What do you think?
Rate this book
Ending Excess: Cutting the Costs of the European Parliament
National governments across Europe are struggling to cut public expenditure while the EU institutions have
been carrying on obliviously. They are just waking up to the problem. They are very costly. Money is no
object. In looking at these institutions we begin with the European Parliament (EP), the EU institution we
know best.
We imagined the information would be easily accessible and that a report could be written quickly. In fact,
it has been extraordinarily difficult to glean even some of the most basic information about the EP’s
expenditure. As an example, on 15th April 2011, we submitted 15 straightforward questions to the
Parliament’s authorities. A reply was received 3 months later, on 18 July 2011, immediately preceding the
summer recess. However, the information gave us some key elements for this report, which is really an
overview of the problem. We have not been able to get into all the detail of consequential costs, or the
rules and legislation that hamper change. What is clear is that the driving force in the budget increases –
the EP now costs €1.69 billion a year – has been the excessive growth of the parliament’s bureaucracy and
its vanity projects. This trend has to be put in reverse.
We recognise the deep suspicion and sincere criticism of “Brussels” and the project of “ever closer union” in
many countries – indeed, the driving motive of “New Direction”, as its name implies, is to steer the EU onto
a different course. At the same time we understand that many take a benign view of the EU, and that this is
a consequence of geography, economics, and of recent history. We very consciously, therefore, have not
sought to propose unnecessarily draconian measures, or ones that a reasonable MEP would have difficulty
with. However, in these times of economic stringency, the most egregious examples of excess should be cut
– the “House of European History” is a monumental example.
But there is no point in saving money in one area of EU expenditure if it is just going to be recycled into
another. There is an urgent need to find ways in which funds can be returned, through a simple and
transparent process, to the national exchequers of countries that are net contributors to the EU budget. At
the moment there is little political will or incentive within the Parliament’s bureaucracy to cut costs
dramatically. Governments, in Council, must therefore insist that the EU institutions, including the
Parliament, engage in serious reductions of expenditure in the short term. Then the treaties should be
amended to facilitate further cuts – ending, for example, the requirement for Parliament to have sessions in
Strasbourg and reducing the translation requirements.
The Parliament should end its spendthrift ways. It should introduce significant cuts to its budget. We
suggest ways of doing this and call on the Parliament’s Bureau and budgetary services to bring forward the
necessary proposals.
been carrying on obliviously. They are just waking up to the problem. They are very costly. Money is no
object. In looking at these institutions we begin with the European Parliament (EP), the EU institution we
know best.
We imagined the information would be easily accessible and that a report could be written quickly. In fact,
it has been extraordinarily difficult to glean even some of the most basic information about the EP’s
expenditure. As an example, on 15th April 2011, we submitted 15 straightforward questions to the
Parliament’s authorities. A reply was received 3 months later, on 18 July 2011, immediately preceding the
summer recess. However, the information gave us some key elements for this report, which is really an
overview of the problem. We have not been able to get into all the detail of consequential costs, or the
rules and legislation that hamper change. What is clear is that the driving force in the budget increases –
the EP now costs €1.69 billion a year – has been the excessive growth of the parliament’s bureaucracy and
its vanity projects. This trend has to be put in reverse.
We recognise the deep suspicion and sincere criticism of “Brussels” and the project of “ever closer union” in
many countries – indeed, the driving motive of “New Direction”, as its name implies, is to steer the EU onto
a different course. At the same time we understand that many take a benign view of the EU, and that this is
a consequence of geography, economics, and of recent history. We very consciously, therefore, have not
sought to propose unnecessarily draconian measures, or ones that a reasonable MEP would have difficulty
with. However, in these times of economic stringency, the most egregious examples of excess should be cut
– the “House of European History” is a monumental example.
But there is no point in saving money in one area of EU expenditure if it is just going to be recycled into
another. There is an urgent need to find ways in which funds can be returned, through a simple and
transparent process, to the national exchequers of countries that are net contributors to the EU budget. At
the moment there is little political will or incentive within the Parliament’s bureaucracy to cut costs
dramatically. Governments, in Council, must therefore insist that the EU institutions, including the
Parliament, engage in serious reductions of expenditure in the short term. Then the treaties should be
amended to facilitate further cuts – ending, for example, the requirement for Parliament to have sessions in
Strasbourg and reducing the translation requirements.
The Parliament should end its spendthrift ways. It should introduce significant cuts to its budget. We
suggest ways of doing this and call on the Parliament’s Bureau and budgetary services to bring forward the
necessary proposals.
46 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 12, 2012
1 person want to read
About the author
Derk Jan Eppink
17 books2 followersDutch journalist, politician in Belgium and the Netherlands, and former cabinet secretary for European Commissioners Bolkestein (1999–2004) and Kallas (2004–2007).
In 2009, he was elected to the European Parliament for the Flemish party List Dedecker ( ECR ).
In 2019 he became the head candidate for the Dutch party Forum for Democracy,
In 2009, he was elected to the European Parliament for the Flemish party List Dedecker ( ECR ).
In 2019 he became the head candidate for the Dutch party Forum for Democracy,
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
No one has reviewed this book yet.