The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (Sieps) has published its customary mid-term review of the presidency of the Council of the European Union. Normally, these reports are written by experts in the presidency country, but this time Sieps engaged a number of experienced European presidency watchers, offering the reader a variety of viewpoints from past and future presidency capitals.
Sweden entered its presidency of the EU Council at a peculiar juncture: The almost interminable treaty reform process was still unfinished, with the Lisbon Treaty in the doldrums; with an outgoing Commission and incoming European Parliament; with two summer months at the beginning of a six month stint.
Sieps has gathered Swedish media reports and reactions on its web page Sieps in media, but most of them reproduce the news item by the news agency TT, so there is little variation despite the impressive number of articles: Sveriges betyg: Effektivt men trist (Sweden’s report card: Effective but boring).
A pragmatic and consensual approach without an overdose of national interests (honest broker), hard work and diplomatic skills in securing the passage of the Lisbon Treaty generally received high marks. After France and the Czech Republic, Sweden was the first “normal” Council presidency in a while.
The lack of advance job descriptions for the new top jobs and the secretive negotiation process leading to the nomination of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton got lukewarm appraisals. The December UN Climate Change Conference in was seen as crucial, but was still a future event at the time of writing.
The communication efforts of the Swedish presidency got dual marks. The innovative presidency web site got positive ratings, but there was a perceived lack of forceful direct messages by Sweden to the EU’s 500 million inhabitants.
Fredrik Langdal and Göran von Sydow (Eds.): The Swedish Presidency: European Perspectives
– SIEPS 2009:3op – (Occasional papers; December 2009; 74 pages).
Comment
The provisional remarks will mature into more permanent perceptions after the end of the Swedish presidency, with the final moments of COP15 just days ahead.
For most of the strategic issues, half a year is a very short time to achieve substantial results, although there are milestones along the way, such as the Stockholm programme in the area of freedom, security and justice.
I share the positive assessment of the authors of the report, but I would have headlined the half-term card less critically than Swedish media: Effective and professional.
Mats Engström offers a nuance in between in his informed blog post: The Swedish Presidency: Effective but not Exciting (14 December 2009). In some areas Engström would have hoped for a modern eco-car with more acceleration, instead of a Volvo diesel. Despite successes, opportunities were lost.
The presidency trios are a modest response to the need for coherent long term action, but it remains to be seen if Spain, Belgium and Hungary are going to form a cohesive trio, despite their common 18 month programme. The Lisbon Treaty introduced a more permanent chairmanship only for the European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council, whereas the General Affairs Council and the other Council configurations will still be chaired by the rotating presidencies.
From a citizen’s point of view, the Council proceedings remain opaque, despite public deliberations, and the governance standards the European Council has set for itself as a formal institution are dismal, but the Sweden managed to instil a certain degree of openness in its handling of the presidency, and the web communication effort of the Swedish presidency was the best to date. Despite the limitations, it would be a positive surprise if the following trio succeeds better in this respect.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Discover 494 euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.
Showing posts with label Sieps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sieps. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Sunday, 28 September 2008
EU: Economic crisis management VI
Energy supply, severe economic difficulties and solidarity have the makings of an interesting testing ground for the European Union in the years ahead.
The previous posting mentioned some UK references to Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). We now turn to legislative materials from Sweden and Finland as well as some commentaries in book form.
***
Sweden
The consultation paper ’Lissabonfördraget’ was the first official Swedish description of the Lisbon Treaty amendments, and it is available at:
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/49/81/107aa077.pdf
It was followed by the Swedish government’s draft ratification bill ‘Lagrådsremiss – Lissabonfördraget’, published 29 May 2008:
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/5676/a/106277
The draft bill was given a green light by the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet):
http://www.lagradet.se/yttranden/Lissabonfordraget.pdf
The latest official government view, and now my standard reference for Sweden, is the ratification bill, with the Swedish parliament (Riksdagen) expected to decide on approval in late autumn, probably November (Regeringens proposition 2007/08:168 Lissabonfördraget; 3 July 2008):
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/10/84/02/8c96cf3e.pdf
Economic and monetary policy (23.2 Ekonomisk och monetary politik) is discussed on pages 180 to 185. The Swedish government explains what Article 100 TFEU (ToL) changes, highlighting the spirit of solidarity and the area of energy supply (on page 182):
“I nu gällande EG-fördrag finns en bestämmelse om att rådet kan besluta om lämpliga åtgärder med hänsyn till det ekonomiska läget, särskilt om det uppstår allvarliga försörjningsproblem i fråga om vissa varor. Genom Lissabonfördraget införs bestämmelser om att åtgärderna ska beslutas i en anda av solidaritet mellan medlemsstaterna och när det gäller allvarliga försörjningsproblem i fråga om vissa varor framhålls särskilt energiområdet (artikel 100 i EUF-fördraget).”
***
By the way, EU citizens, including proponents of the philosophy of autarky, may note that the Swedish ratification bill mentions ‘energi’ (energy) 98 times (admittedly including all references to the European Atomic Energy Community) and ‘solidaritet’ (solidarity) 41 times.
***
Finland
The Finnish ratification bill, ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 23/2008 vp), discusses economic and monetary policy (Talous- ja rahapolitiikka) on pages 209 to 214.
The ratification bill briefly describes the changes to Article 100 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 122 TFEU, namely the spirit of solidarity and the energy area. Otherwise the Article is essentially the same as Article III-180 of the Constitutional Treaty and Article 100 TEC (page 210):
”100 artiklaan (uusi 122 artikla), joka antaa neuvostolle poikkeusvaltuudet taloudellisissa erityistilanteissa, on lisätty vuoden 2007 HVK:ssa päätöksenteon tapahtuvan ”yhteisvastuun”
hengessä ja silloin kun tavaroiden saatavuudessa ilmenee vaikeuksia ”ennen kaikkea energia-alalla”. Muilta osin määräys vastaa perustuslakisopimuksen III-180 artiklaa ja SEY 100 artiklaa.”
The Finnish ratification bill is available at:
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf
The Swedish language version of the ratification bill ‘Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen’ (RP 23/2008 rd), makes the same remarks under ’Ekonomisk och monetär politik’ on Article 100 TFEU (ToL), the future Article 122 TFEU, on page 213.
The ratification bill in Swedish can be accessed at:
http://www.finlex.fi/sv/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf
***
France
Étienne de Poncins offers a few general comments on EU economic governance and budget matters, ‘La gouvernance économique et les questions budgétaires’ in his ‘Le traité de Lisbonne en 27 clés’ (Éditions Lignes de Repères, 2008), pages 245─251.
Austria
‚Der Vertrag von Lissabon‘, by Klemens H. Fischer (Nomos, Stämpfli & Verlag Österreich, 2008), traces the amendments Article by Article; here on pages 263─264. His comment mentions „Energiebereich“ but he does not highlight the new reference to „im Geiste der Solidarität zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten“ in his comment, although it appears in the text of the provision.
France
François-Xavier Priollaud and David Siritzky offer a short introductory explanation on economic and monetary policy (pages 246 and 247) and on economic policy coordination, including the treaty amendments (pages 248 to 250) in their book ‘Le traité de Lisbonne – Commentaire, article par article, des nouveaux traités européens (TUE et TFUE)’ (La Documentation française, Paris, 2008).
***
Readers, who want to look at the larger picture of EU energy politics and policies at the treaty level, can turn their attention from Article 122 TFEU with its fallback provisions on economic crisis management to the Lisbon Treaty’s TFEU Part Three Title XXI Energy.
Sweden
Beyond the treaty level, in an even broader context, we point to the upcoming topical seminar ‘The Politicisation of Energy Security’, hosted by SIEPS, the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. In Stockholm 9 October 2008, “SIEPS will present the analysis EU Energy Policy in a Supply-constrained World written by Jacques de Jong and Coby van der Linde. The analysis covers the fundamental changes that are taking place in world energy markets and explores the consequences of tight markets and the return of government in energy matters and concludes with outlining the new challenges to EU energy policy-making.”
For additional information, go to:
http://www.sieps.se/sem/2008/sem_1009b/sem_1009b.en.html
The Netherlands
CIEP, the highly active Clingendael International Energy Programme, where the authors of the forthcoming report work, offers a host of energy related publications and activities:
http://www.clingendael.nl/ciep/
The Europa web site
The introductory web page on European Union activities concerning energy contains a number of links to the interested reader:
http://europa.eu/pol/ener/index_en.htm
Ralf Grahn
The previous posting mentioned some UK references to Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). We now turn to legislative materials from Sweden and Finland as well as some commentaries in book form.
***
Sweden
The consultation paper ’Lissabonfördraget’ was the first official Swedish description of the Lisbon Treaty amendments, and it is available at:
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/49/81/107aa077.pdf
It was followed by the Swedish government’s draft ratification bill ‘Lagrådsremiss – Lissabonfördraget’, published 29 May 2008:
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/5676/a/106277
The draft bill was given a green light by the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet):
http://www.lagradet.se/yttranden/Lissabonfordraget.pdf
The latest official government view, and now my standard reference for Sweden, is the ratification bill, with the Swedish parliament (Riksdagen) expected to decide on approval in late autumn, probably November (Regeringens proposition 2007/08:168 Lissabonfördraget; 3 July 2008):
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/10/84/02/8c96cf3e.pdf
Economic and monetary policy (23.2 Ekonomisk och monetary politik) is discussed on pages 180 to 185. The Swedish government explains what Article 100 TFEU (ToL) changes, highlighting the spirit of solidarity and the area of energy supply (on page 182):
“I nu gällande EG-fördrag finns en bestämmelse om att rådet kan besluta om lämpliga åtgärder med hänsyn till det ekonomiska läget, särskilt om det uppstår allvarliga försörjningsproblem i fråga om vissa varor. Genom Lissabonfördraget införs bestämmelser om att åtgärderna ska beslutas i en anda av solidaritet mellan medlemsstaterna och när det gäller allvarliga försörjningsproblem i fråga om vissa varor framhålls särskilt energiområdet (artikel 100 i EUF-fördraget).”
***
By the way, EU citizens, including proponents of the philosophy of autarky, may note that the Swedish ratification bill mentions ‘energi’ (energy) 98 times (admittedly including all references to the European Atomic Energy Community) and ‘solidaritet’ (solidarity) 41 times.
***
Finland
The Finnish ratification bill, ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 23/2008 vp), discusses economic and monetary policy (Talous- ja rahapolitiikka) on pages 209 to 214.
The ratification bill briefly describes the changes to Article 100 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 122 TFEU, namely the spirit of solidarity and the energy area. Otherwise the Article is essentially the same as Article III-180 of the Constitutional Treaty and Article 100 TEC (page 210):
”100 artiklaan (uusi 122 artikla), joka antaa neuvostolle poikkeusvaltuudet taloudellisissa erityistilanteissa, on lisätty vuoden 2007 HVK:ssa päätöksenteon tapahtuvan ”yhteisvastuun”
hengessä ja silloin kun tavaroiden saatavuudessa ilmenee vaikeuksia ”ennen kaikkea energia-alalla”. Muilta osin määräys vastaa perustuslakisopimuksen III-180 artiklaa ja SEY 100 artiklaa.”
The Finnish ratification bill is available at:
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf
The Swedish language version of the ratification bill ‘Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen’ (RP 23/2008 rd), makes the same remarks under ’Ekonomisk och monetär politik’ on Article 100 TFEU (ToL), the future Article 122 TFEU, on page 213.
The ratification bill in Swedish can be accessed at:
http://www.finlex.fi/sv/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf
***
France
Étienne de Poncins offers a few general comments on EU economic governance and budget matters, ‘La gouvernance économique et les questions budgétaires’ in his ‘Le traité de Lisbonne en 27 clés’ (Éditions Lignes de Repères, 2008), pages 245─251.
Austria
‚Der Vertrag von Lissabon‘, by Klemens H. Fischer (Nomos, Stämpfli & Verlag Österreich, 2008), traces the amendments Article by Article; here on pages 263─264. His comment mentions „Energiebereich“ but he does not highlight the new reference to „im Geiste der Solidarität zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten“ in his comment, although it appears in the text of the provision.
France
François-Xavier Priollaud and David Siritzky offer a short introductory explanation on economic and monetary policy (pages 246 and 247) and on economic policy coordination, including the treaty amendments (pages 248 to 250) in their book ‘Le traité de Lisbonne – Commentaire, article par article, des nouveaux traités européens (TUE et TFUE)’ (La Documentation française, Paris, 2008).
***
Readers, who want to look at the larger picture of EU energy politics and policies at the treaty level, can turn their attention from Article 122 TFEU with its fallback provisions on economic crisis management to the Lisbon Treaty’s TFEU Part Three Title XXI Energy.
Sweden
Beyond the treaty level, in an even broader context, we point to the upcoming topical seminar ‘The Politicisation of Energy Security’, hosted by SIEPS, the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. In Stockholm 9 October 2008, “SIEPS will present the analysis EU Energy Policy in a Supply-constrained World written by Jacques de Jong and Coby van der Linde. The analysis covers the fundamental changes that are taking place in world energy markets and explores the consequences of tight markets and the return of government in energy matters and concludes with outlining the new challenges to EU energy policy-making.”
For additional information, go to:
http://www.sieps.se/sem/2008/sem_1009b/sem_1009b.en.html
The Netherlands
CIEP, the highly active Clingendael International Energy Programme, where the authors of the forthcoming report work, offers a host of energy related publications and activities:
http://www.clingendael.nl/ciep/
The Europa web site
The introductory web page on European Union activities concerning energy contains a number of links to the interested reader:
http://europa.eu/pol/ener/index_en.htm
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Lisbon Treaty: Reasons for ratification
Bartolus of the excellent EU Law Blog commented on the European Council conclusions after the Irish ’no’ vote:
‘As you can see from the “conclusions”, the result was well, err, inconclusive.’
Go to the post ‘Lisbon Treaty and European Council’ (21 June 2008), with the conclusions:
http://eulaw.typepad.com/eulawblog/2008/06/lisbon-treaty-and-european-council.html
‘Students, academics, practitioners and anyone else who may be interested’ in the European Union is often left to find out the thinking behind and assessments of Council outcomes from independent sources.
Carl Fredrik Bergström, from Sieps (the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies), wrote his assessment before the European Council meeting (16 June 2008), but ‘Vad händer med Lissabonfördraget efter irländarnas nej?’ (What happens to the Lisbon Treaty after the Irish no?) sheds some light on post-referendum reasoning:
http://www.sieps.se/publ/utredningar/bilagor/Vad_hander_med_Lissabonfordraget_efter_Irlands_nej.pdf
Bergström notes the formal stipulation of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union and the possible conclusion to scrap the Treaty of Lisbon. However, such a conclusion would probably be too hasty, on two counts.
First, all the EU member states’ governments have seen the great need for amendments and they all support the amendments agreed in the Treaty of Lisbon. The problems do not disappear even if the Irish vote ‘no’.
Second, 800,000 Irish ‘no’ voters do not prove that the solutions agreed between the governments are bad or unwanted. On the contrary, the Lisbon Treaty can probably count on the support of national parliaments representing almost 500 million citizens.
It is reasonable to expect the remaining national parliaments to continue their ratification processes. Bergström then distinguishes between the situation where Ireland alone has rejected the Lisbon Treaty (and others move ahead, in one way or another) or if others join them (domino effect).
Bergström offers a preliminary outline of alternative solutions, in three batches:
1) Amendments without a new treaty.
2) Amendments or ‘adaptations’ in the connection of the next enlargement. New Irish position needed.
3) Later amendments (including those with deferred implementation according to the Lisbon Treaty). New Irish position needed.
Bergström’s batches sketch alternatives and outline thinking. A detailed analysis of different alternatives is offered by professor Steve Peers (Statewatch), mentioned in the 27 June 2008 post ‘Lisbon Treaty: Legal analysis of ratification, implementation and impact of non-ratification’:
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/06/lisbon-treaty-legal-analysis-of.html
***
The needs for EU reform have disappeared nowhere. States unwilling or unable to keep pace should actively search for solutions within their comfort zone and let the rest accomplish real EU reform.
Ralf Grahn
‘As you can see from the “conclusions”, the result was well, err, inconclusive.’
Go to the post ‘Lisbon Treaty and European Council’ (21 June 2008), with the conclusions:
http://eulaw.typepad.com/eulawblog/2008/06/lisbon-treaty-and-european-council.html
‘Students, academics, practitioners and anyone else who may be interested’ in the European Union is often left to find out the thinking behind and assessments of Council outcomes from independent sources.
Carl Fredrik Bergström, from Sieps (the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies), wrote his assessment before the European Council meeting (16 June 2008), but ‘Vad händer med Lissabonfördraget efter irländarnas nej?’ (What happens to the Lisbon Treaty after the Irish no?) sheds some light on post-referendum reasoning:
http://www.sieps.se/publ/utredningar/bilagor/Vad_hander_med_Lissabonfordraget_efter_Irlands_nej.pdf
Bergström notes the formal stipulation of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union and the possible conclusion to scrap the Treaty of Lisbon. However, such a conclusion would probably be too hasty, on two counts.
First, all the EU member states’ governments have seen the great need for amendments and they all support the amendments agreed in the Treaty of Lisbon. The problems do not disappear even if the Irish vote ‘no’.
Second, 800,000 Irish ‘no’ voters do not prove that the solutions agreed between the governments are bad or unwanted. On the contrary, the Lisbon Treaty can probably count on the support of national parliaments representing almost 500 million citizens.
It is reasonable to expect the remaining national parliaments to continue their ratification processes. Bergström then distinguishes between the situation where Ireland alone has rejected the Lisbon Treaty (and others move ahead, in one way or another) or if others join them (domino effect).
Bergström offers a preliminary outline of alternative solutions, in three batches:
1) Amendments without a new treaty.
2) Amendments or ‘adaptations’ in the connection of the next enlargement. New Irish position needed.
3) Later amendments (including those with deferred implementation according to the Lisbon Treaty). New Irish position needed.
Bergström’s batches sketch alternatives and outline thinking. A detailed analysis of different alternatives is offered by professor Steve Peers (Statewatch), mentioned in the 27 June 2008 post ‘Lisbon Treaty: Legal analysis of ratification, implementation and impact of non-ratification’:
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/06/lisbon-treaty-legal-analysis-of.html
***
The needs for EU reform have disappeared nowhere. States unwilling or unable to keep pace should actively search for solutions within their comfort zone and let the rest accomplish real EU reform.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 14 December 2007
EU Treaty of Lisbon now in Swedish
One hopeful step for mankind, when the quest for consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon has yielded another result.
Sieps, the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies has published a consolidated version of the Lisbon Reform Treaty of the European Union on its Swedish web page.
Now we have a Swedish updated Lisbon Treaty in addition to the English, French and Spanish consolidations I have mentioned before.
Four languages is a good start, but the EU has 23 official languages. There are still 19 language versions to produce, before we can speak of equal treatment of the citizens of the European Union.
As always, I am grateful for information on existing or forthcoming consolidated versions in different languages.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Sieps – Svenska institutet för europapolitiska studier: Ladda ned Lissabonfördraget - Konsoliderad version av EU:s fördrag (pdf); Choose the Swedish pages http://www.sieps.se
Sieps, the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies has published a consolidated version of the Lisbon Reform Treaty of the European Union on its Swedish web page.
Now we have a Swedish updated Lisbon Treaty in addition to the English, French and Spanish consolidations I have mentioned before.
Four languages is a good start, but the EU has 23 official languages. There are still 19 language versions to produce, before we can speak of equal treatment of the citizens of the European Union.
As always, I am grateful for information on existing or forthcoming consolidated versions in different languages.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Sieps – Svenska institutet för europapolitiska studier: Ladda ned Lissabonfördraget - Konsoliderad version av EU:s fördrag (pdf); Choose the Swedish pages http://www.sieps.se
Sunday, 4 November 2007
EU reform camp building
The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies Sieps is looking around for allies for budget reform within the European Union. The annual conference of the Institute, on 26 October 2007, was dedicated to The Purse of the European Union: Setting Priorities for the Future. On Tuesday, 6 November 2007, Sieps and the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) jointly host a seminar The EU Budget Review: Possibilities and Challenges for the Future.
At the Sieps conference Sweden’s EU minister Cecilia Malmström recollected that the current financial perspective of the European Union was a step in the right direction, but it was not far-reaching enough. She stressed the importance of the built-in review mechanism.
According to Malmström, citizens rightly expect the EU to use common funds well and efficiently. The Reform Treaty will lead to major improvements in this respect. The second major tool is a modern budget. The Swedish government believes that substantial reforms of EU spending – including re-prioritisation between areas of expenditure – are needed in order to achieve a budget that can contribute to the EU meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
Subsidiarity, European added value, proportionality and sound financial management are fundamental principles for a reform. The Swedish government has drawn some preliminary conclusions on the direction of the future EU policies: competitiveness, justice and home affairs, migration and asylum as well as external action.
The future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should be guided by market orientation, consumer demand, environmental concern, deregulation and reduction of budget expenditure.
The European Union could contribute with strategic coordination of regional development in the wealthiest member states, whereas the actual European funding for cohesion policy should be reduced and allocated differently in the future.
An ideal income system based on member state wealth would probably be sustainable, transparent and legitimate, but as long as the EU budget is unreformed, it would lead to disproportionate net contributions. Fair burden-sharing between member states can only be achieved if a new income system is accompanied by spending reforms, Malmström concluded.
Malmström’s speech and presentations by Iain Begg, André Sapir and Göran Färm as well as a recording of the Sieps seminar can be found on the think-tank’s web pages.
Zero-based budgeting
Sieps has initiated a debate on the European Union’s budget review 2008/9 by publishing a discussion paper ”Agenda 2014: A Zero-Base Approach” by Daniel Tarschys.
According to Tarschys zero-based budgeting has been a heavy instrument in annual budget processes, but might suit the multiannual financial framework of the EU.
Research is needed well ahead of the closing stages, when quarrels on burden sharing between member states exclude all other considerations. The European Union has a multitude of aims, but the real high-level priorities of the Union should be sifted out. The efficiency and effectiveness of Union programmes should be analysed, not only historically, but with a view to the future. The starting positions and expectations of member states should be examined. Programmes with diminishing returns still have their beneficiaries and defenders; phasing-out mechanisms and compensation packages should be planned.
The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies is showing its pro-active stance in putting the crucial questions for the future of the European on its agenda and by its efforts to build coalitions for a reform agenda. The next long term budget (financial perspective) for five or seven years from 2014 is certainly one of these crucial areas of the Union.
To get started
Here, in addition to my previous posts, are a few sources for those who want to know more about EU (budget) reform:
The present long term budget (from 2007 including 2013) of the European Union is a good starting point: ”New budget, old dilemmas” by Iain Begg and Friedrich Heinemann.
If you want to reflect on a better budget for the EU, there is no turning back from the Common Agricultural Pollicy (CAP), still the biggest area of outlay in 2007. ”Why Europe deserves a better farm policy” by Jack Thurston presents the fundamental problems.
Iain Begg sorts out the basic budget terms and looks at both the budget review of 2008/9 and the financial perspective starting in 2014 in ”The 2008/9 EU budget review”. Is it possible to find solutions better adapted to the common good?
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies: The Purse of the European Union: Setting Priorities for the Future; 26 October 2007; presentations by Cecilia Malmström, Iain Begg, André Sapir and Göran Färm; web-tv recording; http://www.sieps.se
Daniel Tarschys: Agenda 2014: A Zero-Base Approach; Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies; October 2007; http://www.sieps.se
Iain Begg & Friedrich Heinemann: New budget, old dilemmas; Centre for European Reform; 22 February 2006; http://www.cer.org.uk
Jack Thurston: Why Europe deserves a better farm policy; Centre for European Reform; December 2005; http://www.cer.org.uk
Iain Begg: The 2008/9 EU budget review; EU-Consent EU-budget Working Paper No. 3; March 2007; http://www.eu-consent.net
At the Sieps conference Sweden’s EU minister Cecilia Malmström recollected that the current financial perspective of the European Union was a step in the right direction, but it was not far-reaching enough. She stressed the importance of the built-in review mechanism.
According to Malmström, citizens rightly expect the EU to use common funds well and efficiently. The Reform Treaty will lead to major improvements in this respect. The second major tool is a modern budget. The Swedish government believes that substantial reforms of EU spending – including re-prioritisation between areas of expenditure – are needed in order to achieve a budget that can contribute to the EU meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
Subsidiarity, European added value, proportionality and sound financial management are fundamental principles for a reform. The Swedish government has drawn some preliminary conclusions on the direction of the future EU policies: competitiveness, justice and home affairs, migration and asylum as well as external action.
The future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should be guided by market orientation, consumer demand, environmental concern, deregulation and reduction of budget expenditure.
The European Union could contribute with strategic coordination of regional development in the wealthiest member states, whereas the actual European funding for cohesion policy should be reduced and allocated differently in the future.
An ideal income system based on member state wealth would probably be sustainable, transparent and legitimate, but as long as the EU budget is unreformed, it would lead to disproportionate net contributions. Fair burden-sharing between member states can only be achieved if a new income system is accompanied by spending reforms, Malmström concluded.
Malmström’s speech and presentations by Iain Begg, André Sapir and Göran Färm as well as a recording of the Sieps seminar can be found on the think-tank’s web pages.
Zero-based budgeting
Sieps has initiated a debate on the European Union’s budget review 2008/9 by publishing a discussion paper ”Agenda 2014: A Zero-Base Approach” by Daniel Tarschys.
According to Tarschys zero-based budgeting has been a heavy instrument in annual budget processes, but might suit the multiannual financial framework of the EU.
Research is needed well ahead of the closing stages, when quarrels on burden sharing between member states exclude all other considerations. The European Union has a multitude of aims, but the real high-level priorities of the Union should be sifted out. The efficiency and effectiveness of Union programmes should be analysed, not only historically, but with a view to the future. The starting positions and expectations of member states should be examined. Programmes with diminishing returns still have their beneficiaries and defenders; phasing-out mechanisms and compensation packages should be planned.
The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies is showing its pro-active stance in putting the crucial questions for the future of the European on its agenda and by its efforts to build coalitions for a reform agenda. The next long term budget (financial perspective) for five or seven years from 2014 is certainly one of these crucial areas of the Union.
To get started
Here, in addition to my previous posts, are a few sources for those who want to know more about EU (budget) reform:
The present long term budget (from 2007 including 2013) of the European Union is a good starting point: ”New budget, old dilemmas” by Iain Begg and Friedrich Heinemann.
If you want to reflect on a better budget for the EU, there is no turning back from the Common Agricultural Pollicy (CAP), still the biggest area of outlay in 2007. ”Why Europe deserves a better farm policy” by Jack Thurston presents the fundamental problems.
Iain Begg sorts out the basic budget terms and looks at both the budget review of 2008/9 and the financial perspective starting in 2014 in ”The 2008/9 EU budget review”. Is it possible to find solutions better adapted to the common good?
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies: The Purse of the European Union: Setting Priorities for the Future; 26 October 2007; presentations by Cecilia Malmström, Iain Begg, André Sapir and Göran Färm; web-tv recording; http://www.sieps.se
Daniel Tarschys: Agenda 2014: A Zero-Base Approach; Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies; October 2007; http://www.sieps.se
Iain Begg & Friedrich Heinemann: New budget, old dilemmas; Centre for European Reform; 22 February 2006; http://www.cer.org.uk
Jack Thurston: Why Europe deserves a better farm policy; Centre for European Reform; December 2005; http://www.cer.org.uk
Iain Begg: The 2008/9 EU budget review; EU-Consent EU-budget Working Paper No. 3; March 2007; http://www.eu-consent.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
