An Emergency EU Budget

The Commission will table an emergency EU budget - a "supplementary amending budget" - to plug an estimated €10 billion funding gap across several EU projects, including Erasmus and the European Social Fund. Erasmus is probably one of the EU's most famous projects, funding the exchange of European students across the continent, but the European Social Fund is meant to deal with employment, and is linked with the Lisbon Strategy:

"In order to support the Lisbon Strategy the ESF adopted the following priorities in the 2000-2006 period:

• active labour market policies to combat and prevent unemployment
• equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market
• improved training and education, as part of a lifelong learning policy to improve access to the labour market, maintain employability, and promote job mobility;
• a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and new forms of work organisation
• entrepreneurship and conditions facilitating job creation"

The ESF takes up around 10% of the EU's budget, so to have such a key area "insolvent since the beginning of the month" is clearly a big problem.

The European Parliament has also backed the Commission's budget proposals for a 6.8% increase for the next 5 year budget, compared to the Council's position of an increase of 2.8%. It's been argued that the Lisbon Treaty and the projects voted for by the Council has added to the expense, while the Member States are unwilling to pay for the policies they bring in on a European level. The Member States have argued that the EU shouldn't increase its budget at a time of austerity.

It should be noted that the 6.8% increase in the budget would be an extra €9 billion - and if the EU's struggling to cover a gap of €10 billion in the budget, it's hard to see how programmes on employment and regional development won't be affected. The regional funds and funds aimed at aiding employment - like the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund - help the poorer and more crisis-hit countries in the EU. EU budget austerity will end up hurting those countries and regions that need it most, as modest as the help can be when the budget is only 1% of the EU's GDP.

Whether or not you agree with EU austerity, I think there is a good argument for adapting the timing of the EU's 5 year budget plan ("Multi-annual Financial Framework") to bring it closer to the European Parliament election cycle. Passing the budget is a main task of the Parliament, and if cuts or increases are to be made, then making it a more prominent part of the election campaign would bring more legitimacy to the process.

Member States v the Commission: the contradiction behind the EU budget

Member States reacted with shock that the Commission proposed a 6.8% increase for the EU budget, and the Commission argued it is necessary for the EU to be able to meet the commitments it has already made.

Really, it seems there's a contradiction between how the Member States act in the Council, and how they act outside it. In the Council they're open to all sorts of ideas and are trying to secure funding for themselves (the fight to retain structural funds and CAP money will begin in earnest if it hasn't already - Irish MEPs have already started to voice concerns over CAP).

Lately this kind of attitude can be seen in the UK's approach to the proposed EU PNR Directive, which will require the collection of data on all passengers flying into and out of the EU for the purposes of fighting crime and terrorism. The UK Minister for Immigration said to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee that they managed to get agreement in the Council for the proposal to permit Member States to collect PNR data for intra-EU flights and for other modes of transport if they wanted. On the question of depersonalising data gathered that has been stored for other 2 years (to limit the data the government holds on people), the Committee reports:

"Whilst UK experience suggests most requests for access to full PNR data will be made within the initial two year period, the Minister recognises that the requirement to mask data (rather than to archive it in accordance with existing practice in the UK) will have operational and cost implications for which the UK may seek EU funding. [Emphasis mine]."

The UK is a major supporter and player behind EU security legislation, and if it feels that it could summit applications for EU funding over these issues, the question has to be: where does the money come from? There are far more Member States which do not have any PNR system in place at all and would have to create their own if this Directive passes - should they get funding as well? This application might not yet have been made, but if Member States are caught in a culture where commitments - and funding applications - are easily made, but little thought is given to how they will be paid for, then perhaps its better to turn to a system of own resources, where the EU raises its own funds, within limits and subject to the consent of the Council and EP.

The more the institutions have responsibility for raising funding as well as spending money - and the more we can hold them directly accountable for it - the more pressure there will be to rationalise what the money will be used for.

Our Commissioner, for a given value of "our"...

The Commissioner for Financial Programming and Budget, Janusz Lewandowski, has been held up by the ruling Civic Platform Party in Poland as a means of getting the country a lot more money from the EU budget:

"Speaking in a wood-panelled room among fellow Civic Platform members, Lewandowski says: "We're talking about billions, even 300 billion zloty [€69 billion]. Thanks to this money we could reduce youth unemployment, even by half."

Fellow party member and foreign minister Radek Sikorski then pops up, adding: "That's what these elections are about. They are about money for Poland and who will get more of it. Why do we think we will do better? Because we have a strong team [gestures to Lewandowski] which can negotiate successfully.""

This has raised questions over the Commissioner's oath of independence, which Commissioners give when they are sworn into office to pledge that they will work in the general interest, and remain independent of national governments. EUObserver has reported that the Commission asserts that this was in line with the Commission's Code of Conduct:

"Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen on Tuesday (20 September) said he did not cross the line because his remarks were of a "general" nature.

"The president [Barroso] is aware of the participation of the commissioner in this specific activity and it's our opinion that the commissioner, who intervened in a personal capacity, passed a very general message about the benefits of the general budget to Poland ... This activity, for which the commission punctually gave its agreement, is compatible with the code of conduct," she said."

Having a "national Commissioner" is a big issue. While there are far too many Commissioners, reatining one per Member State is a sticking point that is unlinkely to go away soon - the prospective loss of a Commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years was a major reason for the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in the first referendum, despite equal treatment of the proposed rotation of Commissioners between big and small Member States. Though the Commissioners may swear independence (you can find the oath as a PDF here), they are generally held to be a national voice in the College of Commissioners.

At the moment Commissioners are nominated by national governments,* accepted by the Commission President elect, and elected by the European Parliament (as part of the Commission as a whole), with the Commission being accountable to the EP between elections. The independence of the Commission, and the indivdual Commissioners could be strengthened by bringing an end to the national nominations. So while there could still be one Commissioner per Member State, the choice of who the Commissioner actually is would be for the Commission President and the Parliament to decide. However, this would require a treaty change.

*The Council adopts a list of Commissioners based on the suggestions of Member States which are effectively Member State nominations in practice. (Art. 17(7) TEU.

No National European Vision

In the EUobserver today, there's an article on Barroso's response to the Eurobarometer results. Barroso says that the member state governments have failed to defend the European project during the crisis:

""I admit that we should do more together in order to give confidence to citizens and consumers. But I also want to tell the truth: We won't solve the problems unless each nation sees the European project as its own," the Portuguese politician said.

"In fact this is not the case now. When things go well it's their merit and when they go wrong it's Brussels' fault," he added."

It's a tough position for the EU institutions, because it is hard for them to communicate with the public - hard to get information and debate on what's going on in the institutions into the mass media. The long process of passing legislation that is often technical does not help win column space in the newspapers. So I appreciate the difficulty that the institutions have in informing people about what the EU does, and the dependence of the EU on the member states to inform their citizens about the EU. However, I agree with Gawain Towler that it's not really the member states' role to promote the EU (though I don't agree with his other conclusions).

It would be nice if the national governments were candid about the good and bad work they do around the Council table, but it is unlikely to happen. Member state governments don't fall or get re-elected based on their Council voting record. Apart from that, national parties aren't designed for European politics and issues - quite simply, national parties are designed to get members elected to national office. A conflict negotiation lecturer I had in university highlighted this through referendums - generally civil society is better at running referendum campaigns because parties are more suited to getting people elected on broad policy platforms. Which is another reason why I support the PES Primaries Campaign: because making executive elections matter forces the issues of policy more clearly, and the transnational party bodies (and their national member-parties) have a clearer interest in explaining their voting records and policies. Though it is, in a way, simplistic to target institutional conditions, if these aren't changed, there will remain an in-built disincentive for explanation and debate over policy.

That's one way of promoting a "national European vision" and encouraging people to discuss what kind of policies and cooperation they want, if indeed they want it. It's all very well saying that national parties need to promote the European project - but, let's face it, it hasn't happened yet, and if things stay the same it will remain unlikely. Less blame, more ideas, please.