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.
 
That isn't remotely comparable.

Because? .... the sentiment is the same: a top tier world economy can't possibly renegotiate complex deals in their favor, because it's too complex a task for the buffoons the people just elected.....
 
Because? .... the sentiment is the same: a top tier world economy can't possibly renegotiate complex deals in their favor, because it's too complex a task for the buffoons the people just elected.....
The difference is that our lot haven't negotiated a trade agreement since the 70s. We haven't been an independent actor since we joined the EEC; we don't have the institutional experience of it any more.

This isn't criticism levelled out of resentment or a wish to get back to the EU. If you'd actually paid attention to my post instead of just looking for a quick dopamine hit, you'd see that I was all for leaving. I voted leave. I've voted tory since I could vote. I'm glad we're getting out.

What I was discussing is the fact that our political class either do not understand what they are facing, or are lying about it; this is obvious by the way they put forward the belief that, because the UK hasn't negotiated any trade agreements for decades, and because the EU hasn't negotiated a bunch of comprehensive FTAs with every country on earth, that most trade therefore takes place under WTO rules. It doesn't. It takes place under a melange of bilaterals and multilaterals that can be as small as what additives are allowed in wine or which ports particular categories of goods should travel through, or as comprehensive as necessary for the particular areas under discussion.

Trump used the threat of tariffs against countries that the US has an existing, deep and comprehensive trade relationship with, in order to bring them back to the negotiating table. The UK, when it leaves the EU, won't have that relatioship. The deals under which we currently trade were negotiated by the EU, with very little input from our national government for decades. Trade is "easy" for us because we don't actually take part in it any more, we just applied the union customs code as written while the EU took care of all the actual negotiations. That framework is about to be ripped away.

Again, as I have said many times, this is why we should never have been in the EU in the first place. It has reduced our political class to the point where they appear incapable of addressing even relatively simple ideas.
 
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.

I could see the UK adopting unilateral free trade, i.e. zero MFN tariffs for a time-limited period and then telling everyone that tariffs will go up and they'd best sign a free trade agreement if they don't want to be nailed by them.
 
Because? .... the sentiment is the same: a top tier world economy can't possibly renegotiate complex deals in their favor, because it's too complex a task for the buffoons the people just elected.....
This time the boy cried "tiger" which is obviously very different than "wolf".
 
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.

The EU has always been a Fairweather union. Sure, everyone involved talks a big game about lasting peace and their commitment to the project, the second the chips are down they revert to nationalism. See, e.g. the Greek economic crisis. The Greeks are immediately excoriated as being lazy tax Dodgers, and they respond by painting Germans as imperialist scum and demanding WWII war reparations.

It was never going to last, and it was worth leaving just for that reason.
 
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.

Fourth Reich, I believe.


The first Reich was best.


Motherfucking Russia and Turkey have better claims of being the Third Reich than Germany.

The First Reich was the HRE, not Rome.
 
Fourth Reich, I believe.


The first Reich was best.




The First Reich was the HRE, not Rome.
Second Reich was clearly superior. First Reich collapsed due to being hilariously divided after all, rather than being screwed over because all its allies were exceptional and had to constantly be bailed out.
 
First Reich lasted a thousand years. Second Reich lasted 47 years, was half as big, never scared the Pope, and ended because its retarded leaders declared war on most of the world at the same time.


Third Reich is clearly lamest, obv.
 
First Reich lasted a thousand years. Second Reich lasted 47 years, was half as big, never scared the Pope, and ended because its exceptional leaders declared war on most of the world at the same time.


Third Reich is clearly lamest, obv.
Second Reich created the most scientific advancement, was on its way to becoming a superpower, and scared the shit out of the four superpowers of its day. It fought against each one, and held out in by far the most one-sided war since the War of the Triple Alliance.

Realistically the HRE ceased to be a thing by 1648, and even before then probably ceased to have actual political clout by the mid 15th Century.
 
First Reich provided alternate source of legitimacy from the Pope, laying the foundation for our modern Western distinction between ecclesiatical and secular.

But yeah, 2 deserves props for doing as well as they did.
 
First Reich lasted a thousand years. Second Reich lasted 47 years, was half as big, never scared the Pope, and ended because its exceptional leaders declared war on most of the world at the same time.

Third Reich is clearly lamest, obv.

Three Reichs and you're out

1582501596103.png
 
The First Reich was the HRE, not Rome.
The fact that they start their numbering with the descendants of the barbarian hordes that cosplayed as the peoples they conquered makes it hard for me to respect their numbering.

It does not help that many nations called themselves the third rome prior to germany. Russia was termed the tsarreich.
 
I rated you optimistic because for the past couple years the EU has been laying the framework to take away Poland's voting rights under Article 7, and back in November and December the EU legal bureaucracy finally made moves on Eastern Europe over the migrants and Poland specifically over the judicial reforms. Eastern Europe doesn't want just the money, they want a seat at the table for the power and influence, mostly to counteract Ger-money's ability to buy it one way or another. Jeopardize their influence or jeopardize their money, and the incentives to stick around in the EU diminish greatly, especially since its looking like the UK will be dictating terms soon once the EU's export industries start getting desperate.
 
If push comes to shove, Poland is never going to kneel under the EU. If it gets too autocratic, they'll invoke a leave vote of their own. And if any attempts to derail it are made with some kind of "ack-ack-ackshually, you can't do that..." , they'll just act as though they left and ignore any demands from Brussels by saying "You and what army?"

The EU ultimately can't hold itself together because it doesn't have an enforcement arm if someone stops paying their bills, whatever the reason. My bank has better leverage than they do, and all they can do is call in a repo man.
 
what i dont get is why EU members like france and germany went and loaned sooo much fucking money to the likes of spain greece and italy. Its almost like they liked the manufactured demand for the goods they were producing.
 
they'll just act as though they left and ignore any demands from Brussels by saying "You and what army?"
If the EU manages to not fall to shit in the next 5 years I bet they have an army by then.

what i dont get is why EU members like france and germany went and loaned sooo much fucking money to the likes of spain greece and italy. Its almost like they liked the manufactured demand for the goods they were producing.

So they can roll the tanks and in and take the land "Legally" when it comes time to do so.
 
How in the hell can the Krauts pay more for this? I just don't get who's driving this giant economy.
For one, industry. German engineering is still very much a thing, though it isn't that immediately obviously noticable. But if you see a train, or a wind turbine, or some machine in a hospital, there's a very good chance it was made or funded by Krauts. They also excel at chemical production. Breaking Bad wasn't just picking countries at random in this regard.

Another major thing to consider is capital and trade. German companies rely on low barriers of trade to sell their already quite expensive products, and to be able to invest all the money they make in emerging markets. The notion that the EU is a German project is no fucking joke, everything about it benefits Germany the most. The Euro is the new Deutschmark, and German companies are the ones that profited the most from opening markets in Southern and Eastern Europe. Institutes like the ECB operate as slush funds for German banks. This might help to explain why the German govt is so obsessed with the 'European project', and has been pumping billions of taxbux into it.

Mind you, this process wasn't necessarily a nefarious Kraut powergrab from the start, it's just what happens when you form such a lopsided 'union'. Germany is just destined to dominate such a pact, by virtue of its sheer economic and demographic bulk. To quote an old historian: 'The problem with Germany is that there's too much of it. There are too many Germans, spread across far too large an area, which is why the European powers have always endeavored to have a Germany of more managable proportions'.

Why does it sound like France's economy is held together with duct tape and prayers?
Because it is. French industry has been a running joke for two fucking centuries, and every other sector of their economy is -just barely- buoyed by subsidies, protectionism and blatant favoritism from EU regulations (which is their part of the bargain for being the other linchpin of the union). France has essentially been a Latin American tier banana republic masquerading as a stable European democracy ever since the Revolution. We're just seeing the mask slipping again.
 
If the EU manages to not fall to shit in the next 5 years I bet they have an army by then.

Not a chance, they can't even get their own home armies up to snuff, there's no way they're getting a shiny new army that isn't just built from the same garbage they already have (and have neglected to the point that they're little more than fancy National Guard units), the only realistically functional Naval power just left, France is the next-best, yes, the country that's on fire is your only hope of Naval force projection... good luck.

The EU will not have an Army of it's own in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years or however long it lasts, as we just saw, they can't even agree on who pays for who's agricultural subsidies, much less who's paying for tank parts....
 
Back