Policy Sections
Mini Sections
The UK presidency made an 864 billion euro deal at the EU summit in December 2005, which Parliament then managed to top up with an extra 4 billion euros on 4 April. This political agreement is set to get a final green light on 17 May.
The overall budget deal, reached in the early hours of 17 December, raised the 2007-2013 budget to 862.3 billion euros, or 1.045 percent of EU Gross National Income. Compared to the Luxembourg June 2005 compromise it is still a decrease of 22 billion euros.
During the European Council on 16-17 June 2005, EU leaders had failed to reach an agreement. A row between Britain and France over the UK's yearly budget rebate were among the major stumbling blocks as was the size of the payments of other net-contributing countries to the EU budget.
The EU's 'financial perspective' defines the framework for the Community's budget priorities over a period of several years. It describes over different budget headings the maximum amounts (ceilings) of commitment appropriations (financial commitments) for each year. It is not a fixed multi-annual budget per se. The annual budget procedure
still determines the actual level of expenditure and the breakdown between the various budget headings.
There have been three financial perspectives up to now:
(Agenda 2000). President Romano Prodi presented the Commission's Communication "A prosperous Europe: political timetable and budgetary resources for an enlarged EU, 2007-2013" to the plenary session of the European Parliament on 10 February 2004.
The Commission's proposal starts from three long-term political priorities:
In order to have the financial means to reach these political goals, the Commission is calling for an average spending level of 1.14 per cent over the seven-year period. Although the expenditure levels will increase in the first phase (due to enlargement), by the end of the period, in 2013, the budget needed would reach 143.1 billion euros. Over the whole period, the amounts needed will stay below the current financial ceiling of 1.24 per cent of GNI (gross national income).
Furthermore, the Commission has proposed re-arranging the structure of the current financial perspective into five budgetary headings:
In order to give "fair treatment for all Member States", the Commission proposed a generalised correction mechanism, which should "correct a budgetary burden deemed excessive in relation to a country's relative prosperity".
On the basis of the last compromise proposal presented by Luxemburg, EU leaders were close to a deal during the summit in June. But a stubborn position by the Netherlands (which had experienced a 'no vote' in its referendum on the constitution a few weeks earlier) and the UK's refusal to have its yearly rebate frozen and phased out later became the stumbling blocks of this dossier.
UK Prime Minister Blair insisted that his country would be unwilling to give up the rebate as long as the other countries oppose any further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The British argue that it is unjustified that CAP expenditures account for about 40% of the EU budget whereas the farm sector only provides 5% of jobs in the EU. The UK and other countries would like to see more money spent on issues related to the EU's economic competitiveness and growth.
,COM(2004) 101 final (10 Febr. 2004) [FR]
[DE]
, COM(2004) 505 final (14 July 2005) [FR]
[DE]
[FR]
[DE]
(Temporary committee - report Böge, March 2005) [FR]
[DE]
[FR]
[DE]
(27 April 2005)
(July 2003)
(8 Nov. 2005)
(28 Oct. 2005) [FR]
[DE]
(March 2005)
(15 December 2003)
(Seminar in Helsinki, 27-28 Febr. 2003)
(10 Febr. 2004)
(2 Febr. 2005)
(May 2004)
(2005)
(Daniel Gros - Stefano Micossi, Febr. 2005)
(March 2005)
(Briefing note Febr. 2004)
(commentary by Guillaume Durand) (17 March 2004)
(13 Febr. 2004)
(2005) [DE]
(Febr. 2004)
(A. Kengyel; June 2004)
(Alan Mayhew - Oct. 2004)
[FR]
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
France
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Turkey
Del.icio.us
Digg It
Technorati
Europeans challenge Europe