EU civil war: Austria spearheads opposition to bloc’s post-Brexit budget hike

bradlux

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
12
Austrian finance minister Eduard Muller said the EU would need to tighten its belt after Britain, which makes an annual contribution of more than £13billon, leaves the bloc, rather than simply expecting everyone else to pay more. The Commission yesterday affirmed the figure at a meeting in Brussels yesterday, relating to the amount each member state is expected to pay into the EU’s multi-annual budget, which runs from 2021 to 2027.
Speaking prior to the meeting, Mr Muller warned: “A smaller EU has to manage with a smaller budget.
Austria, together with the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, sometimes dubbed the “Frugal Four”, are all net contributors to the EU budget, and all four have voiced concerns about being expected to pay more into the pot.
Speaking in the European Parliament last week, designated EU Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn said the 1.1 percent figure was the minimum given the priorities being planned for by Mrs von der Leyen in such areas as climate change and migration.
 


recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,971
Of the "frugal 4" Austrians are the most miserly of all. Tighter than a fish's hole.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,900
Austrian finance minister Eduard Muller said the EU would need to tighten its belt after Britain, which makes an annual contribution of more than £13billon, leaves the bloc, rather than simply expecting everyone else to pay more. The Commission yesterday affirmed the figure at a meeting in Brussels yesterday, relating to the amount each member state is expected to pay into the EU’s multi-annual budget, which runs from 2021 to 2027.
Speaking prior to the meeting, Mr Muller warned: “A smaller EU has to manage with a smaller budget.
Austria, together with the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, sometimes dubbed the “Frugal Four”, are all net contributors to the EU budget, and all four have voiced concerns about being expected to pay more into the pot.
Speaking in the European Parliament last week, designated EU Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn said the 1.1 percent figure was the minimum given the priorities being planned for by Mrs von der Leyen in such areas as climate change and migration.
Sounds like the normal politics that occurs around budget time as politicians hammer out a deal.

The apocalyptic OP title is just hysteria.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,614
They’re not wrong though. The loss of a big net contributer should result in a pause of on boarding weaker nations who will require a huge amount of investment and a general tightening of belts, at least until the medium term impact of brexit is assessed.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,900
They’re not wrong though. The loss of a big net contributer should result in a pause of on boarding weaker nations who will require a huge amount of investment and a general tightening of belts, at least until the medium term impact of brexit is assessed.
The EU doom-mongers are a bottle of flatulence.

It was put up to them in an election and they failed, in every single country.

Yes, there are problems in the way, but the signal from European voters is that they want the EU get on with it. And not to hear some idiot crying "Wolf!" at every step.
 

tsarbomb

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
5,092
OP is over the top however...

Britain leaving the EU creates a big hole in the bloc's finances for this budget. If you raise the amount raised in taxes to fund the various EU-run projects, then net contributors will naturally enough be annoyed. If you lower funding for these projects then the countries that are net recipients will be annoyed. Not too difficult to understand.

Since we're no longer net recipients we should be against any increase in the level of contributions. We need to keep our cash to build houses and transport infrastructure.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,561
Twitter
No
Of the "frugal 4" Austrians are the most miserly of all. Tighter than a fish's hole.
Vienna is also a major money laundering centre for Eastern European criminal gangs.

Contrary to Sir Dead Lenihan's attempt to say that the 'bondholders' behind nominee companies in Vienna and other states were little old ladies with their budgie food money, they are in their hole, and the Lenihans would know that well enough.

How do you think that limp biscuit Conor Lenihan ended up with a handy job at the Skolkovo Institute outside Moscow? It wasn't for his skills with Russian language, literature or technology he was hired.

That's the keen intellectual who was I think a junior minister for science and technology and guest of honour at a Creationist book launch.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,586
They’re not wrong though. The loss of a big net contributer should result in a pause of on boarding weaker nations who will require a huge amount of investment and a general tightening of belts, at least until the medium term impact of brexit is assessed.
But you are dealing here with politicians hooked on "endless" taxpayers money.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,284
Twitter
No
They're right, I mentioned way back that with the second biggest payer-in sadly leaving, the rest of us have to spend less or chip in more.

This is the chance to drop - the "eu army" (read: french defence sales)

- the eu diplomatic corps (we've got one already)

- the new gps system when we have one already

- Cern

- cut back on "overseas aid" (read: the french empire, version trois)


.... and start spending more on real live europeans
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,561
Twitter
No
That's an interesting take and analysis on the choices ahead of Brussels, whether consciously or subconsciously. Brussels could choose to emerge from the Brexit crisis with an opportunity formed out of adversity.

I find it a compelling thought, that the EU project may have to go on something of a hearts and minds operation around its own existence. Brexit has done Brussels a huge favour in one way, and that is that the coverage of the strains between nation and supranational organisation such as the EU may well have bought them a large measure of thought around Europe about this area, a debate that had previously been actively suppressed by governments within the EU and by the EU itself avoiding instinctively anything that looked like a debate in this area.

Brexit may have firmed up a lot of otherwise passive thinking among Europeans (and we are all Europeans geographically, including the British) about these matters.

Somewhat ironically the Brexiteers in their calamitously thuggish way may have firmed up support for the EU project in the other 27 nations, and the nervous fence sitters may be viewing leaving the EU now as a national risk factor having seen the capers at Westminster, in the courts and the divisive and polarising effect of their type of politics.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,284
Twitter
No
It was the eu that suggested the 2 strand approach, a withdrawal agreement and a trade agreement. That allowed for 2 things to go wrong.

Granted, the numbers at westminster have done may and bojo no favours.

But the basic reminder to the eu is not to spend on cern and Gnss, and start to make peoples' lives better. People vote, and cern / gnss will get no votes.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,561
Twitter
No
Well, I'm a bit dismayed at the CERN experiment comment as I'm something of a science groupie, completely unqualified to follow the high physics involved but understanding enough to be excited about the hunt for the Higgs boson. So I might well place more importance on CERN than others, I recognise.

I would be pro-European in approach, unwilling to surrender nationalism without a much better argument for Federalisation presented by Brussels. Austria is something of a problem in governance and transparency around financial matters with its constitutional guarantee for confidentiality for nominee companies.

That is something of a brass plaque invitation to money laundering for organised crime and there are signs that Vienna has been a major pipeline for dirty money washing onwards into the European banking system.

I think exposure to a period of austerity for the EU project and a chance to catch a breath and discuss future direction is probably a good thing right now for the European federal project.
 

Apple in Eden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,718
That's an interesting take and analysis on the choices ahead of Brussels, whether consciously or subconsciously. Brussels could choose to emerge from the Brexit crisis with an opportunity formed out of adversity.

I find it a compelling thought, that the EU project may have to go on something of a hearts and minds operation around its own existence. Brexit has done Brussels a huge favour in one way, and that is that the coverage of the strains between nation and supranational organisation such as the EU may well have bought them a large measure of thought around Europe about this area, a debate that had previously been actively suppressed by governments within the EU and by the EU itself avoiding instinctively anything that looked like a debate in this area.

Brexit may have firmed up a lot of otherwise passive thinking among Europeans (and we are all Europeans geographically, including the British) about these matters.

Somewhat ironically the Brexiteers in their calamitously thuggish way may have firmed up support for the EU project in the other 27 nations, and the nervous fence sitters may be viewing leaving the EU now as a national risk factor having seen the capers at Westminster, in the courts and the divisive and polarising effect of their type of politics.
17.4 million thugs asshole!!
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,586
They're right, I mentioned way back that with the second biggest payer-in sadly leaving, the rest of us have to spend less or chip in more.

This is the chance to drop - the "eu army" (read: french defence sales)

- the eu diplomatic corps (we've got one already)

- the new gps system when we have one already

- Cern

- cut back on "overseas aid" (read: the french empire, version trois)


.... and start spending more on real live europeans
I'd suggest more needs to be spent on defense. We can't rely on the US.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,586
The EU doom-mongers are a bottle of flatulence.

It was put up to them in an election and they failed, in every single country.

Yes, there are problems in the way, but the signal from European voters is that they want the EU get on with it. And not to hear some idiot crying "Wolf!" at every step.
These aren't "doom mongers ". This is a democratic government rightly demanding better oversight of their taxpayers money. Emmanuel Macron has also that enlargement must be halted for the time being until Brexit is assessed. He is not a doom monger.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,561
Twitter
No
I think that may be a useful thing. Brexit seems to have brought the whole European debate into focus for a lot of people and may be in the end a positive thing politically and culturally. It may have the effect of strengthening pro-European conviction and remind people what sort of gambles exist in leaving the EU.

Brexit is bad politically, economically and even socially for the EU but perhaps now people will focus a little more on the debate about the future of the EU.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top