keithisco Posted July 13, 2013 #1 Share Posted July 13, 2013 This came as a bit of a surprise to me: The "Instrument for Pre Accession Assistance" (IPA) assigns an annual budget from the EU Member States to those states that are not even members yet! Candidate States have so far received: 1. Macedonia: 1,207,203,000 Euros 2. Iceland: 29,807,000 Euros 3. Turkey: 4,785,167,000 Euros 4. Montenegro: 235,713,000 Euros 5. Serbia: 1,385,649,000 Euros Potential Candidate States have so far received: 1. Albania: 594,526,000 Euros 2. Bosnia and Herzigovina: 655,365,000 3. Kosova: 635,365,000 When you add in the additional budgets for the "Multi Beneficiary Programmes" and "Support Expenditure" spent on these states we arrive at a Grand total: 11,459,664,000 Euros Of the candidate states highlighted in Red: 1. Iceland: I cannot help but be confused with Iceland (still allotted a budget for 2013) although it pulled out of EU accession talks some months ago. 2. Turkey: There is absolutely no consensus within the EU Member States to allow accession for Turkey, and yet the EU has handed over more than 4,5 Billion Euros to it 3. Serbia: as one of the most corrupt Eastern European Nations why is the EU handing over almost 1,4 Billion Euros to it? Should it not be required to clean up its act first? Source: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/miff_adopted10-10-12_en.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted July 13, 2013 #2 Share Posted July 13, 2013 it just shows what a complete joke the EU is. it needs reforming because for me the EU as lost its way. just look at the money being spent. wrongly in my view. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted July 13, 2013 #3 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Napoleon's dream was and still is shared by a lot of Europeans. The real problem is that they can't figure out how to include Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLOMBIE Posted July 13, 2013 #4 Share Posted July 13, 2013 It's development aid. Nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted July 13, 2013 #5 Share Posted July 13, 2013 To the Serbians? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted July 13, 2013 Author #6 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) It's development aid. Nothing wrong with that. Development Aid is administered through a different department under the auspices of various UN Agencies which I totally support. This is directed money to candidates, some of whom will never become members because other member nations would not countenance their membership, or have withdrawn their negotiating teams and no longer wish to join the EU. However they still recieve this money. A few questions, why is the EU increasing the money given to Turkey to improve its infra - structure when it is wealthy enough to do it itself? Why does Iceland still get this budgetted money? Why not wait for these nations to prove their Stability, Governmental Oversight, and massive reduction in corruption BEFORE being considered for membership to the EU? The EU should not be providing the money required to build Democratic Institutions (physical Buildings) because then the National Citizens have not had to face the hard road to doing this themselves, they cannot internalise the struggle that the rest of the Democratic nations in western europe have fought for centuries to obtain. The EU simply cannot export "Democracy - in - a Box" Edited July 13, 2013 by keithisco 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLOMBIE Posted July 13, 2013 #7 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Among others, yes. You think they do not deserve this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLOMBIE Posted July 13, 2013 #8 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Development Aid is administered through a different department under the auspices of various UN Agencies. This is directed money to candidates, some of whom will never become members because other member nations would not countenance their membership, or have withdrawn their negotiating teams and no longer wish to join the EU. However they still recieve this money. A question, why is the EU increasing the money given to Turkey to improve its infra - structure when it is wealthy enough to do it itself? Why does Iceland still get this budgetted money? Icelend is still receiving the money that they are ought to get, since this is a multi-annual program. Turkey is a very difficult topic by itself, and I am not the right person to answer your questions, actually. The money is given to nations willing to adopt to the "EU-standarts" as an aid to push reforms (i.e. a development aid). I see nothing wrong with that, even if the nations will never become a part of the Union. Edited July 13, 2013 by FLOMBIE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted July 13, 2013 #9 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Napoleon's dream was and still is shared by a lot of Europeans. The real problem is that they can't figure out how to include Russia. Maybe Russia doesn't want to be included,it would mean that they would have to share the profits made from their billions of tons of natural gas and oil reserves to the Euro Nations ..At the moment they can sell to anyone who has the money to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted July 13, 2013 Author #10 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Icelend is still receiving the money that they are ought to get, since this is a multi-annual program. Turkey is a very difficult topic by itself, and I am not the right person to answer your questions, actually. The money is given to nations willing to adopt to the "EU-standarts" as an aid to push reforms (i.e. a development aid). I see nothing wrong with that, even if the nations will never become a part of the Union. No, it is not Multi - annual, it is determined on a year - on - year basis. Iceland has withdrawn on all negotiations so therefore should not recieve a single euro in the 2013 Budget Allocation. You are confusing Develeopment Aid with the IPA. The 2 are administered differently, through separate NGO's. IPA's are specific to Candidate Nations, Iceland is NOT. It is all about Governance within the EU and accountability. The EU is not Federated, it does not have the right to make Foreign Policy that is binding on ANY Sovereign EU State, and therefore amounts to illegal apportionment of EU funds. Candidate nations should show convergence with EU Standards BEFORE being given Candidate Status, and is this actually the requirement!! It is just being sidelined in order to open more "Assistance Centres" in those Nations which goes towards giving the National "Also - Rans" a place at the trough... The UK, through the Foreign Office, is perfectly entitled to give development aid as it sees fit, that is not at issue.... what is at issue is whether the EU, as an Organisation, has the right to make this determination on behalf of other members. Edited July 13, 2013 by keithisco 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odas Posted July 13, 2013 #11 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Among others, yes. You think they do not deserve this? I liked franks post, however I also agree with yours. Money for development is needed even for serbia. However, again, I would not give serbia and my own bosnia a cent. Why? First, bosnia has corrupt politicians and the money mostly goes in their pocket. Untill we have less corrupt politicians I would be very carefull with EU money. Second, serbia has the most corrupt politicians in the region, they are the main reason why bisnia needs development money and has the political situation as it is. Serbia is going to take as much as they can and then turn to russia anyway. The EU should be more carefull with the money they get from their own taxpayers. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrooma Posted July 14, 2013 #12 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I would not give serbia and my own bosnia a cent. Why? First, bosnia has corrupt politicians and the money mostly goes in their pocket.Until we have less corrupt politicians, i would be very careful with EU money. . that is the most refreshingly honest comment i've heard in a while Odas, thank you! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now