|
| Discussing Financial Framework 2014-2020 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 19 2013, 06:40 AM (422 Views) | |
| Jos1311 | Jan 19 2013, 06:40 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
![]() Permanent Representative to the European Union _____ The European Council has already initiated a new negotiating round on the Multi-Annual Financial Framework for the time period 2014-2020, which preserves the balance and order of priorities of the Commission proposal but foresees significant reductions in overall amounts allocated. The Netherlands agrees that the future European budget must be a catalyst for growth and jobs, but also emphasizes that we need the right balance between investing in the right policies for growth and jobs and a shared commitment to better spending. This also means recognising the value added that our common European policies provide in tackling Europe's challenges and in enabling the Union to play its role on the international stage. This year we should lay the general foundation for the European budgets for the years to come. And while the Netherlands firmly believes in European cooperation and aims towards more cooperation between the member states, the Netherlands also will be seeking a fairer distribution of the financial commitments towards the Union. The Netherlands, together with several other member states, has already rejected the proposal of the Commission, as we find it impossible to increase European spending, while most of the member states have to reduce their general expenditures. While the current proposal of the Commission has the support from the majority of Member States and the European Parliament, we urge the other member states to seriously reconsider the proposal. The Netherlands would like to state that all member states should aim towards working constructively in finding an outcome that all Member States and the European Parliament can support. On behalf of the Netherlands I therefore call on everyone to come together in a true European spirit so that we have a European budget that represents the interest of all. The Netherlands would like to propose that the budget for 2014 and beyond will not differ that much with this year's totals, while at the same time the expenditures and revenues will be closely examined. To be more concrete we would like to propose a maximum net contribution to the European Union budget. For years various nations, such as Luxembourg, Italy, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands have been large net contributors to the budget. While the Netherlands understands this, and is more than willing to remain one of the largest net contributors to the budget, I must also state that there should be a better balance between the differences of the net contributors and receivers of the budget. A tool for this would be the introduction of regulations seeing that no nation will be net contributing more than 0.30% of its GDP. Some information on the MFF |
![]() |
|
| PolishPrince | Jan 20 2013, 06:17 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
Sir Jonathan Stephen Cunliffe, CB.Permanent Representative to the European Union _____ The United Kingdom supports this notion. Though we believe the figure suggested be revised to 0.25%, and that negotiations focus on reforms to existing policies. The CFP, CAP and others have proven to be detrimental to food stocks, to our national economy and which have increased the living cost of millions of families across the nation. We agree that there is a real need to focus on growth and regeneration of many areas within Europe, but we think the right place to help nurture growth is to abolish many of the rules and regulations which have been put in place with the best of intentions; but which have ultimately failed. Once we find an effective regulation balance, we believe it will be considerably easier to encourage growth. Edited by PolishPrince, Jan 22 2013, 09:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Kaiverus | Jan 20 2013, 01:57 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
![]() Peter Tempel Permanent Representative to the EU The resolution of the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework should be the European Council's primary goal at the moment since it will set the priorities for the EU in the medium term. Growth and responsible spending need to guide the drafting of the budget just as they have guided our national governments to formulate their budgets. Our governments have already met several times in the past six months over the MFF, and I think the last meeting, in November, was especially helpful in coming to a final agreement. As such, I think our current negotiation should be based on President van Rompuy's proposal drafted with the changes from our November meeting. With a 30 billion cut from the original proposal, it contains the more effective spending of the money the EU receives while containing many of the cuts that many of us wanted, including the UK. The Common Agriculture Policy and Cohesion Fund have been modified to reflect the makeup of the current EU. Germany is especially fond of the new "transitional region" designation for the regions that have made significant improvements with help from the Cohesion Fund but need a little more help to continue to make progress in economic development. The cuts in MFF should ameliorate the concerns of disproportionate contributions when each country contributes less money overall. Germany can support the Dutch proposal of limiting net contribution of each country to 0.30% of GDP because that would effect very little of the contributions to the budget but is a good principle for the future. While the British proposal may be feasible, Germany fears that such a drastic limit in contributions may require funding from other sources that we cannot support, but there are certainly some regulations, especially in administrative overhead of programs, that should be cut. In these negotiations, we must remember to be pragmatic as these policies we are deliberating affect all of Europe. OOC: Will just the four EU players need to approve of the budget? If we don't have to worry about some of the troublemakers or the EP, this may be really easy. |
![]() |
|
| Tacojoemeru | Jan 21 2013, 02:36 PM Post #4 |
|
Philippe Etienne, Permanent French Representative to the European Union France would agree with the Representative of the United Kingdom that reforms should be made to EU policy in regards to regulations and items of note that may be inhibiting the growth of economies across Europe. We must also ensure however that the funds from the future budgets are used as effectively as possible while minimizing wasted funds and unnecessary expenditure. OOC: I suppose they could be RPed by the avs, however with Jos being both I don't know how well it'd work. I vote for just us! |
![]() |
|
| PolishPrince | Jan 22 2013, 09:07 AM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Sir Jonathan Stephen Cunliffe, CB.Permanent Representative to the European Union _____ The United Kingdom believes that the figure we proposed is reasonable, there are two major point of contention which irk our electorate. The first is the enormous amounts of money which we sent to the European Union and the second is the meddling inherent in the never ending stream of (over) regulation which flows from Brussels. As most of you are undoubtedly aware, there will be a referendum within the United Kingdom which may very well see the United Kingdom depart the European Union. Should this happen, and it is a very real possibility, the Union will have to make do without any contribution from the UK taxpayer. Therefore I would advise my colleagues to reconsider my recommendation. We truly must do a lot of work over the coming days, weeks and months if we are to change the perception my electorate has towards the EU. Without these radical changes, the UK will almost certainly be leaving the Union. ((OOC: I'm vetoing that idea, just to please the electorate xD. Seriously though, I think any nations which don't have a vote should be classed as an abstain. Unless there are extenuating circumstances and the admins need to NPC them)) |
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | Jan 22 2013, 09:49 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
![]() Permanent Representative to the European Union _____ While The Hague favors to see the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, the Netherlands also believes that the current British position should be constructive rather than pedantic. The Hague will refuse to let the United Kingdom use its possible exit, as a manner to dictate its views to the rest of the European Union. That discussion can be carried elsewhere, however I will not allow it to dominate these talks, as these talks are about the future budgets of the European Union. The Hague is willing to talk about a possible further reduction for the United Kingdom, however what is the United Kingdom going to provide in return for a British abatement to the general regulations? The Hague finds the proposal made by President van Rompuy a good start, however would, in these troubled economic times, prefer more resources will be allocated towards the budget for "Investment for growth and Jobs", while the commitment appropriations for the heading “Sustainable growth: Natural resources” should be kept at its current level. Besides this the Netherlands also would like to initiate a investigation into increasing the efficiency of European Administration and the creation of a European register of directors of companies and public officials that have committed fraud. These last two matters will most likely also assist in creating a public image of the European Union taking complaints by the public seriously, and could also change the perception of people towards the European Union. Spoiler: click to toggle
|
![]() |
|
| PolishPrince | Jan 22 2013, 01:14 PM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Sir Jonathan Stephen Cunliffe, CB.Permanent Representative to the European Union _____ We do not consider our position to be that of a pedant. Thanks to the decisions taken by Prime Minister Cameron, there is a very real possibility that our time here is far shorter than one would have thought only a few days ago. Therefore it is of unparalleled importance that I do everything within my power to right the wrongs of this institution, so that the electorate back home may be more inclined towards voting to remain in the Union. Regardless of the referendum which is due in August of this year, we are unlikely to leave the Union for the next two or three years. So until that point, until the very moment we leave the Union, I shall continue to stand here and say that we must reform the CAP, the CFP and there must be an audit of the Union's accounts. A full and frank audit must be done to assess the true levels of corruption. With specific regards to this budget, I shall not support any figure above 0.27%. That is a rise from my initial suggestion of 0.25%, but that is as high as I am prepared to support. |
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | Jan 22 2013, 01:25 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
![]() Permanent Representative to the European Union _____ The level stated by my British counterpart is non-realistic. If Britain is however unwilling to pay more than such a level, I am willing to discuss the possibilities of an abatement for the United Kingdom. However Britain will need to offer something in return. I ask my British counterpart what Britain can provide in return for said abatement, while I also ask the other member states whether or not they would stand positive towards such a solution. While The Hague indeed would like to pay less contribution to the European Union, I also believe that I should remain realistic on said matters and a general ceiling of 0.27 percent of GDP is at the moment not realistic, as it would create either a severe budget deficit, or would require massive cuts. And in time of economic hardship, I believe this to be unwise, to state the least. |
![]() |
|
| PolishPrince | Jan 23 2013, 06:12 AM Post #9 |
![]()
|
Sir Jonathan Stephen Cunliffe, CB.Permanent Representative to the European Union _____ My government and I do not consider such a figure to be so unrealistic. This equates to a $676m saving for the long suffering British taxpayer, or to put it humanise the figure; that is thousands of British troops, police officers and teachers still in employment by the end of the year. So I shall repeat that 0.27% is the absolute highest we will go on the matter. |
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | Jan 23 2013, 09:16 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
![]() Permanent Representative to the European Union _____ You have made it clear that Britain does not want to pay more than that amount. I have offered an abatement to Britain to ensure that they will not pay more than the level, however it is unrealistic to cap all current net contributors to this level. It would mean that the annual EU budget will have to be cut by billions, a matter that we do not support at this time. While I agree that the efficiency of the EU needs to be increased, I cannot agree with such large cuts, also as the other member states would most likely not agree to such a proposal. To be clear we are willing to offer Britain an abatement to the requested level, but I would like to hear from the other members what they believe of such a proposal. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 1 · Next Topic » |








Sir Jonathan Stephen Cunliffe, CB.


6:10 AM Jul 11
