Major Issues Bulletin 30 - EDP English Democratic Party.


	MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN
	HOME

ALMOST 50 per cent of EU BUDGET spent on Common Agriculture Policy for Fat cats - as the poor LOOK ON.

Eurofacts

20^th October -2006

Vol 12 No 1

Robbing the POOR to help the RICH.

Despite the aspirations of Social Europe there is

NO EVIDENCE

-that EU policies help the POOR – if anything the reverse is the Case.

Economic convergence between regions and EU countries has always been the goal of the European Union.

Ministers of member countries and members of the Commission have consequently reiterated their desire to use EU funds to help the least well –off by closing the gap between the poorest regions and countries and the richest.

More recently they have declared their intention to assist the ten members admitted in 2004 in catching up economically with the EU -15. Members of the UK government, desperate to identify an EU achievement, have highlighted the ‘success’ of EU enlargement and its economic impact on Eastern and central Europe.

Professed Goal

Together with other data and information the EU’s annual publication Allocation of expenditure by member state, published last month, helps us reach an answer to the question:

‘Has the EU lived up to its professed goal of helping the poor?

The picture is a complex one but there is a strong case for saying that far from redistributing money from rich to poor the EU operates in such a way as to achieve the opposite.

The bulk of the EU’s income comes from contributions from members according to a formula based on national income; those, in turn come from taxation. The structure is such that most tax revenue comes from relatively poor people and those on average incomes - simply because there happen to be many more of them than there are high earners; the very rich – the Abramoviches and the Bransons, of course, usually manage their affairs in such a way as to avoid paying tax altogether.

WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?

As the European Union Financial Report 2005 demonstrates, nearly half the EU budget still goes on AGRICULTURE.

Incredibly, total farm spending rose by 11 per cent last year.

WHO RECEIVED IT?

As the result of work by campaigning journalists and NGOs we know that the vast majority of the funds go to large landowners – such as

PRINCE CHARLES

Crown Prince of Monaco

Ted Turner

Duke of Westminster etc –and to large scale agri-businesses such as Nestle.

THE QUEEN.

There have also been embarrassing revelations about the receipt of CAP funds by MINISTERS and their families.

But even in France , which receives one in five of the EUROS allocated under CAP, only a modest trickle of funds reaches small farmers with 60 per cent of income going to the 14 biggest French farm companies, according to figures published by OXFAM in October 2005.

In as far as these transactions represent a redistribution of wealth it is from the

RELATIVELY POOR to the VERY RICH.

Rapid Growth

If there is no reason to believe that EU membership assists poor individuals can it be argued that it boosts the economic growth of the poorest states?

EU countries which were relatively poor such as Ireland and Spain at the time of accession plainly have grown more rapidly than established members, although the economic policies pursued by Spain under Aznar and by Ireland under successive governments, appear to have been the most significant factors in their growth. Other countries which were relatively poor at the time of accession notably Greece and Portugal, have grown less rapidly.

ALL the EU ‘10’ are net beneficiaries in terms of the EU budget but it is striking how little they received in 2005 in relation to the EU ‘15’ In terms of allocated expenditure the 15 ‘old’ member states received $87 billion gross (89.4 per cent) while the new members received only $9 billion (10.6 per cent).

Four ‘old’ member states –Germany, France Spain and Italy-each received more than the ten new states taken together.

The figures are more striking in per capita terms. In 2005 the EU spent $227 per capita on the old members but only $123 on the EU ‘10’

Same Criteria

These figures will change. Eventually the new members will receive funds from the CAP according to the same criteria as the other members which will inevitably affect total receipts from the EU, but by this time those criteria will also have changed and it is consequently very difficult to make a judgment about how well they will do in future. Last year, however they received only 7.7 per cent of total CAP payments.

When it comes to pay-outs from the EU’s structural funds the ten newcomers received only 5.5 per cent of the funds compared to

Spain (24.4 per cent)

Germany (14.1 per cent)

Italy (13.2 per cent)

Poland, the member state with the highest unemployment received only 4.2 per cent of the EU’s allocated expenditure despite the fact that its population of 38 million represents 8.3 per cent of the EU population and that it faces the biggest structional problems in Europe.

EUROPHILES might argue that membership is good in itself, pointing to the relatively high growth rates of new members , both since joining and in the preparatory period. But some European and Eurasian economies that remain outside the EU grew just as quickly during this period; the crucial factors appear to have been privatisation following the collapse of communism and the level of foreign inward in vestment. Moreover, the new members have had to meet the demands of the acquis and have consequently had to meet a dramatic increase in regulatory costs.

Given all of this, it will be a long time before it is possible for the EU ‘10’ to make objective cost-benefit analysis of EU membership.

What is clear is despite Europe’s much vaunted social conscience how much members get out of the EU depends on their political clout and their ability to work the system; there is no evidence that the EU has done well by the poor or that decision –makers have been greatly swayed by the desire to help them.

* * *

EU to ignore British objections over business tax.

[Well from the very beginning of the UK ‘s entrance into the EU with the aggressive support of the CBI back in 1970’s and even in the recent North East regional vote which turned then down they are now vociferous in their pronouncements as to the unfairness of the EU. But for the fact that their predicament affects us ALL we would say you made your bed now you must lie in it even if it gets uncomfortable and expensive.]

Plans to create a pan-European corporate tax system are to go ahead – despite the opposition of Britain and six other EU member states, according to Laszlo Kovacs, the EU tax commissioner.

Like the euro or the Schengen agreement on internal borders the scheme could be adopted by a limited group of countries he said in an interview with the Financial Times on 6^th October -2006.

Mr Kovacs said he was determined to overcome both the technical and political obstacles in the way of the scheme which involves a common consolidated business tax base. Currently this had the strong support of ten member countries and the “cautious support” of eight….

In an interview with the Sunday telegraph on 6^th October 2006 Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister and presidential hopeful called for EU –wide taxes to pay for EU expenditure.

One needs to be aware that over the past 12 years the EU accounts have NOT BEEN PASSED by their accountants.

* *

HUGE INCREAS IN CAP SPENDING

France takes one euro in five as farm spending rises –

But we still don’t know where most of the money goes

[to the fatcat politicians and others with their own lottery in which they don’t even have to buy a £1 ticket]

EU farm subsidy expenditure by member state in 2005

Belgium 1,047.7 millions of Euros -2.2%.

Czech R 428.5 ----------------------

Denmark 1,228.3-------------------------

Germany 6,522.3------------------------13.5%

Estonia 76.5-----------------

Greece 2,755.7-------------------5.6%

Spain 6,432.0-----------------13.3%

France 10,011.5-------------------20.7%

Ireland 1,821.5----------------3.7%

Italy 5,528.1------------- 11.4%

Cyprus 44.5------------

Latvia 118.4------------

Lithuania 265.6---------------

Luxembourg 45.4-----------------

Hungary 651.5------------

Malta 9.0----

Netherlands 1,286.3-----------------2.8%

Austria 1,237.3----------2.6%

Poland 1,542.2---------3.1%

Portugal 896.5--------1.8%

Slovenia 220.6-------

Slovakia 220.6-------

Finland 904.1-----

Sweden 956.9-----

UK 4,347.2--- 9%

EU-25 48,462--- 100%

Despite the drive fore greater transparency many countries, like germany, refuse to name the individual recipients, or like France and Britain, release only partial information. The exact destination of the bulk of the funds consequently remains a mystery

[As does much in the despotic unaccountable corrupt (their accounts were turned down for the 12^th year running by their accountants - possibly the Germans need to top –up their BND slush fund and what an opportunity there is with the lots of money from the British taxpayer who is so easy with their money that they permitted their great leader Tony to give back the 7-10 billion Rebate last year which a TRUE BLUE prime minister obtained by waving her heavy handbag with a completed Bill which the EU did not want cashing. But the present prolific waster of the heavy taxed Britons but particularly the ENGLISH said his goodbye with a golden handshake to his friends in the EU. What a load of loafers we are to have permitted this and much else that has happened in New Labour Britain over the past nine years.

Enjoy yourself with the busybodies who will shortly want to visit your house to access your wealth and ability to fit solar panels while the Industrial countries of the world look on amused while they replace every saving we make with a twenty fold increase in carbons and laugh themselves to the BANK.

IT HAS TO BE ALL -EVEN IF THE START IS WITH SMALLER OBJECTIVES –NOT ANOTHER EXCUSE TO TAX US EVEN HARDER -DON’T YOU THINK?

* * *

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets.]

OCTOBER/06