BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR 2021-2022
-
Mr. Deputy Speaker I thank you for opening the debate, i will respond to your comments later.
Councillour Mizrachi-Roscoe, the budget is not "once again tying up national money, raising taxation or preventing it from being invested at a national level for now good reason." It is quite the opposite, the money that weren't spent belong to the member states which will have chance to use the money not spend to invest in projects they see deserving, they do not belong to the European Union. I hope this resolves the issues you have with the proposition.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is unfortunate to see that you have came here to start with campaigning for the upcoming elections instead of focusing on your work. All your campaigning would of course not be worthy of commenting about, as the ladies and gentlemen present here are busy focusing on improving the lives of citizens of the EU member states, not focusing on campaigning. But your decision to talk about my "noble parts" is something that shouldn't be overlooked, for it is extremely insulting, misogynistic, perverted and gross. I was expecting, and I assume so were the others, to hear your remarks towards the proposed budget, possibly your proposals, yet we heard you talk about "touching noble parts". I don't know what you were doing during your summer, what pubs you have been to and it doesn't interest me, but I ask you, if you can't restrain yourself from making such disgusting comments, to keep such words in those pubs and not bring them to the Council.
The cost of the European Embassies have increased with the number of Embassies, unless you propose to underpay the individual Embassies their cost will always rise as they increase in number, similar factors also influenced the funding for the Council where the decrease of Councillors is reflected by the decreased funding for the Council. I have already explained that the creation of the EDA, which will be able to provide member states with subsidies is the reason why I propose decreased budget for the European Central Bank, as some of the responsibilities can now be managed by the EDA. I consider it poetic that a man so uncultured that he talks about the Premier Commissioner touching her "noble parts" doesn't understand why the Arts Collaboration Fund, focusing on culture, would require more funding, Finally, by rejecting the budget, Councillor Tusk, you are effectively block subsidies reaching the people you talk about helping, it would be on your conscience, I ask you to not give the people of Europe your empty words, but to do some work for them.
Councillor Gragner and Councillor Tilkanas I thank you for your encouragement of the budget. Responding to the issue that Councillor Tilkanas has raised, I have indeed proposed funds for the EDA that some may regard as small. My reasoning is, that in it's first year of existence I think we should make sure about how much the Agency will be used by the member states and not risk the loss of support for the Agency by potentially over-funding it now. If it is proven that the Agency is used by the member states regularly more funds could be allocated to it in the next fiscal year. As long as we remain vigilant and defend the Agency, the subsidies will reach all those in need. I am however always open to constructive criticism and your, and other Councillors, proposals.
Sofie Čikarová
Premier Commissioner -
I'd like to remind the Deputy Speaker that he may be charged for violating the Code of Conduct of the European Council (2019) in your use of such inappropriate words. No councilor in this chamber is exempted from this, and so I am warning you. Moving on I'd also echo the words of Coun. Tilkanas regarding the aircraft donated by His Majesty the King to each European Councilor at the time of my country's accession to the European Union. I'd wish that there be an explanation on where the 39 remaining planes have gone and how it has been transferred to where it is now. As have been said, these planes were randomly spotted already in Iberia Airlines whereas no income or a record of transaction had been reported unless the planes were just donated without the permission of its respective owners.
That's all for now, I'll be commenting about the budget after I finish my analysis. Thank you.
Yuridiana Yahontov
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
In thats case I question the need for such a high contribution for member states maybe this needs looking at since the EU is reguarly accumulating surplus in the budget year after year. We have to budget for this in our plans whether you take it or not just in case. I would still argue that we could happily increase spending at least in line with revenues which woulds help the EU achieve more and support its poorer members in programmes like sustainable development and green development helping solve the climate crisis in the long run.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
First of all, I personally condemn the Deputy Speaker's comments and ask that he immediately issue a formal statement and apology to the Premier Commissioner. Regardless of political affiliation it screams of hyperpartisanship that has only increased to the increased politicking of the EPA since his chairmanship began. This is all I will stay in this formal discussion on this incident but I will be submitting a formal censure on the Deputy Speaker to the Speaker of the European Council on the breach of the Code of Conduct in the European Council with a motion to impeach the Deputy Speaker.
The European Budget Act specifically states the following: "This budget should not be used solely as a political demonstration, but be used as an accurate measurement of EU revenue and EU expenses." I believe the Premier comissioner has followed that suit in their examination and proposal of their budget. There are portions I disagree and agree with personally, but first and foremost the Premier Commissioner followed their constitutional and legal obligation on the topic. They are not required to discuss a private draft with any other Eurogroup (the term being entirely absent from the Budget Act, even the term Europarty). This is why the budget is then proposed to the Council as a motion by law so that the council may review, discuss and amend it accordingly. In prior history there has been never really been "cross" party discussions on the topic of the budget, the responsible individual typically had one or two trusted confidents simply assist them in drafting one.
I support the raised budgets where they were proposed, and understand the cost cutting measures where required. The Space Administration fulfilled its legal duty last year in a report, and should move towards a more support agency role as required by law. The Aviation Authority is now in its second year, so lowering the budget following its establishment I believe to be acceptable as now more agencies have met and harmonized with it.
The European Central Bank needs an overhaul, its pretty functionally useless since the dissolution of the Eurozone beyond just holding funds for the EU and specific projects, I doubt it needs more administrative funding. I dare say I find it out that some call out the Premier for a poor defense of the budget while not giving the Premier the time to respond, very odd.
I stand against Cllr. Roscoe's statements in this debate, and say that any conversation of having issue with the size of the surplus mostly deals with the budget act itself, which speaks of the total contribution potentially of a member-state. If the Councillor wants more spending for pointless programs of helping "poorer" member-states then the Council can submit specific legislation on those topics for example the Leagio Loan, using the funds alloted for future legislation. The Spending is fine, there is a non-issue with the way the system works but it appears some Cllrs. wish to make mountains out of molehills.
I support this budget....you go girl.
Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod -
I find the Deputy Speaker's comments to be incredibly misogynistic, and quite frankly, embarrassing. I hope to never hear such demeaning comments, particularly against a woman, in this Council Chamber again.
The Premier has been hard at work throughout her term, and with great vigour proposed the European Development Agency Act in less than two weeks after taking office. Despite this, it was actually the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker himself who stonewalled the legislation for nearly 2 and a half months and stopped it from being passed much earlier. If anyone has been inactive, the Deputy Speaker must point at himself, not at our incredibly wise and glorious Premier. Here we are now, after the EDA was finally passed, discussing the budget that the Premier has so very graciously proposed despite constant efforts to block her legislation- clearly, she's doing something and she's doing work.
It is no doubt that Premier Cikarova is the People's Premier, and she always put the needs of the people before party partisanship. I am not sure why the Deputy Speaker feels the need that his EPA eurogroup be consulted on the budget, especially when the budget is supposed to be a non-partisan proposal. Regardless, when I discussed drafting the budget with our wise and prudent Premier, it was very clear to me that she was putting the needs of the European people first, and this was very evidently reflected in the budget she put forward.
The final and overall expenses proposed by this budgets has largely matched that of last year, with a slightly proposed increase of about 400 million euros, despite having fewer member states.
Some programs, such as the European Aviation Agency, for example, had their expenses somewhat narrowed, largely because there are fewer member-states in the Union since last year. In the previous budget of 2020-2021, there were 24 active member states on the ECB's data report. Currently, there are only 21. It is therefore reasonable that some agencies thus will require less money.
However, with some programs having their expenses narrowed, our generous and compassionate Premier has had the fantastic foresight to bolster the funding of other vital programs instead, such as the European Health Organisation and the Arts Collaboration Fund.
If any Councillor feels that any particular organization is being under-funded, then I am sure the Premier and the rest of the Council will be open to hear how it ought to be funded accordingly, and I believe we are all open to amendments.
However, anyone opposing this budget simply for partisan reasons is undermining the proper funding of all of our institutions, and is therefore undermining our entire union. This is gross, unacceptable, and I have to say, very cringe.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
Well, this is something I didn't expect, to be misunderstood because of a Spanish expression. Councillors, I am very sorry for this misunderstandment, but before criticising a Councillor for translating, not with the best words I must say, an expression which means "doing nothing"; you ought to search for the meaning or maybe consult a person from that country. In fact, thanks to the existance of several webpage that translate this kind of phrases, I would like you all to search for this link in your mobile and then getting to know what it really means if you don't believe me. Still, I am deeply sorry if it was misunderstood and as well as if anybody here was offended, because that wasn't my intention.
Still, I must say it surprised me that some members here accused me of a Code of Conduct breach. Section V, Article I says "I. The behaviour of Councillors shall be characterised by mutual respect, professionalism, understanding others’ perspectives, courtesy and acceptance of responsibility." Now, that we all know what this colloquial expression means, are we going to censor other foreign colloquial expressions basing it on this section? Ladies and gentlemen, there's absolutely no breach of a code when this doesn't say a thing about colloquial expressions. I'm aware about the Code of Conduct range, Cllr. Yahontov; and also that better words can usually be chosen, but I tend not to write my speeches and then read them, but think on them when I'm having the floor. Again, if anybody here felt offended for a expression that basically means "doing nothing" and how it's translated into English, I'm very sorry; but either we ban all the colloquial expressions and put walls to freedom of speech, which by the way ends where respect starts; or we allow them all while they are respectful and we know their meanings before criticising another member. And by the way, I welcome many Councillors back to the Council that hadn't appeared in a few months, it's nice to have you back and I hope you keep attending sessions and giving some importance to this very respectable chamber.
Now, leaving politics aside as what I wanted to say about the management of this Commission has been heard, I would like to address the answers about my remarks to the budget from the Premier Commissioner. Ms. Čikarová, I know you might be aware of what I criticised: I understand many of the rises like on embassies; but for example we aren't giving the award our workers from the European Relief Force deserve. They do a great work when they are deployed, and again, their budget is only risen in 105,41€. That's, Ms. Premier Commissioner, a ridicolous and very outrageous rise for a people that deserve more than 105 Euros. The European Development Agency budget is also, in my opinion, very optimistic if we look at what the costs might be. 600 million Euros is actually a huge amount of money, but it won't be enough when member states can start applying for loans. I will be focusing 2 of my amendments to those affairs.
Now, the budget decrease for the European Council it's based on "we have less Councillors than in the last budget"; which I also understand, please correct me if I'm wrong, as "the Council activity has decreased and so it budget must be cut down". If this was another explanation to the budget cut for the European Council, why isn't the Commission budget cut down when it activity has been none? Of course, if all of this is just part of my thoughts and not the real version or at least the Premier thoughts; then I can start to understand slightly more why the budget is being cut down. But I would like to remember our Premier Commissioner that this budget is expected to last for a year, so we should take into account that more Councillors could join us in the upcoming months.
With that said, I hope to receive some answers and being understood the next time I use some colloquial expressions. Thank you very much.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
It is highly unfortunate that you refuse to apologize to the Premier Commissioner for your words, Councillor Tusk, and have instead opted to defend yourself. Everyone here knew what you meant - it was not the meaning of the words that caused our objections, but rather their sheer coarseness. We do not expect to hear such words, regardless of what was meant by them, in an official environment, and especially from such a high-ranking official.
Regardless, let me move on. I think the Premier's defense of her actions has convinced me; however, in light of this, the future initiative allotment should be increased, perhaps to as much as 15 billion. I would like to hear the comments of other Councillors before actually proposing an amendment, however.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Councillor Tilkanas, I have said sorry 3 times, and apologised 4 counting those 3. I know people tend to feel good when the criticise the European Progressive Alliance or it's members, and even when they do things correctly, they are blamed. The European Progresive Alliance has, in fact, been a victim of many criticism capaigns based on false and out-of-context claims, and this is the start of a new one. I hope that many of those who signed the complaint and haven't appeared around here for months for whatever reason, spend more time here, caring about the Europeans, instead of wasting it on a personal revenge against someone or an Eurogroup; the EU would be much better if that happened.
I forgot to submit my amendments in the last speech and I'm submiting them now. I would like to request that each of the variations are taken as several amendments, and not as just one:
Expenses:
European Council: 1,625,000,000€
European Relief Force: 230,335,878.20€
Total Expenses: 32.139.131.633€
Budget Totals:
Total Expenses: 32.139.131.633€
Total Surplus: 61.186.236.409,39€
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Firstly: why should we increase our own funding, especially when we have fewer members? Imagine headlines - amid European crises, Council decides to rise its own pay! It smacks of corruption. Secondly, the European Relief Force's funding last year was perfectly adequate for its repeated deployments; the budget this year is not something made to pay them for what they have done, but rather to allow them to continue to function. Certainly, they should have access to more funds; but I have come to the conclusion that this should be accomplished merely by increasing the future initiative allotment rather than anything else, as that allows for more flexibility.
You also have not apologized for your words; you have merely apologized for potential misinterpretations of your words, and have sought to, in fact, defend them as the right thing to say. Again, everyone here knew what you were trying to say; we were merely shocked and disgusted at the way you chose to say it. This is not a vendetta against the EPA or the EU; it is concern over the fact that such vulgar and innapropriate words were uttered in these most respectable of chambers.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
It's not true at all that the Council would rise its pay if the assignation for the institution was amendment, it would still have been cut down from 1,822,925,000€ to 1,625,000,000€. Approximately, 200 million Euros less for the Council, so I don't understand why it would generate a crisis, nor why we should be called corrupt. And we agree the European Relief Force should have more funds, but it's way better to directly get the money in their budget than in the future initiative allotment, which as its own name says, it's reserved money for all kind of legislation. We should also mention that the increase is a few millions, speaking in the terms of the huge amount of money the European Union is handling.
And about my words, once again, my apologies. The way I have said "doing nothing" could have been better, and I'm very sorry and so I apology to everybody in the room. But, as I also said, I never bring my speeches written so it just comes up. I will put all my forces to not repeat it again. About my opinions on the reactions, I'll save them for myself.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Apologies for my misinterpretation of the amendment.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Firstly, I would just like to thank to all that have stood up against the improper remarks in this Council. I can't accept an apology, that is not apologizing for the improper words but for us getting alarmed by them. However I would appreciate if we could move past talking about certain body parts. And I would also appreciate if we could restrain from mentioning each other's private parts on social media, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you.
Councillor Tilkanas, you have in fact interpreted the amendment proposed by the Deputy Speaker quite correctly. The cost per individual Council member would in fact increase with his proposition from the previous budget. In the proposed budget, the expanses for the council have been decreased proportionally to the decrease of Council members and the cost of one individual member of the Council have remained unchanged. The decrease has, of course, nothing to do with activity Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment proposed by Mr. Tusk would in fact increase the pay of Council. Which is something I don't see a reason for, as there were no issues with the funding for the Council in the previous fiscal year.
The proposed funding for the European Relief Force has remained largely unchanged from the previous budget, since there were no issues with their funding and I haven't registered a demand for increased funding, and so I haven't proposed a major change to their funding from the previous fiscal year. Of course I am not principally opposed to increase their funding if members of the Council consider it needed, even at the expanse of the money that could have been returned to the member states.
Sofie Čikarová
Premier Commissioner -
I will now propose my amendment, in light of recent statements:
**Future Initiative Allotment (From Legislation, etc):
10 000 000 000€11 000 000 000€As I have stated, many of the agencies and organizations of the Union may require more in the coming months, requiring more preparation than ordinary.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate is now over. It is time to vote on amendments. There are SIX amendments, which have been proposed by Councillor Tilkanas and myself, Councillor Tusk. The amendments are thus:
Amendment I - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Expenses:
European Council: 1,625,000,000€Amendment II - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Expenses:
European Relief Force: 230,335,878.20€Amendment III - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Expenses:
Total Expenses: 32.139.131.633€Amendment IV - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Budget Totals:
Total Expenses: 32.139.131.633€Amendment V - Proposed by Cllr. Tusk
Budget Totals:
Total Surplus: 61.186.236.409,39€Amendment VI - Proposed by Cllr. Tilkanas
Expenses:
Future Initiative Allotment (From Legislation, etc): 11,000,000,000€
Voting on amendments will commence NOW and will last until 19:30 GMT on October 1st, 2021.
I vote FOR amendments I, II, III, IV and V and AGAINST amendment VI.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
I vote FOR Amendment II and Amendment VI. I vote AGAINST all other amendments.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
I vote FOR Amendment VI, and AGAINST all other amendments.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR Amendment II and AGAINST all other amendments.
Nicholas Benfield
-
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR ammendments II and VI and AGAINST all other ammendments
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies -
The Kingdom of Montenbourg votes FOR All Amendments.
Emma Granger,
Councillor for Montenbourg. -
On behalf of the Democratic Republic of Czech Slavia, I ABSTAIN on Amendment II and Amendment VI and vote AGAINST all other Amendments.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia
The Kingdom of Spain
