CERCLE DIPLOMATIQUE - issue 01/2020

L’AUTRICHE INTERVIEW
dass es beim letzten Budget übergangen
wurde. Denkbar wäre eine Abgabe auf
Plastikmüll, oder höhere Einnahmen aus
dem CO2-Emissionshandel. Eine andere
Möglichkeit ist eine Zollabgabe für Produkte,
die außerhalb Europas CO2-intensiv
erzeugt werden und daher bei den Gestehungskosten
niedriger liegen, als die
gleichen Produkte, die in der EU technologisch
aufwändiger und emissionsärmer erzeugt
werden.
Werden Länder, die keine oder weniger
Flüchtlinge aufgenommen haben, oder sonst
weniger Solidarität bewiesen haben, mit
Kürzungen bei den EU-Förderungen bestraft
werden?
Die zwei zuständigen EU-Kommissare
Margaritis Schinas und Ylva Johansson arbeiten
an einem neuen Ansatz für eine gemeinsame
Asylpolitik. Noch ist unklar, ob
es finanzielle Disziplinierungsmaßnahmen
geben soll, oder nicht. Man muss dazu ohnehin
einen vernünftigen Kompromiss finden,
weil ja am Ende ein einstimmiger Beschluss
erfolgen muss.
Wie wird sich der Brexit auf die künftige
Entwicklung der EU auswirken?
Ökonomisch und politisch gesehen ist
der Austritt Großbritanniens ein Verlust
für Europa. ist auch ein Fürsprecher für
die freie Marktwirtschaft und auch geopolitisch
ein bedeutendes Land. Auch im Nahen
Osten wird man gut beraten sein, weiterhin
mit den Briten zusammen zu
arbeiten. Insgesamt hoffe ich auf eine vernünftige
Lösung in den nun startenden
Verhandlungen über eine künftige neue
Beziehung. Wir sind an einer guten und
engen Partnerschaft mit Großbritannien
interessiert.
CD: For the next seven years, you will be in charge
of the EU budget of over 1 trillion euro. Does this
keep you up at night?
Johannes Hahn: The more it gets, the
better I sleep (laughs). For 2020, the budget
is set at 168.7 billion.
Do you expect big changes in budget allocation?
The central objective is investments in
climate protection. But we are not starting
from zero. The current budget already –
based on my initiative as European Commissioner
for Regional Policy – includes a
provision that, when it comes to structural
funds, at least 20 per cent must be used for
renewable energy and other measures to
improve energy efficiency. This number
has now been increased, especially due to
the fact that Eastern Europe has started to
recognise the potential for jobs including
an environmentally friendly and energyefficient
approach to economics. 10 years
ago, most of this money was spent on the
construction of motorways. Now, we are
going one step further. 25% of the entire
EU budget – so around 320 billion euro across
seven years – will have to be spent on
measures that will help protect the climate.
40 per cent of this will be contributed by
the agricultural sector and 30 per cent from
regional politics.
Some make the accusation that the EU is spending
too much money on old policy sectors, such as
agriculture and regional support, but too little on
science and digitalisation.
Our suggestion is: Traditional policy
sectors, such as agriculture and cohesion,
are losing part of the overall pie and will
only make up around 60% of the overall
budget, as opposed to right now, where it is
two thirds.
New policy sectors, for instance border protection,
are set to receive around 35 per cent of the
budget.
Yes, we must invest more in border protection,
digitalisation, as well as foreign and
security policy if we want to stay competitive
globally. What’s new is the defence sector,
though not with the aim of creating a parallel
NATO. There are more than 160 military
systems in Europe. The Americans have less
than 40. It should be obvious which system
is more efficient. We can save a lot of money
by making acquisitions together. Or take
the border protection agency Frontex. It
was decided on expanding it to up to 10,000
personnel members by 2027. These people
will certainly not work for free.
Why does the EU commit to a budget over seven
years?
It’s about planning. Generally speaking,
it is a good thing when you know which
means you will have at your disposal over
the next seven years. But we also build in
opportunities for flexibility. Seven years
ago, migration was not an issue, after all.
How do these new tasks fare with net contributor
countries – among them also Austria – who do not
wish to pay more than 1% of GDP on joint tasks?
They argue that the United Kingdom’s exit from
the EU should result in savings.
We anticipated in our proposal that we
would lose our second biggest net contributor
after Brexit. Following our proposal,
and in accordance with the current European
GDP, the EU budget will drop from
1.16% to 1.11%. The Finnish proposal lies
at 1.07%. This difference between percentages
amounts to nearly 50 billion euro (in
2018). And you also can’t reduce the budget
in a linear fashion. When it comes to
border protection, for example, Britain leaving
the EU has no impact on the situation
in the Mediterranean. Regarding savings
associated with personnel costs: We have
taken a look at the positions in the EU
commission that deal exclusively with British
matters: Out of around 30,000 employees,
they are only 150.
Will you be able to convince Chancellor Sebastian
Kurz that the new EU budget requires more than
the 1% of GDP that he had set as a limit?
This will definitely not lead to a show
fight between Sebastian Kurz and Johannes
Hahn. Austria is one of 27 EU nations, one
of around six relevant net contributors, and
who have a certain position on the matter.
The majority of countries has agreed with
the Commission’s proposal, some want even
more money than proposed by the European
Parliament. There is still a lot of discrepancy
between the different positions. But I
PHOTOS: RALPH MANFREDA
am confident that we will, as always, find a
solid compromise that will also take into
consideration Austria’s interests. What is
important is that we are able to finance those
areas that are key to making the EU futureproof
– climate protection, digitalisation, a
stronger foreign and security policy. All of
these matters are also in Austria’s interest.
What about a new source of income for the EU?
Could that be a solution?
The European Parliament has taken a
keen interest in this, since many of them
are of the opinion that this was ignored in
the last budget. One conceivable idea
would be a tax on plastic waste, or increased
revenue from CO2 emissions trading.
Another possibility would be a customs
duty on products made outside Europe and
in a very CO2-intensive manner which
would, therefore, have lower production
costs than the same products made in the
EU in a way that is technologically more
elaborate and involves fewer emissions.
Will countries that have taken in little or no
refugees, or displayed little solidarity in general,
be punished with cuts to their EU funding?
The two responsible EU Commissioners
Margaritis Schinas and Ylva Johansson are
working on a new approach to a common
asylum policy. It remains unclear whether
financial discipline measures will be introduced
or not. Regardless, we need to find a
reasonable compromise, for in the end, we
must arrive at a unanimous decision.
What impact will Brexit have on the future
development of the EU?
Economically and politically speaking,
the United Kingdom’s exit is a loss for Europe.
The UK is an advocate for free markets
and a significant geopolitical player. It
would also be very advisable to continue
working with the British in the Near East.
All in all, I hope that the current negotiations
will lead to a reasonable solution and
a new relationship in the future. We want a
good and close partnership with the United
Kingdom.
66 Cercle Diplomatique 1/2020
Johannes Hahn mit CD-Autor Otmar
Lahodynsky während des Interviews, das
vor dem am 20. Februar 2020 stattgefundenen
EU-Sondergipfel zum Budget
geführt wurde.
Johannes Hahn with CD‘s author Otmar
Lahodynsky during the interview which was
conducted before February 20, 2020, the
date of the EU special summit on the
budget. Cercle Diplomatique 1/2020 67