The Student Room Group

EU Bloc - EU Budget regulation Treaty

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by Morgsie
OOC: RL Multiannual Financial Framework 2013-2020 proposed.

I would like to remind people that Eastern Europe recieve EU funds and there is talk of reforming the funds.


The MHoC backs reforming the funds, but this must not occur with a rise in the budget. The MHoC's position is clear and that is that there must be no rise in the budget for the next five financial years whatsoever.
Reply 21
Original post by toronto353
QFA


The Czech Republic would like to here the MHoC's views on the following:

1) 1.1 is changed to "The contributions of individual governments to the EU budget shall not rise............. "

2) 2.1 is changed to allow a rise of between 0-2% above inflation (the rise is to be decided by the EU parliment every year following 2017, along with detailed budget spending plans for next year)

3) An extra article is added to allow a pigovian style tax on carbon emissions for industry, energy and transport. The tax would have a minimum rate of 10 euro per ton of carbon, of which 5 euros (roughly 18 billion euros, or 12% of the EU budget) would go directly to the EU budget (so exempt from 1.1), and would be invested in profitable green energy projects. The other 5 euros would go to individual governments. Individual governments would also be able to raise the price of carbon in their own country above 10 euros (such as JPKC's carbon tax of £30), and all extra revenue will be kept by them.

4) The rest is unammended
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 22
Original post by stanlas
The Czech Republic would like to here the MHoC's views on the following:

1) 1.1 is changed to "The contributions of individual governments to the EU budget shall not rise............. "

2) 2.1 is changed to allow a rise of between 0-2% above inflation (the rise is to be decided by the EU parliment every year following 2017, along with detailed budget spending plans for next year)

3) An extra article is added to allow a pigovian style tax on carbon emissions for industry, energy and transport. The tax would have a minimum rate of 10 euro per ton of carbon, of which 5 euros (roughly 18 billion euros, or 12% of the EU budget) would go directly to the EU budget (so exempt from 1.1), and would be invested in profitable green energy projects. The other 5 euros would go to individual governments. Individual governments would also be able to raise the price of carbon in their own country above 10 euros (such as JPKC's carbon tax of £30), and all extra revenue will be kept by them.

4) The rest is unammended


The MHoC is willing to accept article 2 if it is made clear that the rise could also be below inflation as well. The MHoC does not accept any further EU taxes and so we won't be supporting that. The MHoC would like to ask how 1.1 is possible? Would the overall budget not rise at all then?
Reply 23
Original post by toronto353
The MHoC is willing to accept article 2 if it is made clear that the rise could also be below inflation as well.

The Czech Republic agrees, and suggests that the word "may" is retained for the 0-2% above inflation rise article.

Original post by toronto353

The MHoC does not accept any further EU taxes and so we won't be supporting that.

The Czech Republic regrets the MHoC's stance on the environment, and hopes that one day a government will see the value of collective action to tackle environmental pollution through a pigovian tax. The Czech Republic would also like clarification on the use of the word "further," as to the extent of our knowledge there are no Eu taxes in existence.

Original post by toronto353

The MHoC would like to ask how 1.1 is possible? Would the overall budget not rise at all then?


The ammendment to 1.1 would be to make it compatible with the small carbon tax. That is to say, the EU budget would no longer be the same as donations from individual countries, as about 10% of the EU budget would come from the 5 euro carbon tax.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 24
Original post by stanlas
The Czech Republic agrees, and suggests that the word "may" is retained for the 0-2% above inflation rise article.


The MHoC will agree to this.


The Czech Republic regrets the MHoC's stance on the environment, and hopes that one day a government will see the value of collective action to tackle environmental pollution through a pigovian tax. The Czech Republic would also like clarification on the use of the word "further," as to the extent of our knowledge there are no Eu taxes in existence.


The MHoC apologises for the use of the word further. To gather taxes is a step towards statehood and the EU should never take that step.



The ammendment to 1.1 would be to make it compatible with the small carbon tax. That is to say, the EU budget would no longer be the same as donations from individual countries, as about 10% of the EU budget would come from the 5 euro carbon tax.


The budget is still rising and the MHoC can not agree to this. The EU budget must be frozen.
Reply 25
Original post by toronto353
The MHoC will agree to this.

The MHoC apologises for the use of the word further. To gather taxes is a step towards statehood and the EU should never take that step.

The budget is still rising and the MHoC can not agree to this. The EU budget must be frozen.


Then the Czech Republic must offer its condolences, as it believes that this was a well written and thought out treaty, whatever its contents. However, without the minor environmental tax to make up for the contributions freeze the Czech Republic cannot support this, and shall have no choice but to veto it when the treaty goes to voting procedure. The Czech Republic should also like to point out that Portugal would probably have vetoed the treaty anyway.
Reply 26
Original post by stanlas
Then the Czech Republic must offer its condolences, as it believes that this was a well written and thought out treaty, whatever its contents. However, without the minor environmental tax to make up for the contributions freeze the Czech Republic cannot support this, and shall have no choice but to veto it when the treaty goes to voting procedure. The Czech Republic should also like to point out that Portugal would probably have vetoed the treaty anyway.


The MHoC believes that the Czech Republic has missed the point. It is the overall budget that needs to be frozen. We still wish to negotiate this, but the Czech Republic must soften her position as well. Is there any compromise that the representative could make?
Reply 27
Original post by toronto353
The MHoC believes that the Czech Republic has missed the point. It is the overall budget that needs to be frozen. We still wish to negotiate this, but the Czech Republic must soften her position as well. Is there any compromise that the representative could make?


The Czech Republic is currently considering what compromise could be offered, and is planning on talks with Portugal over the matter. We will reply to the MHoC as soon as our final position has been decided.
Reply 28
Original post by stanlas
The Czech Republic is currently considering what compromise could be offered, and is planning on talks with Portugal over the matter. We will reply to the MHoC as soon as our final position has been decided.


We look forward to your response.

OOC: Great debate by the way. If we can get this level of debate all the time in the Bloc, this would be great.
Reply 29
Original post by toronto353
We look forward to your response.

OOC: Great debate by the way. If we can get this level of debate all the time in the Bloc, this would be great.


OOC: Its a shame that their hasn't been more activity yet. And sorry, but this will probably end in a veto (as any compromise that Morgsie and I will accept would proably be too much for you); still, you probably knew that when you posted the treaty. And on the bright side you have a veto on anything that we propose.
Reply 30
OOC: Fantastic debate so far but what is concerning is a few people are actively engaged in this debate and more people should get involved. Also I have been dragged out of my comfort zone.
Reply 31
Original post by stanlas
OOC: Its a shame that their hasn't been more activity yet. And sorry, but this will probably end in a veto (as any compromise that Morgsie and I will accept would proably be too much for you); still, you probably knew that when you posted the treaty. And on the bright side you have a veto on anything that we propose.


OOC: It is and I will be sending out an update tonight including this. Hopefully it won't and I'm sure that there is a compromise that we can find. For example, we could allow up to a 3% rise in the future or a little higher if the budget were to be completely frozen.


Original post by Morgsie
OOC: Fantastic debate so far but what is concerning is a few people are actively engaged in this debate and more people should get involved. Also I have been dragged out of my comfort zone.


OOC: It's not my comfort zone either so it's fantastic that both of us have got involved. It's a shame that some of the HoC's economists who are members of the Bloc haven't got involved.
Reply 32
Original post by toronto353

QFA


After considering our position and talking briefly to Portugal, the Czech Republic has a final compromise.

1.1. should be a real terms freeze for up to 2017. The Czech Republic has consistently restated the neccesity of this, and shall continue to do so. While the Czech Republic does of course sympathise with countries which are embarking on (often unnecessary) rounds of fiscal austerity, we cannot help noticing that around 94% of the EU budget is invested directly into projects which will help ensure future growth. Thus we cannot support something which would remove the foundations for future prosperity.

The Czech Republic would also like to point out that the EU budget accounts for no more than 67 cents payment on average by European citizens, per year; this is in our opinion a very small sum to pay for ensuring future prosperity.

2.1. Should ammended to allow a rise of up to 1% per year.

3.4. Should be ammended to prevent a real terms rise in the EU budget, not an absolute one.

OOC:
In RL I would never accept such a compromise (as I'm extremly pro-EU), but as delegate of the Czech Republic I think this is a reasonable line to pursue.
Reply 33
Original post by stanlas
After considering our position and talking briefly to Portugal, the Czech Republic has a final compromise.

1.1. should be a real terms freeze for up to 2017. The Czech Republic has consistently restated the neccesity of this, and shall continue to do so. While the Czech Republic does of course sympathise with countries which are embarking on (often unnecessary) rounds of fiscal austerity, we cannot help noticing that around 94% of the EU budget is invested directly into projects which will help ensure future growth. Thus we cannot support something which would remove the foundations for future prosperity.


The MHoC notes that 6% of the budget is therefore available for cutting. The EU should also look at the growth projects and see whether they're delivering value for money. If not, then they can be cut. This is the sticking point really because the MHoC is arguing for a complete freeze during recessions. Is the Czech Republic saying that the EU can cut nothing?


2.1. Should ammended to allow a rise of up to 1% per year.


The MHoC shall accept this. If the Czech Republic accepts an absolute freeze, we would allow this to move up more though...


3.4. Should be ammended to prevent a real terms rise in the EU budget, not an absolute one.


Once again we can not accept this, but we still wish to work on this issue.

OOC:
In RL I would never accept such a compromise (as I'm extremly pro-EU), but as delegate of the Czech Republic I think this is a reasonable line to pursue.


OOC: I would be pushing for even stronger terms than this in RL i.e. no rise for a lot longer.
Reply 34
In light of the strong arguments made my other nations, the Kingdom of Denmark is reconsidering its position on this treaty. We are also concerned by the prospect that this could threaten capital expenditure projects currently sponsored by the EU, projects that we believe are vital for restoring economic growth to countries that desperately need it at this moment. The EU cannot fall back into deep recession.
The UK nominally agrees with the treaty in its proposed form.
Reply 36
Original post by rockrunride
The UK nominally agrees with the treaty in its proposed form.


The MHoC welcomes the UK's support in this matter.


Original post by JPKC
In light of the strong arguments made my other nations, the Kingdom of Denmark is reconsidering its position on this treaty. We are also concerned by the prospect that this could threaten capital expenditure projects currently sponsored by the EU, projects that we believe are vital for restoring economic growth to countries that desperately need it at this moment. The EU cannot fall back into deep recession.


The MHoC believes that efficiency savings can and must be found in the EU budget. The EU can not suggest austerity as a policy, but then not follow it.
Reply 37
Original post by JPKC
In light of the strong arguments made my other nations, the Kingdom of Denmark is reconsidering its position on this treaty. We are also concerned by the prospect that this could threaten capital expenditure projects currently sponsored by the EU, projects that we believe are vital for restoring economic growth to countries that desperately need it at this moment. The EU cannot fall back into deep recession.


The Czech Republic welcomes Denmark's commitment to capital expenditure and infrastructure projects, and hopes that Denmark does not believe the MHoC's implication that there is a lot of easy bureaucracy cuts to be made in the EU (less than 6% of the EU budget goes on bureaucracy, which compares well with national budgets).

Original post by rockrunride
The UK nominally agrees with the treaty in its proposed form.


OOC: Why are there two UK representatives?
Original post by stanlas
OOC: Why are there two UK representatives?


OOC: There aren't. Toronto is rep for the TSR HoC and reflects the consensus of the TSR Government. I represent the RL United Kingdom.
Reply 39
Original post by stanlas
The Czech Republic welcomes Denmark's commitment to capital expenditure and infrastructure projects, and hopes that Denmark does not believe the MHoC's implication that there is a lot of easy bureaucracy cuts to be made in the EU (less than 6% of the EU budget goes on bureaucracy, which compares well with national budgets).


Denmark does recognise that some savings can be made, particularly in relation to the EU Parliament's needless switching between Strasbourg and Brussels, as well as parliamentarians' expenses. We also believe that some restraint should be shown in considering any increases in the budget.

Quick Reply

Latest