Workshop on ‘Implications of‘Brexit’ for the EU agri-food sector
and the CAP’
Possible impact of Brexit on the EUbudget and, in particular,
CAP funding
Jörg Haas, Jacques Delors Institut – BerlinEulalia Rubio, Notre Europe - Jacques Delors
Institute
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 1
Structure of the Presentation
1. Impact of Brexit on the EU budget One-off effects: The ‘Brexit bill’
Structural effects: The ‘Brexit gap’
2. Impact of Brexit on CAP spending CAP net balances and the ‘CAP gap’
Adjustment options and impact on net balances
3. Conclusions and recommendations
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 2
Structure of the Presentation
1. Impact of Brexit on the EU budget One-off effects: The ‘Brexit bill’
Structural effects: The ‘Brexit gap’
2. Impact of Brexit on CAP spending CAP net balances and the ‘CAP gap’
Adjustment options and impact on net balances
3. Conclusions and recommendations
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 3
Impact of Brexit on the EU budget
Various consequences: One-off effect: impact of ‘Brexit bill’negotiations on
current and future MFF Structural effect: Budgetary shortfall of ca. €10 billion
per year during the next MFF Qualitative effect: UK exit may change dynamics of
negotiation in the European Council Relative size effect: increase of the EU budget in relative
terms (as % of EU GNI) Impact on Own Resources: elimination of UK rebate
and the related corrections
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 4
One-off effects: the ‘Brexit bill’
Deadlock in ‘Brexit bill’ negotiations
EU’s position paper, June 2016 net payment of €55-75 billion (Financial Times’ estimate)
Theresa May´s Florence speech, September 2016 €20 billion
Disagreement on size hides disagreements on nature of bill andfinancial obligations to be covered
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 5
One-off effects: the ‘Brexit bill’
Nature of the bill
EU: Brexit bill is about setting past financial commitments, notpayment related to possible transitional period/EU-UK futurepartnership
UK: generic recognition of ‘obligations to pay’ but insistence inpresenting bill as payment linked to transitional period
EU should be careful about linking agreement on Brexit bill tohypothetical transitional agreement.This might enable the UK to use money as bargaining chip in 2nd phasenegotiations
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 6
One-off effects: the ‘Brexit bill’Obligations – what EU includes in the bill:
RAL at the moment of withdrawal ~ €30 billion
EU spending linked to the current MFF but not yet committed inannual budgets ~ €37-€52 billion
EU liabilities recorded in consolidated accounts and notbalanced by EU assets (e.g. pension benefits) ~ €8 billion
EU contingent liabilities ~ €10 billion
Full costs of withdrawal process (e.g. cost of moving EU agencieslocated in the UK)
Settlement of UK participation in ECB, EIB or EU funds
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 7
One-off effects: the ‘Brexit bill’
Two most contested issues:
Should the UK pay for all EU spending commitments linkedto 2014-2020 MFF and not yet budgeted, or only for thosespending commitments recognized as liabilities in EUconsolidated accounts? (mostly ESIF spending)
How to deal with contingent liabilities: UK lump sum paymentto cover potential costs, or costs shared as they arise in thefuture?
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 8
One-off effects: the ‘Brexit bill’
Implications for MFF and CAP spending:
If UK only pays RAL at the moment of withdrawal all CAPspending for 2019 and 2020 is under threat
If UK pays for spending obligations not budgeted but onlythose recognized as liabilities in EU consolidated accounts EARDF spending for 2019 and 2020 will be preserved butEAGF spending will be threatened.
If UK maintains annual net contributions for 2019 and 2020but does not pay for RAL pending in 2020 all CAP spendingfor 2019 and 2020 will be preserved but negotiations about thenext MFF will become more difficult
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 9
Structural effects: estimating the‘Brexit gap’
Data: Actual revenue and spending data from DG BUDGET Calculations based on 2014-16 average to even out one-off
effects
Assumptions: UK rebate expires, ‘rebates on the UK rebate‘ expire No UK contributions, no TOR raised in the UK No EU expenditure in the UK, all other spending unchanged
Results: Estimated shortfall: approx. €10 billion per year Actual gap could be smaller: Possible revenue from UK budget
contributions (soft Brexit) or higher tariff income (hard Brexit)9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 10
How to adjust? Different scenarios
Possible scenarios:
Higher contributions Lower spending No agreement
How to measure impact? Change in net balances
Definition of net balance: Member State’s VAT- and GNI-basedcontributions to the EU budget minus total EU spending in thecountry
Not a suitable indicator of fairness, but good indicator of MemberStates‘ interests
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 11
Scenario 1: higher contributions
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 12
€10 billion increase in national contributions:impact on Member States
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on European Commission data.
Burden of adjustmentmostly borne by netcontributors
Large contributionincrease for Austria,Germany, Netherlandsand Sweden as‘rebate on the rebate’ceases to apply
Scenario 2: lower spending
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 13
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on European Commission data.
€10 billion Brexit gap in comparison
Likely to affect netrecipients the most
Required savingssubstantial comparedto many EUprogrammes
Large spendingareas likely to comeunder pressure
Scenario 3: no agreement
No default option for adapting the current MFFto Brexit
MFF should be revised in case of Treaty change (Art. 20 MFFregulation).
But: no guidelines on criteria
If no agreement on post-2020 MFF:
Budget ceilings of the current MFF continue to apply (Art. 312.4TFEU)
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 14
Structure of the Presentation
1. Impact of Brexit on the EU budget One-off effects: The ‘Brexit bill’
Structural effects: The ‘Brexit gap’
2. Impact of Brexit on CAP spending CAP net balances and the ‘CAP gap’
Adjustment options and impact on net balances
3. Conclusions and recommendations
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 15
Current CAP net balances, 2014-16
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 16
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on European Commission data.
Adjusting the CAP to BrexitHow will Brexit affect CAP spending? ‘Brexit bill‘ could affect CAP even before 2020 Key question for post-2020 MFF:
How much should CAP contribute to balancing the EU budget? British CAP net contribution: €3 billion per year But actual reduction in CAP spending could be much larger if
other spending areas are protected from budget cuts
Data and assumptions: See above: DG BUDGET data for 2014-16; rebates expire Caveat: scenarios are not reform proposals, but highlight
dynamics that could follow from various changes to CAP spending.
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 17
Scenario 1: higher contributions
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 18
€3 billion increase in national contributions:estimated change in CAP net balances
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on European Commission data.
Additionalcontributions based oneconomic strength
CAP net contributorspay more, especiallyformer rebatecountries
Existing imbalancesare magnified
Scenario 2a: limited spending cuts
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 19
€3 billion CAP spending cut:estimated change in CAP net balances
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on European Commission data.
Relative togovernment spending,CAP net recipientslose the most
In absolute terms,mixed effects: biggestlosers are large netrecipients and netcontributors that usedto benefit from rebate
Moderate and diffuseimpact, but largercuts might berequired
Scenario 2b: large spending cuts
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 20
€10 billion CAP spending cut:estimated change in CAP net balances
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on European Commission data.
CAP net recipientslose the most, inabsolute and relativeterms
Some net contributorsimprove their netbalances
Smaller CAPimbalances, butsignificant negativeimpact on poorer MS
The impact of co-financing
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 21
€10 billion reduction in CAP pillar 1 spending:estimated change in CAP net balances
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on European Commission data.
Introducing co-financing for pillar onespending can modifyeffects of CAP budgetcuts
Tends to spreadburden of adjustmentbetween CAP netcontributors and netrecipients
Co-financing ratescould vary accordingto economic strength
Structure of the Presentation
1. Impact of Brexit on the EU budget One-off effects: The ‘Brexit bill’
Structural effects: The ‘Brexit gap’
2. Impact of Brexit on CAP spending CAP net balances and the ‘CAP gap’
Adjustment options and impact on net balances
3. Conclusions and recommendations
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 22
Conclusions
The ‘CAP gap‘ amounts to €3 billion, but actual CAP spending cutscould be bigger if other EU programmes are protected
Increasing contributions tends to magnify imbalances in CAPspending
Large CAP spending cuts spending tend to affect poor MS the most
The end of UK-related rebates and possible co-financing of CAPpillar one can substantially influence how burden of adjustment isshared
There is no pain-free way to adjust CAP spending,but the impact on MS’ national budgets is in most cases limited
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 23
Recommendations
The EU should be careful about linking the agreement on theBrexit bill to an agreement on a transitional period
The EU’s first priority in the Brexit bill negotiations should be tominimise impact of Brexit on the current and future MFF
Bargaining about budget cuts and contribution increases shouldinclude the entire system of EU finances & take into account MontiReport
Brexit can be an opportunity to simplify and improve the EUbudget and financing, but the timing is challenging Need to prepare, debate contested concepts (‘EU added value’)and compromises ASAP
9/11/2017 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 24