduce national public expenditure and could cause unnecessary political damage.

Key Information

• EU Budget Components:
  The budget is composed of pre-allocated funds to countries and regions, with only a small portion being flexible for new initiatives.

• Savings Already Achieved:
  The EU has already made considerable savings, with €10 billion in actual payments below the MFF's planned amounts.

• Future Payment Trends:
  Due to the n+2 rule, the increase in payments for 2013 will lead to lower payments in 2014 and 2015.

• EU Budget as a Share of GNI:
  The EU budget has been declining as a share of GNI since the 1990s, despite enlargement.

Conclusion

The document concludes that the current debate over the EU budget is unhelpful and misleading. It argues that the MFF is a necessary and stable mechanism, and that any changes would require significant political consensus. The author suggests that focusing on EU budget cuts without understanding the structural and contractual obligations is politically damaging and economically unwise.