評論
打印
Charlemagne
查理曼大帝專欄
No to EUsterity
歐盟無需緊縮
The European Parliament threatens to veto a hard-won budget
歐洲議會揚言將對來之不易的財政預算投上反對票
The bitterest family rows are often over money. So it is with the European Union’s leaders. For three years they have argued over who should pay what to save the euro. Earlier this month presidents and prime ministers battled through a sleepless night and a day over the EU budget. Back home, some of the disputed sums might have been approved on the nod.
一般而言，最為激烈的家庭糾紛都圍繞金錢問題。本次歐盟（European Union，EU）各國領導人亦不例外。在圍繞救助歐元區的責任人以及救助金額上，這些首腦們已喋喋不休了三年之久。本月初，這些首腦再次齊聚一堂，就歐盟財政預算，徹夜不眠地爭論了一天一夜。而在散會之際，大家對部分有爭議的預算數額已達成共識。
It is an absurd way to run the world’s biggest economy. The comedy of interminable haggling is compounded by the farce of each leader twisting the numbers to claim victory. Such is the misery that the EU now draws up budgets for seven-year periods. But this is too rigid—even the Soviet Union limited itself to five-year plans. And it magnifies the sums at stake: nearly a trillion euros for 2014-20. Looked at another way, though, the budget is only about one-fiftieth of public spending in the EU. For rich countries, net contributions amount to about 0.3% of GDP.
作為管理世界第一經濟體的手段，共同協商確實有失偏頗。一方面不休止的爭論中，還如同喜劇中貫穿著鬧劇般，夾雜了各國首腦為求勝利而歪曲預算金額的片段。而其結果，歐盟不得不忍著痛苦起草了長達七年之長的預算。但這一預算過于僵化，就連當初蘇聯（Soviet Union）所定的計劃期限也僅為五年。同時，這些重要的預算金額（2014年至2020年期的預算金額約為1千億歐元）也受到夸大。事實上，若以其他視角看來，該預算僅占約歐盟政府支出的五分之一。而對某些富裕國家，凈出資僅達到約自國GDP的0.3%。
One reason for the budget mess is that the money comes from national treasuries, creating a zero-sum game. Another is that the budget must be agreed unanimously. A third is the economic crisis. Most net contributors cannot see why the EU should be exempted from the austerity it preaches to others. And for those running deficits every pound, crown or euro sent to Brussels is an extra pound, crown or euro that must be borrowed.
預算如此混亂，其首要原因在于救助金來自各國政府，這將歐盟變為一場零和博弈。其次，歐盟規定財政預算只有在全體一致同意下才可通過。隨后，經濟危機也是原因之一。歐盟在向各國鼓吹財政緊縮的同時，自身卻無需緊縮財政，這讓大多救助金的凈提供國感到不解。同時，對于陷入財政赤字的歐盟國家而言，所有流向歐盟的資金都必須作為救助金向其借貸。
As if steering a budget past 27 national vetoes were not hard enough, there is now the threat of a 28th, from the European Parliament. A rejection would be its most confrontational act since it forced the resignation of Jacques Santer’s European Commission in 1999 over allegations of corruption. Would MEPs really dare be so bold, not to say insolent?
而今，歐盟仿佛嫌27國以否決權協商財政預算不夠艱難，歐洲議會（European Parliament）自身作為第28個擁有否決權的主體加入其中。1999年，賈克斯·桑特（Jacques Santer）為首的歐盟委員會因遭貪污指控，而在歐盟要求下全體辭職。本次歐盟否決權將是此事件以來最具威力的手段。但歐洲議會議員們是否敢于（而并不過分地）行使否決權呢？
Voting in the European Parliament is unpredictable. Without such notions as a government or an opposition, party discipline is weak. One Eurocrat quips that “the whole parliament is the opposition”. The single idea that unites most MEPs is a desire for “more Europe”, which usually means more euros. Power derives from the ability to spend. Because the EU does not raise taxes directly or borrow, there are no votes in calls for spending cuts.
但歐洲議會內的投票難以預料。由于不存在所謂政府和對立的概念，議會的規矩十分松散。一位歐盟官員曾諷刺道，“整個歐洲議會全是反對派。”大多議員能團結一致的關鍵在于同一個想法，即“加深歐洲一體化”，通常也意味著增加歐洲資金。一切權力來源于金錢。由于歐盟并不直接征稅或借入資金，歐洲議會難以通過財政削減議案。
MEPs were outraged when EU leaders decided, for the first time, to trim the budget for 2014-20 by 3% from the previous period. This was a triumph for Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, who also preserved his country’s much-hated rebate. How, critics asked, could he dictate a budget for the whole EU, running to 2020, when Britain might not even belong after 2017, when Mr Cameron wants to hold a referendum on membership? In truth, the budget was dictated by Angela Merkel. The German chancellor lined up with Mr Cameron against France’s Francois Hollande, who clumsily allied himself with the parliament. The budget ended up where she wanted it: at 1% of gross national income.
而本次歐盟財政問題上，各國首腦首次決定從今期開始削減2014年至2020年財政預算的3%后，歐洲議會議會十分震怒。英國首相大衛·卡梅隆在支持緊縮歐盟的同時，也推遲了國內屢遭不滿的減稅政策，本次決定對其而言是一大勝利。然而，評論家質疑道，根據卡梅隆所提出關于歐盟去留的全民公投，英國或許在2017年退出歐盟，那么他有何資格要求歐盟執行一項時至2020年的預算計劃呢？事實上，該計劃的推行者是德國總理安格拉·默克爾（Angela Merkel）。與卡梅隆結盟后，默克爾面對的是法國總統弗朗索瓦·奧朗德，而奧朗德則失敗地選擇了與歐洲議會聯合。歐盟最終達成財政預算正如默克爾所期望的，為德國國民總收入的1%。
Even before the summit ended, the leaders of the four parliamentary “families” had issued a joint statement declaring the deal to be unacceptable. Their leverage is enhanced by the 2009 Lisbon treaty, which stipulates that the budget must be approved by an absolute majority of the whole assembly (ie, absences and abstentions count as No votes). Fringe parties of left and right will probably vote against, as could several in opposition at home. French Socialists are being urged by some in Paris to “improve” the terms secured by Mr Hollande.
本次歐盟峰會結束前，議會“四大家族”（譯者注：歐洲議會的四大政治黨團，分別是人民黨、社民黨、自由黨和綠黨）發表聯合聲明，表示無法接受各國首腦提出的預算計劃。2009年歐盟簽署的《里斯本條約》（Lisbon treaty）規定歐盟的財政預算須獲得歐洲議會絕對多數票后才可通過（缺席和棄權皆算作否決票），該條約也加強了歐洲議會的權力。對于本次財政預算，正如歐洲各國反對黨那般，歐洲議會內的左右翼各小黨也表示反對。其中，位于法國巴黎的部分成員要求法國自由黨（French Socialists）“改善”奧朗德所接受的條款。
A stalemate would suit a few. It would push the EU to annual budgets based on 2013 levels, producing higher spending than agreed on by the summit. Yet it would antagonise two groups: recipients of cohesion funds, who would struggle to plan multi-year projects, and net contributors with temporary rebates that will lapse without a new budget (Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden).
這一僵局對部分人士比較有利。歐盟的財政預算最終會被推向以2013年為基準的平均水平，進而造成高于峰會所通過的支出數額。但這樣一來，兩大陣營將會形成對立：一方是不斷調整長期計劃的被救濟國，另一方則是需新財政計劃以維系臨時回扣的凈出資國（如奧地利、德國、荷蘭和瑞典）。
Many MEPs will come under strong pressure from national capitals. The threat of removal from party lists for next year’s European election explains why some want a secret ballot, strange as that may seem. Behind the posturing lies a readiness to compromise. Governments hint they would accept some of the parliament’s demands, such as a commitment to review the budget in two or three years’ time or greater flexibility to move money between headings and from one year to the next. Catherine Trautmann, leader of the French Socialists, says: “We seek a negotiation, not the politics of the empty chair.”
歐洲議會的眾多議會還面臨國內政府的巨大壓力。由于擔心明年被免除歐盟黨團選舉的資格，議會投票過程并不公開，哪怕該過程看似異常。在此過程背后，不難發現議員們樂意妥協。而各國政府也暗示將接受歐洲議會的部分要求，如承諾二、三年內檢討財政計劃，以及在第二年內增強各國政府間資金流動性。法國社會黨領袖卡特琳·特勞特曼（Catherine Trautmann）對此表示：“我們尋求協商，而非空椅子上的政治。”
Time to cut the CAP
削減CAP
Euro-federalists say it would all be much easier if the EU could raise taxes directly. “The Americans said no taxation without representation. But in the EU we have representation without taxation,” complains Sylvie Goulard, a French liberal MEP. Yet most governments treat the EU as an international organisation and want to retain control over its money.
歐盟支持者表示，若歐盟能直接征稅，一切將容易許多。一位法籍自由黨團議員Sylvie Goulard予以支持道：“美國人說過‘無代表不納稅’，而目前歐盟則是‘有代表不納稅’。”但歐洲各國都視歐盟為國際組織，不希望由其掌控資金。
The argument boils down to the question of where democratic legitimacy really lies. Little-known MEPs can scarcely claim to command greater popular allegiance than national political leaders, unloved as some may be. And the European Parliament is unlikely to make itself more appealing by overruling national treasuries and parliaments, let alone seeking to exact European taxes on top of already high national ones.
納稅的爭論最終歸結為歐盟的民主法治程度為何。相比各國首腦（盡管其中部分缺乏人氣），歐洲議會的無名小卒始終難以拉攏民眾。同時，為了提高民眾支持，歐洲議會不可能否決各國經濟和政治決策，更不可能對那些已然重稅纏身的國家開征歐洲稅。
Rather than moan about marginal cuts to a small budget and pursuing the chimera of “own resources” (eg, EU taxes on carbon or financial transactions), the parliament would do better to focus on the real outrage—that EU leaders did so little to change outdated spending priorities. They have left close to 40% of the budget going to agriculture, an industry that generates less than 2% of GDP. Slashing the CAP could release resources for areas where the EU can genuinely enhance growth, like research, education and cross-border infrastructure. The EU could have the best of both worlds: less spending and more European value.
對于歐洲議會而言，與其抱怨財政預算的細微削減或尋求“自身資源”（如開征歐盟碳排放稅或金融交易稅等）這一幻想，不如著力于改善真正的公憤問題，即為歐洲首腦們無視的公共開支落伍的優先順序。根據峰會達成的預算，財政支出的40%將投入農業，而該產業的產出不足于GDP的2%。若大幅削減歐洲共同農業政策（CAP），歐盟將會空出資源，以便促進其研發、教育和跨國基礎設施等領域的有效發展。無論是減少財政預算，還是抬高歐洲價值，歐盟都可做到最好。翻譯：沈驁
譯文屬譯生譯世
