BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR 2021-2022
-
BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR 2020-2021
Written by Premier Commissioner Sofie Čikarová
Co-written and sponsored by Councillor Karinn Lallana
Presented by Premier Commissioner Sofie Čikarová
PREAMBLE
The budget of the European Union for the fiscal year of 2021-2022.
EU Budget for 2021-2022
Revenue:
EU Budget Contributions: 83 219 368 042,39€
European Patent Office Income: 10 106 000 000€
Total Revenue: 93 325 368 042,39€Expenses:
European Commission: 1 325 800 000€
European Council: 1 595 059 375€
European Court of Justice: 165 725 000€
Embassies of the European Union: 42 509 735,8€
European Arts Collaboration Fund: 1 444 125 095€
European Aviation Agency: 600 014 000€
European Biological and Chemical Weapons Authority: 380 563 065€
European Central Bank: 950 500 000€
European Corps: 10 860 000 000€
European Development Agency: 600 100 000€
European Health Insurance Card Program: 52 291 980€
European Health Organization (including European Biotechnology Advisory Board): 562 869 860€
European Heritage Site Program: 4 770 392,39€
European Highway Numbering System: 123 795 812€
European Nuclear Applications Authority: 2 500 000€
European Patent Office: 2 500 000 000€
European Relief Force: 230 335 878,20€
European Seed Trust: 30 602 907,27€
European Space Administration: 296 400 000€
The Labour Exchange: 8 225 000€
Political Groups: 6 000 000€
Future Initiative Allotment (From Legislation, etc): 11 000 000 000€Total Expenses: 32 782 188 100.66€
Budget Totals:
Total Revenue: 93 325 368 042,39€
Total Expenses: 32 782 188 100.66€
Total Surplus: 60 543 179 941,73€
Dear Councillors, I present to you the proposed budget for the fiscal year of 2021-2022. As you can see, the largest changes from the previous budget have been cutting down the funds for the European Central Bank and the European Space Administration, while on the other hand giving funds to the newly created European Development Agency, which will be able to start accepting requests for subsidies once the budget is passed. Since the EDA will be able to give loans on it's own, lowering the budget for the ECB was in order. More funding for the European Health Organization is also proposed. Those are the major changes, but there are other, smaller changes like higher funding for the European Arts Collaboration Fund, etc.
This budget is the first step towards a just Europe, Europe that puts its people first and I ask you, dear Councillors to make this first step together and pass the Budget of the European Union for 2021-2022. I will stay in the Chamber to answer any of your questions, thank you.
Sofie Čikarová
Premier Commissioner -
I will vote against this budget on principle unless significant changes are made. Either the contributions need to go down by at least half or expenses need to rise giving value for money. All this budget is doing is proposing once again tying up national money, raising taxation or preventing it from being invested at a national level for now good reason. There is no reason why double can't be spent to help nations develop and help with issues such as green transition development. Until these issues are resolved my vote will be against this budget. Its ridiculous once again EU is withholding 60 billion euros plus for a year without investing it, that is money that could be better put either spending in member states budgets ,at EU level or in lower taxes for the working class in nationstates.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe ,Councillour for United Duchies
-
What an excellent proposal! We extend the observation that the budget for the European Health Insurance Card Program should be administred by the European Health Organization.
I'm putting forward a bill to amend this.
Emma Granger,
Councillor for Montenbourg -
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, Councillors, Premier Commissioner:
26th June 2021, Ms. Čikarová is elected Premier Commissioner and releases a statement; 1st July 2021, Ms. Čikarová releases a second statement, this time to express her concern about the situation in Nofoaga, 6th July 2021, Ms. Čikarová submits the European Development Agency Act; and finally, 20th September 2021, Ms. Čikarová submits the European Union budget proposal for 2021-2022, 9 days before her term enters in the campaign period. This has, ladies and gentlemen from Europe, Councillors, been what the Premier Commissioner has done in nearly 3 months. She pretended to become an active Premier Commissioner, and she has been the same as Eilidh Whiteford, slightly better than Ms. Merkel and far more worse than Mr. Cocx, She wanted to work for the Europeans, instead, and let me be very clear, was lying down on the office's sofa while touching her noble parts.
This is, ladies and gentlemen, what the Party of the European Left is all about when they touch power, so are any other parties different to the European Progressive Alliance, with the only excemption of Mr, Cocx; who by the way, was an independent candidate that ran under his own platform. Your inactivity, Ms. Čikarová, is alarming: you have showed no worry about the Nofoagans anymore; Istkalen, nothing to see there; piracy in the Caspian Sea, 'the what where?' you might have said; wildfires in Spain -nothing to worry-; Strathae restricitve laws... You might not even be aware of that. You, Sofie Čikarová, are the worst Premier Commissioner Europe could have had during this term, and you proved it by doing nothing, by disconnecting completely from any and all regional affairs.
Your irreverence towards the Europeans has been rising: you did not accomplish any of your promises apart from the EDA, your Commission has been the most inactive in a year and some months; your management has been deplorable and the European Union is heading to an unknown place with a drunk captain at the helm, and with the other high ranks sleeping at the cabins. But I am still impressed, Ms. Čikarová, that the European Union's ship hasn't sunk yet, just like the Titanic did because of the understimation of an iceberg. While many of them were waiting for your help and attention, others didn't trust you. And those who didn't trust any of your words, like me, were proven right as the days passed. Socialism, as far as I'm concerned, is about helping the poor people and giving them a chance to be equal to those that earn more than them. And even if you believe you are a socialist, you didn't do that, because you are one of the worse Premiers Europe has ever had Ms. Čikarová.
But now you come here, 9 days away from the campaign procedures start, and you pretend that we, the Councillors, give a green light to your budget. I have offered my support once to agree on the budget and pass it, but did you contact me, Ms Čikarová? You actually didn't care about the hugest Eurogroup's word to elaborate the budget, and now you expect me as their chairman to say we should pass it because of responsability as well as because you want to put people first. The same people you have left behind for 2 months, while you drank beer in any pub in Czech Slavia? I know others that have drunk beer in summer, but those came back after their holidays, which lasted 1 or 2 weeks. You took 2 months and a half to come back, and now you seem to care about what the Europeans need. Let me reveal the truth to the Europeans: you saw the wolf's ears (aka the campaign start), and you started to worry about what could happen with your seat and your salary. Because Ms. Čikarová, the only thing you care about in Europe is about how much you earn at the end of the term.
Now, onto the budget: compared to the last budget, the revenue has grown in about 20 billion Euros, but the expenses have just grown 300 million. I thought your European Union, Ms Čikarová, was the Union of prosperity, but in fact it's the opposite, it's the Union of austerity and irresponsability. You have cut costs from the European Council, the Aviation Authority, the European Central Bank, the Labour Exchange and the Space Administration. From all of those, I only understand the Space Administration one. But some the new expenses raises are not correct at all: the Embassies, the Arts Collaboration Fund (why?), the Health Insurance Card and the Health Organization, the Seed Trust and the most outrageous of all, the Relief Force. Why do I say outrageous: well, these guys have worked really hard this months and all we do for them is raising their budget in 105,41€?! I will obviously propose some amendments to this when I hear some comments from my colleagues.
Finally, I would like to announce that I'll be voting against the budget. The defence of the budget you made has been poor; you haven't contacted other groups apart from yours, I guess, to search for support; you have tried to justify why we should be supporting this budget by saying 'you put the Europeans first', a blyant lie you have proven right during your term. You, Ms. Čikarová, are the living portrait of Commission irresponsability, and I hope Councillors here and the people on the streets take good note of what a Čikarová commission means: inactivity, irresponsability and irreverence.
Thank you very much.
Debate on this shall CONTINUE until 21:19 GMT on September 24th, 2021.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
The nonsensical and deranged opposition to this budget is proof that Commissioner Čikarová is indeed in the right. From the screaming about a practice that no one has objected to in the last twenty years, to a shameless attempt to promote the corrupt, hypocritical, and anti-democratic EPA, which in the past year has been responsible for the disappearance of 40 - yes, 40! - planes, which later reappeared, without explanation as to how, in the hands of the airline Iberia, countless violations of the separation of powers, including the forcing of random and incoherent regulations on appliances on Europeans by decree of the Commission, during a crisis in Eastern Haane, deciding that reading, if not plagiarizing, from their favorite book - as an aside, it is one of mine as well - as a response was a good idea, and, worst of all, the delaying of legislation, for no apparent reason, for four whole months, before lecturing us now about the necessity of working with others.
The European Central Bank is paid, if I understand the legislation properly, by member-states separately from this budget, as it has been for the past six years; what it has received, in fact, is additional money.. Given that it has been without a President apparently since its very inception, this is probably a wise move. Of course, I have proposed amendments, but with them the Bank would have even more sources of money, and regardless could be given more through the reserve we have kept.
Secondly, allowing for a greater rebate, especially for struggling nations, like the Duxburian Union and, well, mine, is for the better. While I do have objections regarding primarily the amounts given to the EDA and the ERF, these can easily be fixed through amendment.
Thirdly, I find it absolutely hilarious that it is being said that the honorable Commissioner did not contact other Eurogroups when drafting this legislation, when not only did the only other Eurogroup not do so when proposing its budget, but also attempted to block the signature legislation of the PEL at every turn.
Turning back to my first point, however, I will say this. The point that Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe is indeed a minor problem, but not so much that it can justify the blocking of this budget.
In short however, we have just witnessed a political attempt, by the most incompetent, as well as the most malevolent, Eurogroup, to bring our Union's operations to a total halt, solely so that they can remove Commissioners Čikarová and Piane and again return the Union to its moribund state.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
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
The Kingdom of Spain
