Writing on 18th October, Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies called for the European Union to cut its spending, just as national governments across Europe are having to do.
While George Osborne is proposing his cuts package to the House of Commons, Euro-MPs are likely to be voting on the first round of the annual EU budget debate. It seems certain that the European Parliament will end up supporting an increase above the rate of inflation, with our own institution seeking 5.5% more spending “to meet the additional costs of implementing the Lisbon Treaty.”
It is bound to prompt the question of whether MEPs are living in the same political world as their colleagues in national capitals. They – and some British Lib Dem MEPs may be amongst them – claim that the money is needed to meet extra tasks the EU is expected to undertake, and anyway “it’s just a negotiating position.” I think it is madness. The budget of the European Parliament could be trimmed very significantly without any diminution in its functions; it’s called “living within your means”, and our councillors have been doing it for years. The difference is that MEPs are not responsible for raising the money they want to spend.
The majority approach in Parliament will be to contest virtually all cuts proposed by the European Council (the governments), even when money is going unspent, on the grounds that the cash could be put to use somehow. But there are some cuts I would like to see made. For example, the Council is proposing to cut Common Fisheries Policy support by €140 million; cutting a budget used to support unsustainable fishing practices sounds good to me.
The European Liberal Democrat (ALDE) Group will be proposing various sensible amendments but whether they are carried or defeated is likely then to support the budget proposals in the final vote. As whip for the British delegation I have to try and maintain unity, but my every inclination is to vote against any increase above inflation at the very least. The alternative doesn’t seem politically credible.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Steffan Aquarone's Commons debate on coastal communities
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Getting the basics right
Joseph Bourke
Stephen Nash
Margot Wilson
Suzanne Fletcher
Mick Taylor
4 Comments
It is astonishing that the EU are asking for a budget increase at a time when government expenditure of many of the member states is being cut. There have been riots in Greece and ongoing riots in France against these cuts. Ireland is in an impossible financial position, Spain and Portugal are suffering badly along with the UK.
The EU need to make it very clear what extra services they are going to provide with the extra money, but before this perhaps they should make sure that there are none of its budgets which can be cut at this time of general austerity. The fact that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for 15 years in a row does not inspire great confidence that the budget they presently have is spent wisely.
http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2009/11/the-eu-accounts-donkeys-dope-and-billions-of-your-dosh-wasted.html
Perhaps the expenses of MEPs should be an area for immediate investigation. Nigel Farage of UKIP reckons that his expenses package is worth £2m. No doubt he is taking advantage of every allowance available – but is he alone?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/24/mps-expenses-ukip-nigel-farage
Well done Chris. The EU should cut its cloth to suit the times. Carrying on as if it is ‘business as usual’ is politically inept.
I entirely agree that the EU budget should be cut in line with the average reduction in public expenditure across the Union. You need to have a firm formula for this, not just a gesture. You also need a strategy for the issue of the UK rebate, because going down this line on our own may excite attack. No problem in that, but one needs an overall concept of what we think the EU own resources should look like and how they should be sourced. I would be interested to hear what you think that should be. Finally, you need to explain why we are not contributing to the Euro bail-out fund when Sweden, Poland etc and Denmark, who, like us, has an open-ended opt out. Strong principles of fiscal and monetary and regulatory rectitude are one thing, political grand-standing is another.
I appreciate that this article is no longer on the front page, but why are there so few comments – particularly in light of today’s developments which imply that the increase will be restricted to 2.9% costing UK taxpayers £400m at a time when the UK austerity budget is predicted to cause real hardship to British citizens?
Why isn’t there a determined attempt to identify the reasons the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for 15 years and to rectify those areas of, what must be presumed as, waste? Why isn’t there an outcry against the MEP expense system which allows great abuse? Why isn’t the Telegraph leading this campaign after their impact on UK MPs expenses?