尊敬的用户您好，这是来自FT中文网的温馨提示：如您对更多FT中文网的内容感兴趣，请在苹果应用商店或谷歌应用市场搜索“FT中文网”，下载FT中文网的官方应用。
Earlier in July, the European Commission fired the starting gun on a 30-month marathon negotiation on the EU’s next seven-year budget. Brussels has proposed a nearly €2tn common spending pot it claims faces up to Europe’s “new and emerging challenges”. Does it?
今年7月早些时候，欧盟委员会(European Commission)正式启动了为期30个月的谈判马拉松，商讨欧盟下一个七年预算。布鲁塞尔提出了一个近2万亿欧元的共同支出计划，声称能够应对欧洲的“新挑战和新兴挑战”。事实果真如此吗？
First, the good. Brussels has taken some steps towards reallocating funds to today’s priorities: infrastructure, defence, security, research and energy and industrial resilience. The exact numbers are already the subject of fights, even inside the commission itself. But just as important is the lack of controversy around the methodological changes to the budget.
首先，说说积极的一面。布鲁塞尔已经采取了一些措施，将资金重新分配到当今的优先事项上：基础设施、国防、安全、科研，以及能源和产业韧性。具体的数字已经在争论之中，甚至欧盟委员会内部也存在分歧。但同样重要的是，预算方法上的调整几乎没有引发争议。
The commission rolls agricultural subsidies and transfers to poorer regions into new national plans, to be proposed by governments, approved by the EU and checked against delivery to release funding. This marks a major shift, modelled on the post-pandemic recovery fund. Grumbles can be heard about insufficient funding and a power grab by national governments from local officials. But not about the basic principle of cash in return for demonstrable, mutually agreed reforms.
委员会将农业补贴和对较贫困地区的转移支付整合进新的国家计划。这些计划由各国政府提出，需经欧盟批准，并根据实际执行情况审核后发放资金。这标志着一次重大转变，模式借鉴了疫情后复苏基金。有人抱怨资金不足，以及国家政府从地方官员手中攫取权力。但对于以现金换取可验证、双方同意的改革这一基本原则，并没有异议。
That is a quiet revolution from the habit of simply sending checks to farmers and local governments; the most remarkable thing about the budget draft was the least remarked upon. Another change seemingly received without objection is the streamlining of the budget into fewer funding streams. This simplification should speed up disbursement and ease planning and co-ordination.
从简单地给农民和地方政府寄支票的习惯来看，这是一场悄无声息的革命；预算草案中最引人注目的一点是最少被提及的。另一项似乎没有受到反对的改变是精简预算，减少资金流。这种简化应能加快支付速度，简化规划和协调。
Next, the bad. The commission has reprioritised its budget with a view to the changing geopolitical landscape. The commission’s new spending priorities show it has listened to warnings in the Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi reports. But is has missed the opportunity to integrate budget politics more closely with strategic calls to unify the single market and boost productivity. A case in point is the ill-judged idea of lump-sum taxes on EU companies with large turnover. Brussels is right to seek new revenue sources. But any business levy should be designed within its planned pan-EU corporate code. Getting a share of the corporate tax base from companies choosing this regime is better than slapping a new tax on top of existing ones.
接下来是消极的方面。委员会已经根据不断变化的地缘政治格局，重新调整了预算优先级。委员会新的支出重点显示出其已经听取了恩里科•莱塔(Enrico Letta)和马里奥•德拉吉(Mario Draghi)报告中的警告。但委员会错失了一个机会，即将预算政策与统一单一市场和提升生产力的战略决策更加紧密地结合。例如，对欧盟高营业额企业征收一次性税的想法就是一个判断失误的案例。布鲁塞尔寻求新的收入来源是正确的，但任何企业税都应在其计划中的泛欧公司法框架内设计。从选择这种制度的公司那里获得一部分公司税基，比在现有税种之上再加一项新税要好得多。
The budget also fails to address the need for more equity funding for companies in key strategic sectors, set out convincingly in a report by the European Policy Centre that proposes an off-budget instrument resembling an EU sovereign wealth fund making equity investments in the bloc. This is a good idea. So is the EPC’s call to securitise EU-funded common European industrial and infrastructure projects. Both would boost the growth of badly needed pan-EU capital markets.
该预算同样未能回应为关键战略领域企业提供更多股权融资的需求。欧洲政策中心(European Policy Centre)在一份报告中对此进行了有力阐述，并建议设立一个预算外工具，类似于欧盟主权财富基金，在欧盟内部进行股权投资。这是个好主意。欧洲政策中心还呼吁将欧盟资助的欧洲共同工业和基础设施项目进行证券化，这同样值得肯定。这两项举措都将有助于推动急需的泛欧资本市场发展。
A third weakness is the commission’s lack of attention to providing investors with pan-EU safe benchmark securities. The budget draft does nothing to promote this. More common debt is a politically explosive idea. But it need not be raised for subsidising poorer members; a stronger justification is to fund an EU sovereign wealth fund.
第三个问题是委员会未能关注为投资者提供泛欧安全基准证券。预算草案对此毫无推动。发行更多共同债务在政治上是一个极具争议的想法，但这并不一定是为了补贴较贫困的成员国；更有力的理由是为欧盟主权财富基金提供资金。
Finally, the ugly. Brussels commits the statistical sin of using nominal numbers, which mainly reflect inflation, to claim a large increase in the budget. The relevant measure of resources is the share of gross national income the budget allocates to common priorities. The last budget came to a little over 1 per cent of EU GNI. Adding in the special post-pandemic debt-financed fund, the total came to 1.7 per cent. The new draft budget is for 1.26 per cent of GNI, but after deducting the money needed to pay down common debts, it’s a mere 1.15 per cent — an amount that will be further whittled down in talks. A proposal to spend one-third less of an already tiny share of resources makes a mockery of all the strategic evangelising. This is a budget that ensures continued geopolitical marginalisation.
最后，说说令人不快的部分。布鲁塞尔犯下了统计学上的错误，使用名义数字（主要反映通胀）来宣称预算大幅增加。衡量资源的相关标准，应该是预算在欧盟国民总收入中分配给共同优先事项的比例。上一轮预算略高于欧盟国民总收入的1%。如果加上疫情后特别的债务融资基金，总额达到1.7%。而新一轮预算草案仅为国民总收入的1.26%，扣除偿还共同债务所需的资金后，实际只有1.15%——而且在谈判中还会进一步缩水。提议将本已微不足道的资源份额再削减三分之一，这无异于对所有战略宣传的嘲弄。这样的预算只会让欧盟在地缘政治上持续被边缘化。
As the great American philosophers Ralph Waldo Emerson and Omar Little have argued, if you “come at the king, you best not miss”. If the EU wants to hold its own in world affairs, it must give itself the resources for it. Getting more now will be much harder after its initial lowballing. Success is more likely for off-budget ideas such as the EPC’s, common borrowing for a sovereign wealth fund and a delay to paying down existing debt to free up funds. Both EU and national leaders accept they face unprecedented, perhaps existential, risks. They must now admit those cannot be addressed on the cheap.
正如伟大的美国哲学家拉尔夫•沃尔多•爱默生(Ralph Waldo Emerson)和奥马尔•利特尔(Omar Little)所言，如果“向国王进攻，最好不要失手”。如果欧盟想在世界事务中保持自己的地位，就必须为自己提供资源。在最初的低迷之后，现在获得更多资源将更加困难。成功的可能性更大的是一些预算外的想法，如欧洲政策中心、主权财富基金的共同借款以及推迟偿还现有债务以释放资金。欧盟和各国领导人都承认，他们面临着前所未有的、也许是生死攸关的风险。他们现在必须承认，这些问题不能廉价解决。