EU EU summit collapses as leaders struggle to fill €75bn Brexit hole - It's between the "Frugals" vs the "Friends of Cohesion"

EU summit collapses as leaders struggle to fill €75bn Brexit hole
States deeply divided over budget as big contributors reject plan for them to pay more
Daniel Boffey in Brussels
Fri 21 Feb 2020 19.31 GMTFirst published on Fri 21 Feb 2020 11.25 GMT

Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Charles Michel
Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Charles Michel at the EU summit. Photograph: Yves Herman/AP

A summit of EU leaders seeking to fill a €75bn hole in the bloc’s budget left by Brexit dramatically collapsed after Angela Merkel led major contributors in rejecting a proposal that would have left them paying billions more.
The meeting in Brussels was brought to an abrupt end on Friday evening with the leaders deeply divided, leaving the European council president, Charles Michel, to admit: “We need more time.”
The UK’s departure has left EU states struggling to fund plans over the next seven years to tackle the climate emergency, aid poorer regions and continue to subsidise farmers through the common agricultural policy.
The 27 heads of state and government must agree on a budget for the next seven years, and the European parliament must give its endorsement, before the end of 2020, to avoid the EU’s spending programmes grinding to a halt. “We are super, super late,” admitted one EU official.
Michel, a former prime minister of Belgium, came under fire during the summit, which started on Thursday afternoon, for aiming “far too high” with a proposed budget of 1.074% of the bloc’s gross national income (€1.094tn).
Four member states, known as the “frugals” – the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and Sweden – have insisted that the EU budget amounts to no more than 1% of the bloc’s gross national income.

They received the support of Merkel, the German chancellor, in opposing proposals that would slash the rebates they receive on their contributions, designed to ensure that the biggest contributors do not overpay.
Play Video
EU leaders express concern over filling €75bn Brexit shortfall – video
One EU diplomat said of Michel: “He wanted enough cash to buy a Range Rover; we only have the money for a Volkswagen – and worst of all he asked Mutti [Merkel] to pay for the Range Rover.”

Responding to claims from reporters that the summit had been a failure, Michel insisted that the issue had to be debated at the “highest political level” and that he now better understood the member states’ positions. “As my grandmother used to say, ‘In order to succeed we have to at least try,’” Michel said.
A late suggestion on Friday tabled by the European commission proposed to reduce the size of the additional burden on the the biggest payers, including Germany, through significant cuts in the EU’s science and research programmes. The compromise proposal would trim €10bn off a budget put forward by Michel.
Under the new plan, the four “frugal” member states and Germany would retain their rebates. France would also see increased cash for its farmers through the common agricultural policy.
The proposal failed to secure the unanimous support of the leaders, however. “That is democracy,” the European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said at a press conference at the end of the summit. “It is a good tradition in democracy to debate on the different views, the different emphases … We are not there yet, but we are in a good way.”
Merkel told reporters: “The differences were simply too big.”
Diplomats from the self-styled “friends of cohesion” grouping, consisting of the net recipients of EU cash, put the failure down to a lack of solidarity among the richest member states.
The rightwing nationalist prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, who has built much of his success on attacking Brussels, told reporters: “Our ambition isn’t only to be very strong friends of the cohesion policy, but to also be very strong friends that work together for a strong EU, and for a strong EU budget for the next period.”
During the last round of budget negotiations, it took the European council two summits to reach an agreement on the EU’s long-term spending, known as the multi-financial framework. A second summit is expected in March.

---

Looks like they have their work cut out for them. Bodes badly for the intimidate future of EU, I think.
 
Macron's delusions in the talks is understandable as those wishing to riot in Paris right now have to take a number and wait their turn, desperate men don't make sane and rational decisions.

But Spain, also in no position to make demands due to internal political strife, is saying they won't vote for a UK trade deal unless they get Gibraltar.....which isn't going to happen. The last guy who thought he had a chance at taking Gibraltar from the UK ended up strung up in front of a gas station..... and he had and army and navy of some reputability. A legacy empire that only gets heard because they have a seat at the fancy table doesn't scare anyone.

I wonder. Are they making these unreasonable and deal-sinking demands because:

A. They are so deluded from living in their Brussels bubble of hyper-bureaucracy and inflated importance for so long they can't see the demands are unreasonable? (They don't know they won't get it)

B. They are so immature that their natural reaction to not getting what they want is scolding, pouting and hollow "look tough" posturing? (they know they won't get it, but it's the optics that matter)

C. They know it's unreasonable, they are purposely inserting deal-breakers into the talks because they want the trade deal sunk? (So the UK economy will have (hopefully) such a hard go of it they'll come crawling back with hat in hand?)

Answers on a post card.

Could also be all three. There's still this curious assumption the fifth largest economy on the fucking planet somehow is going to collapse because "MUH EU". They've also just had three years of a UK Government under their own agents fucking everything up for the UK side. To be fair, when you're in charge of a tiny EU state which really would collapse if you left the EU (mostly because you're enjoying shitloads of cash from Brussels sloshing through your government) then yes.

Really we should be having a long, long fucking look at the bastards who undermined the UK's own position throughout the past three years and see if they've had any "favours" or "gifts" from other EU states if not from the EU itself. I suspect we'd be shocked by the end result.

They don't seem to understand the game has changed in a big fucking way right now. The UK managed to get the EU to remove the retarded "You're not allowed to talk to anyone else until we're done with you." caveat that was in the original transition agreement as signed by May. Changing that changes the game significantly. If the EU keeps laying on and supporting these increasingly idiotic and random demands then the less we'll find an EU deal attractive to British Interests.

Instead, signing a deal with the other 80% of the world suddenly becomes a much nicer prospect as they're unlikely to attach stealing your fish, legally acquired historical artefacts and your rightful clay since the 18th century to wanting to sell you some cars and wheat.
 
Really gets the ol’ noggin joggin when you read all those articles about how fucked the UK was for leaving. I guess the EU will have to postpone creating their military, which they only intended on using to get countries like Hungary and a Poland in line. Maybe they have to cut back on rapefugee importation schemes or even start slashing away at their massive bureaucracy. Either way, sounds like Brexit is the beginning of the end for the EU once Europeans see how the UK is not just surviving but thriving in a post-Brexit economy.
 
Why does it sound like France's economy is held together with duct tape and prayers?



I was speaking of "World Wars." WW 3 because Germany had enough of every other country owing them money and not paying them back.

I am unsure which war you would be referring to.
Because if Germany rose again it'd be the fourth rule.
 
They house the central bank that prints the currency. Money isn't a good. It's an idea.
Which is not the reason why Germany is able to keep up with their payments.

Germany has a very strong economy, the 4th largest in the world, based on technology, industry and so on, it is also the trade hub for european trade (not very surprising, it sits dab in the middle, so almost any good has to be moved through Germany).

Really we should be having a long, long fucking look at the bastards who undermined the UK's own position throughout the past three years and see if they've had any "favours" or "gifts" from other EU states if not from the EU itself. I suspect we'd be shocked by the end result.
Has anything popped up for May in that regard? People expected her to get a cushy job in Brussels for years now.

I guess the EU will have to postpone creating their military, which they only intended on using to get countries like Hungary and a Poland in line.
lolno. The EU has and for the foreseeable future will keep Hungary and Poland in line with one major tool:
Subsidies. Poland receives roughly 3% of it's annual GNI from the EU while also significantly profiting off the EU by trade and investments. 80% of their exports go to other EU members while 70% of its resources are bought from other EU members. Hungary's numbers are even higher.
Neither Poland nor Hungary are going to do anything to threaten these numbers. Whenever Poland or Hungary goes full "Fuck the EU" never forget that they still hold open both hands for those delicious EUromony subsidies. They rattle their sabres to impress their own nationalists, while meekly asking for handouts in Brussels.

If you think the EU is planing to create an army - let alone an army to suppress Poland and Hungary, net recipients of EU subsidies! - you are delusional.

Either way, sounds like Brexit is the beginning of the end for the EU once Europeans see how the UK is not just surviving but thriving in a post-Brexit economy.
This kind of comment would be appropriate if this was late October and we had a long row of failed talks behind us. As it stands, it's the first round of talks and it was to be expected that there'd be little success. The kind of doomsday nonsense in this thread is ridiculous, since it's way too early to do it.
 
There's still this curious assumption the fifth largest economy on the fucking planet somehow is going to collapse because "MUH EU".
The problem we face (and the reason leaving is ultimately necessary) is that, for the last approximately 30 years, our trade with ROW has been negotiated via the EU. There are thousands of sectoral trade agreements, framework agreements and various other trade arrangements between the EU and ROW, which we "benefit" from by our membership of the EU. When we leave, those agreements don't just automatically roll over to us; they have to be renegotiated.

The fact that the UK government hasn't directly negotiated these agreements has given the more fantasist ultras a false belief that we trade with the majority of the world on purely WTO terms, when we're actually trading through a complex set of trade agreements and treaties that will need years to replicate.

The possibility that our economy will collapse on leaving the EU is actually quite high because of this. We're governed by muppets who have no idea of the complexity of the task they're facing, who believe that they can just whisper the magic phrase "WTO rules" and everything will be hunky dory, and who think they can negotiate the replacement of more than 40 years of accumulated trade agreements and relationships in a single year.

I mean, ultimately, this entanglement, this divorce of government from the elected representatives of the people, is why the UK needs to leave. Membership has infantilised our government, stripped away our rights and handed control of our economy over to an unelected mob. A collapsing economy may well be the price we have to pay to restore this country to itself.

I do know one thing: If our economy does go under, it'll be the EU that gets the blame. Boris will see to that. Re-joining will be off the table regardless of what happens.
 
If Germany and France send all the "refugees" home, they should have enough money to replace UK's annual contributions.
If they want the EU to survive, that's what they need to do.
They probably won't but that's the only way.
It's five years too late for that. The migrants already got their roots in, and they're most certainly armed to prevent a peaceful exit.
 
If Germany and France send all the "refugees" home, they should have enough money to replace UK's annual contributions.
If they want the EU to survive, that's what they need to do.
They probably won't but that's the only way.
If Brexit leads to more strain on the EU economy and thus makes them rethink their absolutely horrendeous immigration policies, I am going to dance through the streets for a whole week.

A man can dream...
 
The problem we face (and the reason leaving is ultimately necessary) is that, for the last approximately 30 years, our trade with ROW has been negotiated via the EU. There are thousands of sectoral trade agreements, framework agreements and various other trade arrangements between the EU and ROW, which we "benefit" from by our membership of the EU. When we leave, those agreements don't just automatically roll over to us; they have to be renegotiated.

The fact that the UK government hasn't directly negotiated these agreements has given the more fantasist ultras a false belief that we trade with the majority of the world on purely WTO terms, when we're actually trading through a complex set of trade agreements and treaties that will need years to replicate.

The possibility that our economy will collapse on leaving the EU is actually quite high because of this. We're governed by muppets who have no idea of the complexity of the task they're facing, who believe that they can just whisper the magic phrase "WTO rules" and everything will be hunky dory, and who think they can negotiate the replacement of more than 40 years of accumulated trade agreements and relationships in a single year.

Problem is... there BBC "Fact Check" and all the other weird ass websites which warble on about how bad an evil and not trading on WTO rules.... are only websites which are very anti-Brexit and claim we trade with just 24 states on WTO rules.

Funny thing is... a lot of these European Agreements between states... just fucking mimic the WTO's own tariff regime and then mysteriously just don't get counted because it's totally not a WTO agreement despite the fact it's been edited with crayon and the WTO clerk wonders where copies of his tariff agreements keep going.

On top of that, a load of the "preferential" agreements the EU has are just unilateral agreements and not proper Trade Agreements and certainly not Free ones. They instead decide to fuck around with extra bureaucracy with the Economic Partnership Programs. There's a school of thought inside the UK and it's more Brexit amenable economists is to re-adopt the Unilateral Free Trade the UK enjoyed until the 1920s, relying on domestic regulation to ensure we're not sold lead filled meat.

The only trade agreements in play at the moment of any real value are South Korea (who're in tier one negotiations for a continuity trade deal) Israel (the same) and Mexico, who want to enhance our trade deal and supposedly have had a deal ready in a safe in Mexico City since late 2016.
 
Exactly as people predicted. Everyone has been taking from the top 3 contributors. Once one of the main pillars left, all of these parasitic nations won't put money in. No wonder they want the UK to sign these batshit insane trade agreements, they want a part of their cash cow back.
 
Problem is... there BBC "Fact Check" and all the other weird ass websites which warble on about how bad an evil and not trading on WTO rules.... are only websites which are very anti-Brexit and claim we trade with just 24 states on WTO rules.

Funny thing is... a lot of these European Agreements between states... just fucking mimic the WTO's own tariff regime and then mysteriously just don't get counted because it's totally not a WTO agreement despite the fact it's been edited with crayon and the WTO clerk wonders where copies of his tariff agreements keep going.

On top of that, a load of the "preferential" agreements the EU has are just unilateral agreements and not proper Trade Agreements and certainly not Free ones. They instead decide to fuck around with extra bureaucracy with the Economic Partnership Programs. There's a school of thought inside the UK and it's more Brexit amenable economists is to re-adopt the Unilateral Free Trade the UK enjoyed until the 1920s, relying on domestic regulation to ensure we're not sold lead filled meat.

The only trade agreements in play at the moment of any real value are South Korea (who're in tier one negotiations for a continuity trade deal) Israel (the same) and Mexico, who want to enhance our trade deal and supposedly have had a deal ready in a safe in Mexico City since late 2016.

Bilaterals aren't just a mimic of WTO tariff schemes; they extend far beyond tariffs and quotas, into things like customs codes, inspections, trading standards, regulatory alignment or mutual regulatory recognition, financial transfers, tax cooperation,

Don't make the mistake, either, of thinking that a comprehensive FTA is the only alternative to WTO terms. The WTO is only concerned with tariffs and import quotas. WTO schedules don't cover non-tariff barriers to trade, or really anything to do with actual trade between national economies. Quotas and import tariffs are a tiny, tiny part of trade, they're just the most obviously visible part of it at the border.

Most trade between most nations takes place in a mishmash of bilateral and multi-lateral sectoral agreements, covering on specific issues of mutual need, or concerning particular product areas. FTAs are rare, because they're so complicated and take so long to negotiate, and have a tendency to fall to pieces before they're signed.

Australia is a good example, and also an example of how the EU itself doesn't quite know what agreements it has, as they have stated categorically that the EU and Australia trade on WTO terms. They don't. Australia and the EU have a mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessment, a framework agreement that contains elements of trade cooperation (amongst other things), and currently nine operational sectoral trade agreements (mostly concerned with the import of wine and lamb), with several more on the way.

One of the things the agreement covers is the way the lamb is imported. No whole carcases, just cuts to particular standards. The slaughter of the lamb has to conform to EU standards, which requires inspections. The inspection regime is negotiated as part of the agreement. The packaging has to conform to particular standards, which is also part of the trade agreement. The agreement allows australian lamb to cross the border without costly, time-wasting customs checks, because the inspections and conformity assessments took place in Australia. This wouldn't be covered by WTO terms.

These are trade agreements that we will have to either reproduce, or preferably negotiate in terms more preferable to our own needs. It will take a long time, but reproducing them as bilaterals and sectorals means that they can be implemented piecemeal as quickly as negotiations allow (which is why they happen in the first place) instead of lingering in WTO limbo for 20 years while we try to negotiate a comprehensive FTA that likely won't even benefit us all that much when it's completed.
 
Last edited:
The possibility that our economy will collapse on leaving the EU is actually quite high because of this. We're governed by muppets who have no idea of the complexity of the task they're facing, who believe that they can just whisper the magic phrase "WTO rules" and everything will be hunky dory, and who think they can negotiate the replacement of more than 40 years of accumulated trade agreements and relationships in a single year.

"Trump can't win a trade war, the US has insufficient clout in the modern trade world to just throw their weight around and expect results. Yes, we're a top-ten world economy, but that's no longer enough. You need to have the right attitude. This talk of tariffs is last-century, he's going to wreck everything if he plays hardball with China or the EU and tells them they HAVE to give a good deal."
 
"Trump can't win a trade war, the US has insufficient clout in the modern trade world to just throw their weight around and expect results. Yes, we're a top-ten world economy, bu that's no longer enough. This talk of tariffs is last-century, he's going to wreck everything if he plays hardball with China or the EU and tells them they HAVE to give a good deal."
That isn't remotely comparable.
 
Easy solution, forced labor for unemployed working age adults, direct rule from Berlin, and a surprise attack on the Russian Federation for those sweet natural resources
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MrJokerRager
Back