My personal impression of how Brussels actually works

by Turambar
Tue Jan 20th, 2009 at 07:17:00 PM EST

[Long time no see. Drifted away to strange places like 4chan, because the US election was just too damn funny and interesting. Don't know if you ever really come back from this abyss, especially after being involved in the Palin incident (thanks, rubico).]

I spent Monday in Brussels, talking to different people directly involved in the budget review process. Won't name names, so I can say more.


First, there was the German representation in the Council. It's even worse than I imagined. They don't care what any MEP hast to say or whether some program might be useful or not,  they are controlled by the finance ministry and some numbers (say, 2 billion) have to be cut from every yearly budget somehow. Their most used argument seems to be "we're getting back some of the money at the end of the year, this clearly proves how you don't need any to begin with". Regarding the financial perspective, all they care about is the overall accounting balance ("operatives Haushaltssaldo") of Germany and (in true "juste retour" logic) ways to make it more transparent.

Then, there are MEPs. They're elected, so they think they're the most important people in the process, but they freely admit they can't influence 85% of the budget at all. The rest, however, they can sometimes shift a little from one line to another. Seems like they're content with actually having a vote based on their own position and not on the one of their national governments'. They're only bound by the positions of lobbyists, interest groups, NROs, "market forces", companies in their districts, party affiliations (European and national), committee interests and 475.6 other things. When they're done making remarks (May - October), the Council goes back to its first proposal.

And there's the commission. Privately, they all think the current budget structure to be silly historical baggage, but the only thing that could really change the way Brussels works, in their opinion, is a way to make sure that no country can trace back its accounting balance (funding the budget by direct EU taxes etc.). To make matters worse, they won't put forward the final report on the midterm budget review process in fear of provoking another Irish "No" (and, some might add, Barroso's second term after the June elections). They'll rather have you vote before you know everything that might affect your choice.
You probably already see in which direction their proposal is going: lowering agricultural funds significantly and eventually phasing them out, keeping structural funds on the same level (but focusing on the poor members states), strengthening the Lisbon strategy, go for an CO2 tax and emission trade as direct EU income to fund the wholly new budget title "climate protection and energy (security)" with it.
Right direction, but no courage to stand up for it. Some watered-down paper will probably be published in the next months if the polling in Ireland looks not too bad. Their true recommendations won't be known before the new commission takes over. I really don't know whether to call them timid or simply frustrated.

In the light of recent events, I want to end on a positive note. Brussels has understood what has to change and is working on it. It's just that it'll take an awful lot of time.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll
This diary is...
. depressing 41%
. uplifting 0%
. both 58%

Votes: 12
Results | Other Polls
Display:
Hey, Jean-Claude Juncker's chauffeur, maybe you'll get me next time!

If you're interested in what the Commission is holding back, take a look at one of the underlying studies.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Tue Jan 20th, 2009 at 07:21:15 PM EST
Well it's nice to see that the EU is still treating the budget like the annual dance it has been.

It seems that the mid-term review of the budget will not effect much as it's going now. But we're in for a few jolts before 2013.

Also... I thought it was bad. Kind of suspected it would be this bad. And it is!

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jan 20th, 2009 at 07:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is it just me, or is a CO2 tax to fund the EU a very dangerous idea? It produces a completely artificial alliance between eurosceptics and industry lobbys, and that alliance will have more clout than its components.

I mean, selling expensive CO2 taxes/emmission rights to the public is one thing if you say "These taxes will hurt some sectors of the economy, but the income is going to be used to reduce taxes on the rest of us"

But "these taxes will hurt some sectors, and the proceeds will be spend by Eurocrats" is guaranteed to result in too lenient emmisions rights.

by GreatZamfir on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 04:22:37 AM EST
All taxes require unanimity by the Member States, a carbon dioxide tax has been tried, but has failed. It's a good bet that it will keep failing.

I'm not sure if it is a good idea for generating revenue for the EU because a carbon dioxide tax will have a shifting tax base. I'd prefer financing through the VAT.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 06:01:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Have to emphasise that point, if a carbon tax works (environmentally) carbon use will go down and carbon tax receipts will also go down... which is a bad way to fund an EU budget.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 06:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, no.

Less money in -> EU makes do with what it has -> this proves they never needed the money they were asking for in the first place (see Turambar's diary).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 08:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Spend the budget before the year is over" frenzies are common in most bureaucratic organizations, and they still manage to work.
by GreatZamfir on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 08:20:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's a "bureaucratic organisation"?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 08:27:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A place where money expenses have to be justified on triplicate or more.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 08:58:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Roughly: an organization with a very formalized and hierarchical decision structure. Nearly any large organization is bureaucratic to some extent.

What's important here is that parts of the organization have their budget allocated from above, based on specific plans, and are not free to save part of it for unspecified future use. So if you don't spent your budget, you lose it, and the hierarchy might decide to give you less next time.

My pint is that this isn't some strange EU quirk, it's a standard phenomenon all over the world. If the output of a part of the organization is hard to measure, it's almost unavoidable.

In such a situation you will have to convince others that they should give you more budget for a new activity. You can't discuss every activity again every time it is done, so the next time you get the same budget for it. If you find a way to do it cheaper, you can give the money back, and you will get less next time. Or you keep the money so you have to struggle less to finance other projects.
 

by GreatZamfir on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 09:31:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bureaucracy has to be qualified as being non-productive work done by people. There are a lot of organizations - mobile network mediation systems, for example - that have a huge bureaucracy, but it is almost entirely automated.

BTW I'm just reading 'Wikinomics' and came across a quote from a Boeing exec that described their latest aircraft as "parts flying in close formation" i.e. some 60% of the entire aircraft is sub-developed, sub-specced and sub-assembled. The Dreamliner will take only 3 days to assemble in a Boeing plant.

A description of the motorcycle industry in S. China in the book was also an example of what happens when you dispose of top-down metrics and bureaucracy.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 11:29:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This of course would be the Dreamliner assembled in 3 days, which didn't quite fit together, needed rebuilding and we're still waiting for?
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 02:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, of course - I am talking about the model, not the application of it. It is brand new as a large scale industrial model. Teething troubles are expected.

Maybe not totally brand new - the agriculture/food processing model is similar decentralized production. What is new is that Boeing doesn't specify the innovative parts.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 03:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sven Triloqvist:
The Dreamliner will take only 3 days to assemble in a Boeing plant.

Ans is also several years behind target.  Breaking things up into definable small parts (and related outsourced contracts) also creates huge inflexibilities in design, development, continuous improvement, and even production,.  I hear Boeing are reconsidering their outsourcing model...

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 02:25:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, indeed Boeing are. But the inflexibilities you talk about, I don't understand.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 03:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Its easy to change a design if all the effected components are produced in house.  If, however, each component is subject to a separate supply contract with different suppliers you have a whole lot of contract renegotiation to do every time you want to change something.

A lot of companies outsourced IT on the basis that a specialist firm could do it better and cheaper. This may be true in a steady state situation where the IT required is well known, defined, and stable over time.

The reality is, however, that IT requirements and technologies change all the time and every time you try to change the slightest thing your IT supplier charges you through the nose for it because it is a change request from the previous contract.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 04:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I may make a conceptual point in addition to Frank - you work with things that only become immutable at the last stage (and with digital media, not even then.)

e.g. When I edited a photo-book, sure, the formats and printing were negotiated in advance, but truthfully if you really needed to change it, you could, quite close up to the moment of final production.

So out of 2 months work, things are malleable right up to 5 days from the end. It sucks for everyone who has to adjust to the adjustments, but it just takes time and effort.

Mechanical things aren't always so flexible. Machining large important parts is 10 step process, spread over 2 months. If you change anything at the 1 month point, you're going to have to throw away a large chunk of aluminium and start again. You might even have to rearrange your whole machine setup as well. And everyone else whose parts fit on your part might have to do the same.

This is not to say it cannot work at all, but that (contra the wikinomics and other boosters) a lot of these models are a lot less impressive once you get out of producing software, media or other "knowledge products" which are mutable all the time.

Of course, if you're engaged in bespoke/small scale industrial mechanical production, things can be more flexible, but that model is energy intensive and costly.

As a related point, I recall a discussion from a random economist about how Chrysler could reinvent itself as the "Apple of car companies." I had to point out that while it is theoretically possible a lot of the conditions present in the computer hardware market (massive standardised production chain, open standards for a large number of components) just aren't present in the car market. And they aren't present in part because bending metal is slower and more expensive and less flexible than stamping out silicon.

Point being the whole thing is a spectrum and the transaction costs in production of physical goods just don't fall like the ones in software do.

Ag/Food processing is likewise all about creating very standard raw materials, then combining them in very simple ways, industrially speaking.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 at 05:23:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good points.

But doesn't Magna build Chrysler's cars? ;-

Some more distant stuff.

The Fab Lab (Fabrication Laboratory) being developed by MIT is an advanced small-scale workshop for turning out all sorts of one-off parts, using, among other things, advanced laser cutting technology, rapid prototypers, CNC and PC board milling.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 at 05:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Magna is the perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. They are so hitched to Chrysler (that is to say, there is so little flexibility in their tooling and production) that they are thinking about buying Chrysler to keep it alive.

i.e. Production of parts is so integrated into the final product that it's cheaper to buy a broken company than change the parts in production.

I worked with the people who set up the Fab Lab some years ago. No, it doesn't change what I wrote above. Producing one off parts is horrifically energy intensive. The same spectrum is at work.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 at 06:01:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What you say is very much true in the rail industry. The drive for flexibility resulted only in chaos and cascading delays. I referred to this in one paragraph of my last rail diary.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 at 06:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I understand that (wanted to be sure what orgs fell under discussion).

But don't you think it also happens that funds may be lacking? And that necessary or useful investments are not made because of that? Must we assume there's always a spend-to-keep-next-budget-up drive?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 11:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I raised this with Michaele Schreyer once (full disclosure: I went to a course she gave, long after she quit the Commission). She seemed to think that you could plan for this over a 5 year period.

I'm not so sure, personally. I'm hopeful that you can have rather abrupt changes in the amount of carbon emitted and I wouldn't want to make fundamental changes in the tax basis for every budgetary framework either.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 11:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you know the arcane details of current funding through VAT?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 08:20:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, I do to some extent. I know... it's perverse. The funding through the VAT is tracked directly to the countries (and in that sense it is impossible for the Commission to get what Turambar says is its desire: taxes that can't be tracked back).

Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden pay at a reduced rate, because they've been paying in too much and also wanted a rebate of their own. Otherwise, I don't remember the exact rate, has to be around 0.3 percentage points out of the national VAT or so.

It's still only a small part of the funding. The majority are direct transfers.

Another small part comes out of the tariffs at the common border (of which the Member States get to keep a quarter, if memory serves...)

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 11:48:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is a very dumb idea by the simple fact that from now on CO2 emissions from within the EU will decline, either they like it or not.

Vencit omnia veritas.
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 at 01:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jan Seifert is very (too) optimistic:

2009 and the EU budget: part one | FollowTheMoney.eu

The newly found accountability for mismanagement of funds might have another consequence. There is active talk in the European Parliament now to delay or even refuse discharge to the Council for the bad management of funds. The EP's discharge vote which is taken separate for each EU institutions is due in March and Parliament would send a very strong - and in my eyes important - signal if it were to refuse discharge to the Council. Such a move would be a big media blow (three months before the European elections) and should put sufficient attention to the existing problems with member state mismanagement of EU funds.

It has to be kept in mind that the first pillar of the CAP is mandatory expenditure and can't be delayed in this manner. Much of the rest of the budget can.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 21st, 2009 at 02:52:04 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]