European Union

President Sassoli expressed condolences to the families of the victims of Storm Alex, at the opening of the 5-8 October part session in Brussels.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

On Monday evening, the plenary approved the deal struck with the Council last December on common rules to boost EU crowdfunding platforms and protect investors.
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

On Monday evening, the plenary approved the deal struck with the Council last December on common rules to boost EU crowdfunding platforms and protect investors.
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The European Union (EU) budget is about one percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of all Member States amounting to about €240 per annum, per citizen. The EU budget redistributes more than €150 billion annually. These funds are directed towards agriculture and regional policy, which operate to help less developed countries and local communities. Millions of euros are spent on rebuilding roads or hospitals or for the educational and vocational training of thousands of European citizens’. A significant proportion of this money goes towards underdeveloped and economically less well-off regions, especially across Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe (see Figure 1).

European and national politicians, journalists and citizens have often raised questions on how EU funds are used. The media tends to cover this topic whenever it can frame issues of mismanagement or corruption. It rarely addresses the factors that account for the delivery and spending of EU funds across countries and regions or how Structural and Cohesion Funds (SCF) are absorbed into local economies.

Against this background, our recent article provides a more refined understanding of what factors are driving the absorption of EU funds. Our research is significant because it provides a rich empirical analysis of the differences in EU funds absorption performance across European Union member countries. We help explain why some countries are better at spending European funding than others. In doing so, we examined how administrative and political indicators play out and affect the wider institutional environments responsible, at the national level, for spending a large part of European taxpayers’ money.

It is rather well-known that newer member states have often faced difficulties in absorbing EU funds into their economies. States such as the ones from Central and Eastern Europe had to comply with several EU laws and procedures before joining the EU. Despite a “learning process” achieved during the pre-accession period, some countries still face considerable challenges in accessing Structural and Cohesion Funds (also as can be seen from Figure 1). Looking at the previous multi-annual financial period of 2007-2013, and with few exceptions, three large groups of countries were identified in terms of Structural and Cohesion funds implementation:

1. most of the new Member States, with a relatively low absorption capacity, especially in the first period of the Cohesion Policy implementation (with notable outliers such as Lithuania, Estonia and Poland);
2. southern periphery Member States such as Italy and Spain which had consistently low absorption rates throughout the period;
3. most other EU-15 countries that had a relatively high performance in the early stages of Structural Funds implementation.

 

Although differences in absorption performance have considerably decreased in the last years, they have generally persisted over the entire programming period of 2007-2013, with significant delays and bottlenecks for several NMS. This is also the case for the current 2014-2020 EU budgetary period.

Figure 1: Allocated Cohesion and Structural Funds (SCF) during the 2007–13 Programming Period and Absorption Rates (2015) in EU‐27 countries. Source: Authors compilation based on DG Regional Policy and Eurostat data, 2007-13

Two core findings stand out in our article. These help provide answers to the above puzzles on why some countries’ are doing better than others when it comes to spending EU funding.

First, the effectiveness of a countries’ government and the latter’s ability to combat corruption are key factors that could boost a country’s absorption of EU funds. What this means is that the more effective a government is and the more it is willing to curb corrupt practices, within its structures, the more likely it is for that country to do better in spending EU money. Apart from ensuring a functional management and institutional system, Member States also need to prevent the distortions of different interest groups as to ease the implementation of Structural Funds. However, political cartels and corruption are still very present in many European countries, which in turn could affect how the returns of EU funds’ investments, and EU money more generally, are managed.

Second, other elements such as the quality of regulations or and the level of political stability in a country, contrary to our initial expectations, do not seem to matter so much. At the same time, other elements such as the level of political centralisation and decentralisation found and the macro-economic financial absorption capacity of a country, are also not important for what countries manage to get from the common European budget.

Why are these findings relevant? In essence, because they confirm the importance of administrative institutions and political governance in how public resources are managed, something already known in the field. European taxpayers’ money is redistributed, through the European budget, with the honourable aim of helping regions and European citizens in need. There needs to be a more specific focus on how domestic institutions and political forces influence the way public resources are spent. In recent years, politicians, academics and citizens have equally become more aware of this. Our research adds to this chorus of voices arguing that government effectiveness and internal corruption practices require further attention. These might be some of the most practical solutions for strengthening the implementation of Cohesion Policy across all EU Member States.

So how could politicians / policy-makers help achieve these aims? Firstly, more steps should be taken to improve the quality of institutions, procedures and human resources managing EU funds. This could be attained through a better use of Technical Assistance funding. Secondly, the question of combating corruption and of greater political support needs to be addressed head-on by all stakeholders. When politicians in the EU Council get together, in the next few months, to decide on the future European budget, these issues should be treated with utmost priority, alongside other technicalities and the increasing dominant discussions regarding the recovery plan needed post-corona.

The idea of a stronger European Union is linked to a common EU budget. Member States need to do more to improve their governmental effectiveness and efficiency, as well as reduce levels of corruption in order to improve spending of EU money. A better use of these resources seems to be highly related to these two factors across almost all EU countries. Advances in these areas might help achieve the wider objectives of European cohesion and solidarity. Eventually, this might also improve citizens’ levels of satisfaction with Europe and their support for the European integration project.

 

This blog post draws on the JCMS article, ‘Evaluating the Determinants of EU Funds Absorption across Old and New Member States – the Role of Administrative Capacity and Political Governance’

 

Authors

Cristian Incaltarau is a researcher at the Centre for European Studies within Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi (Romania). His recent research focuses on economic resilience, the migration – development nexus, and EU Cohesion Policy.

 

 

 

 

Gabriela Carmen Pascariu is full professor in European economics and policies at Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi (Romania). She is the Director of the Centre for European Studies, Jean Monnet professor and Team Europe expert. Her main academic interests include: Economics of integration; Regional Development and European cohesion policy; Cross-border cooperation and ENP.

 

 

Neculai-Cristian Surubaru is a postdoctoral researcher at Maastricht University’s Studio Europa. His research focuses on European Union politics, Central and Eastern Europe and the new East-West divide, EU funds and state/administrative capacity.

The post Do institutions help achieve greater value for spending European taxpayers’ money? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and AMC v Commission
Competition
The General Court annuls in part the Commission’s inspection decisions following suspicions of anticompetitive practices by a number of French undertakings in the distribution sector

Monday, 5 October

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Monday, 5 October

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Length of video : 68'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Length of video : 120'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

On 6 October, the Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Olivér Várhelyi will present to the AFET members the 2020 Enlargement Package and the Economic and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans.
Following the Commission assessment of the EU-related reforms in each enlargement country, AFET rapporteurs will draft country reports, outlining Parliament's conclusions and recommendations. The funding of the Economic and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans will be shaped by the yet-to-be-agreed Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA III).
Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Brexit politicians have sold to the nation that Britain must have 100% sovereignty – a key reason for leaving the European Union.

But wiser politicians know better. Former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was one of them.

In a Parliamentary session back in December 1989, about her latest conference with the 11 other leaders of the European Community nations meeting at the European Council in Strasbourg, Mrs Thatcher explained to MPs:

“When you enter into international treaties you voluntarily give up a certain part of your sovereignty, because perhaps you are pooling it with others, because that is the way it has to be done in a world which is very multinational.”

She added about the meeting of Community leaders:

“What emerged most strongly is the degree to which the Community and the 12 member states can act as the driving force in the development of the whole of Europe, at a turning point in the continent’s history.

“The Community should be an example of how free and democratic nations can work ever more closely together, while remaining open to the outside world.

“That is the way in which Britain wants the Community to develop, and, despite disagreements on some points, the Strasbourg Council encourages us to believe that that is how the Community will develop, with Britain playing a very full part.”

She added:

“The nations of Europe are drawing closer together for economic purposes.

“That will be a considerable force in the world and should give much greater opportunities for employment in this country and for prosperity in general. It will be very good for all our peoples.”

 UNION OF BRITAIN AND FRANCE Other British Prime Ministers have also supported that the pooling of sovereignty, in the right circumstances, can be for the good of the nation.

After all, it was during the Second World War that Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, announced in June 1940 the ‘Declaration of Union’ between Great Britain and France.

With the full backing of his Cabinet, Churchill stated:

“The two governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union.

“Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain; every British subject will become a citizen of France.”

An Anglo-French stamp was even designed to commemorate the proposed Anglo-Franco union, but the Nazi invasion of France scuppered those plans.

The proposals did demonstrate, however, that Churchill was in favour of political union between European countries.

It was also Churchill who, in 1950, called for the creation of a European Army “…under a unified command, and in which we should all bear a worthy and honourable part.” (France objected to this plan).

In a debate in Parliament in June 1950 to discuss a united Europe, Churchill explained the circumstances under which the Conservative and Liberal parties would be prepared to part with “any degree of national sovereignty”.

He replied, “without hesitation” that, “we are prepared to consider, and if convinced to accept, the abrogation of national sovereignty, provided that we are satisfied with the conditions and the safeguards.”

He further explained:

“National sovereignty is not inviolable, and that it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all the men in all the lands finding their way home together.”

 WE ARE ALL INTERDEPENDENT When in 1961 Prime Minister Harold Macmillan applied for Britain to join the European Community – an application that received Churchill’s support – he explained to the nation that it would involve the sharing of some sovereignty.

Mr Macmillan said:

“Accession to the Treaty of Rome would not involve a one-sided surrender of ‘sovereignty’ on our part, but a pooling of sovereignty by all concerned, mainly in economic and social fields.

“In renouncing some of our own sovereignty we would receive in return a share of the sovereignty renounced by other members.”

He added,

“The talk about loss of sovereignty becomes all the more meaningless when one remembers that practically every nation, including our own, has already been forced by the pressures of the modern world to abandon large areas of sovereignty and to realise that we are now all inter-dependent.

“Britain herself has freely made surrenders of sovereignty in NATO and in many other international fields on bigger issues than those involved in the pooling of sovereignty required under the Treaty of Rome.”

 CLOSE PARTNERSHIP It was another Prime Minister, Edward Heath, who negotiated the terms of our membership of the European Community – terms democratically agreed by our Parliament in Westminster – and he also explained to the nation just before we joined:

“The Community which we are joining is far more than a common market. It is a community in the true sense of the word.“It is concerned not only with the establishment of free trade, economic and monetary union and other major economic issues – important though these are – but also, as the Paris summit meeting has demonstrated, with social issues that affect us all – environmental questions, working conditions in industry, consumer protection, aid to development areas and vocational training.”

He added:

“Above all, the European Community is a community of peoples, and in joining this new association of nations we are committing ourselves not only to a series of policies or institutions but to a close partnership with our western European neighbours in which we will all work together rather than separately.”

 GOING IT ALONE But despite the fact that “close partnership” and “pooling of sovereignty” with our European neighbours were policies strongly supported by EVERY British Prime Minster from 1957 to 2016, the current lot in charge believe it’s better to go it alone, work separately and not closely together.

Outside the EU, of course, Britain will only be able to look on as decisions about the running and future direction of our continent are made without us, even though those decisions will affect us just as much, whether we are a member or not.

That to me doesn’t look like gaining sovereignty. It looks like losing sovereignty.

• Watch this 20-second video clip of Margaret Thatcher explaining about treaties:

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• My campaign page on Facebook: Reasons2Rejoin
• And LinkedIn

________________________________________________________

• Share this article on Facebook:

→ Treaties mean pooling sovereignty – 20-second videoTHATCHER UNDERSTOOD ABOUT TREATIES AND SOVEREIGNTYBrexit…

Posted by Jon Danzig on Saturday, 3 October 2020

The post Margaret Thatcher understood about treaties and sovereignty appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The European Commission's executive vice-president, Valdis Dombrovskis, told the European Parliament on Friday (2 October) that he will put forward a new mechanism to protect the EU from the coercive manoeuvres of trade partners like US and China.

When: Today, Monday 5 October at 16:30 - Where: Anna Politkovskaya pressroom (European Parliament in Brussels, room SPAAK 0A50) and via Skype
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

When: Today, Monday 5 October at 16:30 - Where: Anna Politkovskaya pressroom (European Parliament in Brussels, room SPAAK 0A50) and via Skype
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Trade Committee MEPs questioned Commission Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis, candidate for the trade portfolio, on greener trade, enforcement, China and Mercosur.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Trade Committee MEPs questioned Commission Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis, candidate for the trade portfolio, on greener trade, enforcement, China and Mercosur.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee questioned Mairead McGuinness, the Irish candidate for the financial services portfolio, set to replace Phil Hogan.
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

MEPs will vote on changes in the European Commission, call for a new tool to protect EU values and set out ambitious climate targets at the 5-8 October plenary session.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The multiannual financial framework (MFF) is a plan of how much can be invested in policies that strengthen Europe’s future. More in our video.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The European Parliament’s and the groups’ spokespersons hold a briefing on next week’s session in the Anna Politkovskaya press conference room and via Skype at 11.00, today.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP