EU Budget Treaty

Posted: November 29th, 2013

EU Budget Treaty

Name:

Institution:

Lecturer:

Course:

Date:

EU Budget Treaty

The budget treated that was recently formulated by the EU was designed to give an extensive view of how the EU budget is supposed to operate. In the commission’s view, the budget treaty offers identifications of areas where improvements are worth being made. Additionally, the treaty highlights the various broad lines for the forecasted budget with several principles, options and ideas relating to what the EU budget should dwell on in the near future. Moreover, the treaty offered relevant ways designed to improve how results are delivered as well as how reforms of the EU financial resources will be carried out. Impressively, the EU leaders performed a commendable job with the budget treaty but it possesses several flaws nevertheless. Arguably, the EU budget treaty is one less satisfactory element of Europe’s economic governance.

Upon undertaking extensive research on the budget treaty, I was able to establish that it is not a proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2012 and beyond, unlike what many people may perceive. The treaty does not give a definition of which spending priorities will be implemented, nor does it define the actual size of the budget. Moreover, it does not offer a provision of the amount of shares each policy is entitled to therein. The elements I understand are supposed to be tabled in the regulation of the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework legislative proposal; and one that has proved to be rigid with regard change.

Among the issues associated with the budget are claims that it is lacking in transparency in properly identifying the resources for development. The current structure of the treaty has been found to conceal the significant contribution of the EU to the resource volume available for development. This issue is as complicated as the committee’s development aid budget. This has been widely perceived as a representation of its commitment towards cooperation and development. It is evident that the current financial framework has a provision of 7billion euros allocated to development and cooperation. It therefore raised suspicion that the 1.3 billion Euro annual budgets for the EU were included in the development heading. This ambiguity compromises the transparency of the treaty. Additionally, it shifts focus away from the fundamental contributions the EU has made towards development.

Another issue with the treaty is its compromise of the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon treaty provides clarified distinctions between various external policy components of the EU. These include the humanitarian policy, the external trade policy, and the cooperation with underdeveloped countries policy among several others. Therefore, it was prudent for the EU budget treaty to specified financial resources for implementing these policies. Furthermore, the Lisbon treaty established a clarified framework of the EU’s external relations. The independent attributes of these policies should have been accounted for through separate headings in the EU budget nomenclature. Additionally, since the Lisbon Treaty does not make provisions for development differentiation between regions, the EU budget treaty should have performed this task.

In my opinion, the EU budget treaty should be considered a stepping stone for achieving irreversible shift of the politics and economics of the EU budget. However, I would like to point out that success should not be taken lightly and it would not be appalling if the committee fails to reach firm agreement on the proper way forward. However, it is in my view that the budget treaty will have achieved its set goal if it establishes a principle and clarified foundation for the future budget. I feel that if the committee moves to address the issues associated with budget treaty, then s credible way forward will be fostered for today as well as the future.