Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks with (from left) Italy's Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen AP/PA Images

Explainer: Will Ireland be a 'net contributor' to the EU's €750 billion recovery fund?

Member states will have to produce national recovery plans to access the funds.

AFTER FOUR DAYS of contentious talks in Brussels — which even had French President Emmanuel Macron threatening to jump in his helicopter and fly away — EU leaders have agreed on the broad contours of a €750 billion pandemic recovery fund as part of its €1.8 trillion seven-year Budget.

The main beneficiaries of the fund will be southern member states like Italy and Spain.

Ravaged by the virus, those two countries have limited room to borrow money because of their high levels of historic debt.

Ireland, on the other hand, is reportedly set to receive about €3 billion from the fund itself and more through various EU Budget instruments over the next seven years.

Questions have been asked in recent days about whether or not Ireland will be paying into the fund and what exactly our contribution will be.

Over the weekend, Taoiseach Micheál went as far as to assert that Ireland would be a “net contributor”, comments which were repeated by his party colleague, Europe minister Thomas Byrne, this morning. 

So what’s the story and how does it all work?

Is Ireland a ‘net contributor’ to the €750 billion recovery fund?

No, not for the moment anyway.

The Republic’s and, indeed, every member state’s contribution to the €750 billion recovery fund will be exactly €0 at the outset.

Why?

Because the entire point of the fund is that it will give the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU, unprecedented elbow room to borrow money on capital markets and distribute it to member states.

There’s no central pot into which countries are paying — the funds will be raised by the Commission issuing debt.

This has never really been done before, or certainly not on this scale.

Not even in the depths of the last major crash did EU leaders agree to issue joint debt in this fashion and if the deal is ‘historic’ or ‘unprecedented’ or any of the things European politicians are saying about it, it’s in the precedent that it sets in that particular area.

The Commission’s legal powers to borrow on behalf of the EU27 and dish out funds are grounded Article 122 of the EU Treaty.

Already this year, it has borrowed about €100 billion for an initiative called SURE, the EU Council’s jobs safety net programme unveiled in March in response to the pandemic.

But this is a significant ramping up of the Commission’s activity in debt markets.

What’s all this about grants?

Under the plan, around €390 billion of the €750 billion will be carved up and served to the EU27 in the form of grants, €312.5 billion of which will form the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Fund.

The rest will be set available to EU countries as loans, which have to be paid back eventually. 

On the other hand, member states do not have to directly pay back grant funding under the scheme, which is why some EU leaders fought so hard to reduce the total amount doled out under this heading and attach conditions to its distribution.

Member states will have to produce national recovery plans in order to access these funds, which will be handed out between 2021 and 2023.

Four northern countries, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Austria succeeded in reducing the grant portion from the €500 billion that was originally proposed to €390 billion in the final agreement.

But will Ireland and other member states have to back the money?

Yes, eventually.

The Commission will have to pay back the €750 billion that it plans to borrow from institutional investors. The deadline it has set itself is 2058.

Member states, the ultimate guarantors of the borrowed funds, will also eventually have the Commission back for the loans but potentially over a longer period and under more generous conditions. 

Overall, the plan is for the Commission to cover the €750 billion tab through revenue-generating ‘own resources’.

This could mean new bloc-wide taxes and levies and could well put the controversial (at least in Ireland) digital sales tax issue to the top of the European political agenda as the Commission hammers out the detail over the next few years.

If the executive fails to get some of these policies over the line in the next two to three years, it could mean that member states end up increasing their payment contributions in future EU budgets.

So technically, over time, Ireland could become a net contributor to the repayment effort but only if the EU does not reach consensus on new revenue-generating policies. 

What’s the story with the EU Budget anyway?

Alongside the emergency recovery fund, European leaders were also negotiating a seven-year Budget framework for the EU.

Basically it means that EU leaders worked out how much money will be given to various bloc-wide programmes like, for example, the Common Agricultural Policy.

Ireland has been a net contributor to the EU since 2013 and will remain so over the next seven years.

Contributions to the EU Budget are based on financial capacity so Ireland paying the EU more than it receives each year is, so the argument goes, a reflection of the State’s economic health.

These contributions fluctuate because they’re based on the member states’ gross national income for a particular financial year so it’s impossible to predict exactly what Ireland will be paying over the seven years.

And what does the new Budget look like?

A decidedly mixed bag.

In order to get the recovery fund deal across the line, compromises had to be made, which meant hacking budgets for certain EU programmes to pieces.

The Commission’s Just Transition Fund, a key part of the EU’s plan to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050, was slashed from a proposed €50 billion to just €10 billion.

The bloc’s medical research programme Horizon, slated to receive an extra €13.5 billion over the next seven years, will now only get €5 billion.

On the plus side domestically, Ireland will benefit from a €5 billion Brexit reserve fund, set aside to help countries and businesses that have been impacted and an extra €300 million under the Common Agricultural Policy.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

View 23 comments
Close
23 Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute werejammin
    Favourite werejammin
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 7:39 PM

    An excellent article. If you have to wait until a deteriorating woman who is in the process of losing her baby anyway is so bad that her life is in real danger before you act decisively, you are simply gambling with her life.

    125
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:22 PM

    Werejammin, very well expressed.

    Life and health are a continuum. You can’t draw a point at which one merges into the other.

    Article 40.3.3 is to blame.

    47
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute werejammin
    Favourite werejammin
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:44 PM

    Bigtime. Whats needed is a ‘Savitas Law’ stating that once its established that the foetus cannot in all likelihood survive, that the focus of care shifts immediately to the mother and she’s given whatever treatment is necessary to prevent the risk to her health becoming a risk to her life.

    61
    See 7 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:54 PM

    I agree.

    Unfortunately such a law would require a Constitutional referendum to repeal or to modify Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution.

    35
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Chuck Farrelly
    Favourite Chuck Farrelly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 10:25 PM

    No, you don’t have to wait for her condition to deteriorate, there only needs to be a real risk to her life

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 10:38 PM

    @ Chuck, would that were actually so.

    20
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Chuck Farrelly
    Favourite Chuck Farrelly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 10:48 PM

    That is so

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kelly Davis-Jordan
    Favourite Kelly Davis-Jordan
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 11:05 PM

    Really Chuck? Why did Savita die in agony then? At the point they were sure it was a risk to her life it was too late to save her. Read the coroners report and the findings of Dr Peter Boylan. Would you want the ‘wait and see’ approach if it was your wife? Especially senseless since the foetus was going to die anyway. A miscarrying foetus should be removed straight away to remove the risk of infection, that is best practice in countries where the living, breathing, sentient woman rightly has priority. What is the point of prolonging the agony and risking the life of the woman? Article 40.3.3 needs to go or other women will die this way, sacrificed to appease the morals of the foetus obsessed and the anti choice minority bin this country. Would you like to go to hospital and be told you had to wait until they were sure you were going to die before helping you? Why is that acceptable for women? Sorry, sir, your appendix is about to rupture but we have to wait until it does so before we operate because other people’s religious views say so.

    47
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 11:18 PM

    @ Chuck, sadly I am constrained by fact and reality. You’re not. You can say black is white, you might even wish that it were so, but that does not make it so.

    The reply of Kelly Jordan-Davis above answers you better than I can but I doubt that fact and logic will persuade you.

    23
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Daisy Chainsaw
    Favourite Daisy Chainsaw
    Report
    Jun 21st 2013, 1:06 AM

    @Chuck define “real risk”. Michelle Harte was told her cancer wasn’t cancerous enough to warrant a termination to stop her health deteriorating. Could you ever imagine a man being told he’d have to wait a while for his tumour to be treated because his life wasn’t under immediate threat? Would you accept a doctor telling you that they were going to wait until the percentage risk to your child’s life tipped to at least 51%

    If loitering around waiting until there’s a “real and substantial risk to life, as opposed to the health” is unacceptable for a man or a child, why is it okay to gamble with the life of a pregnant woman?

    30
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Ward
    Favourite John Ward
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 7:42 PM

    The bloody stupid constitution seems to defy common sense! It’s time to enact proper legislation before more women die. There should be enough highly paid lawyers to sort it out once and for all. Get your bloody fingers out!

    68
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:28 PM

    @ John Ward, you are right. The solution is easy to describe. The first and most difficult step is to repeal Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. That requires a Referendum. The problem with that is the politicians are in dread of getting into that arena.

    I disagree with one element in the article. It is not that the Savita type tragedy could happen again. It is the case that the Savita type tragedy will happen again unless Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution is repealed or unless it can be agreed by all that we pretend that it does not exist. Draw a veil over it.

    39
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Costello
    Favourite Mary Costello
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 9:02 PM
    30
    See 3 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 9:18 PM

    @ Mary Costello, thanks very much for that excellent link. I was unaware of the Examiner article. It expresses much better than I could what I was trying to explain. Much appreciated.

    25
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Chuck Farrelly
    Favourite Chuck Farrelly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 10:26 PM

    Settle it nice and for all? So, if the electorate decide to keep the right to life of the unborn in the constitution (again), that’ll be the end of it?

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 10:40 PM

    @ Chuck, yes.

    But please no bully boy tactics as was the case back in 1983. Let it be a fair vote and no threats from either side.

    Let the people in 2013 speak and vote.

    29
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Roman RomanOwski
    Favourite Roman RomanOwski
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 7:42 PM

    LEGALIZE IT!!!

    59
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Suzi Günbay
    Favourite Suzi Günbay
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 7:59 PM

    The eight amendment is vile.

    43
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Suzi Günbay
    Favourite Suzi Günbay
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:00 PM

    *8th

    20
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:20 PM

    @ Suzi, the legal and medical complications of the 8th Amendment, which introduced the wretched and pernicious Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, were identified in 1983 by no less than 3 Senior Counsel, but the Roman Catholic Church had to have its way.

    Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution is senseless but it correctly embodies Roman Catholic Church dogma.

    The original proposed wording by PLAC did not even give the pregnant woman a right of equality.

    In other countries, they have this radical notion that pregnant women are full human beings with an absolute right to life. In Ireland we relegate pregnant women to parity with a foetus.

    One comment made to me on another article was that Article 40.3.3 is democracy and the implication is that democracy justifies everything.

    37
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Daisy Chainsaw
    Favourite Daisy Chainsaw
    Report
    Jun 21st 2013, 1:10 AM

    It’s a disgusting, misogynist peice of legislation that kills women and has done no good in the 30 years it’s been in existence.

    24
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Costello
    Favourite Mary Costello
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:58 PM

    It is time we had a referendum to settle this once and for all. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of voters want more liberal abortion laws. This new legislation does NOT go far enough, it is far too restrictive and will only be a matter of time before there is another Savita!!

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/referendum-only-way-to-settle-divisive-abortion-issue-234160.html

    37
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 9:22 PM

    @ Mary Costello, well said. A repetition of a Savita tragedy is sadly only a matter of time.

    The life of no pregnant woman should be forfeited for the sake of ideology and religious dogma.

    25
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute paul breslin
    Favourite paul breslin
    Report
    Jun 22nd 2013, 3:45 PM

    There shouldn’t be a referendum at all. This is a civil rights issue. The majority shouldn’t get to vote on young women’s bodies.
    For that reason the government should just make all abortion legal within reason similar to Europe’s laws.

    Sometimes governments need to be courageous and legislate despite the people being less tolerant like they did with the civil rights act in 1964 USA. The people aren’t always right. They can be racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc but our elected representatives are supposed to be more enlightened a lead the way to the more tolerant next generation.

    5
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mary Costello
    Favourite Mary Costello
    Report
    Jun 22nd 2013, 4:50 PM

    Paul Breslin the Irish government is led by too many Anti Choice politicians who are the most vocal. Enda Kenny himself is Anti choice, so no hope of them making Irish abortion laws similar to the rest of Europe!! Therefore a referendum is the only way to go……because as things stand the new legislation is FAR too restrictive!!

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute guardian
    Favourite guardian
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 9:18 PM

    No pro life comments yet . must be over in rossport talking about hunger strikes

    23
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 9:23 PM

    Why do you say that?

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Campbell
    Favourite John Campbell
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 11:33 PM

    No matter what spin is put on it, the Savita case was as a result of ineptitude and extremely bad communication on the part of medical personnel . There was/ is no law preventing the appropriate medical intervention in such cases . The proposed legislation being debated in the Dail will not make a bit of difference to horrible events like the death of Savita.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tony Daly
    Favourite Tony Daly
    Report
    Jun 21st 2013, 12:09 AM

    @ John Campbell, you are missing the predominant factor in the death of Savita as identified in the HSE Report. Had the focus not been distracted by the focus on the foetal heart beat, thus delaying the termination, Savita would not have died. Once the cascading effect of catastrophic sepsis had taken hold, it was too late.

    The law preventing early intervention is Article 40.3.3 of he Constitution and the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. Bad law, reflecting religious dogma, undermined the practice of good medicine.

    Yes, there were deficiencies in medical care and treatment but he proximate cause of death was sepsis consequent upon inability t,o perform a termination until the expiry of he foetal heart beat by which time Savita’s life was beyond saving.

    It was a tragically unnecessary and wholly unavoidable death but I really do understand what those who support Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution cannot accept that this constitutional provision introduced under the direction of the Roman Catholic Church was the major contributory factor to the needless death of a young woman.

    20
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Daniel Dunne
    Favourite Daniel Dunne
    Report
    Jun 21st 2013, 2:26 AM

    Oh look, another ProChoice article on the Journal… here goes…

    Yes, a case like Savita’s could happen again… and unfortunately most likely will as happens in other countries…

    According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Guidelines on Bacterial Sepsis in Pregnancy (Green-top 64a), “Between 2006 and 2008 sepsis rose to become the leading cause of direct maternal death in the UK”

    Even in the UK with their lax abortion laws they still cannot prevent cases, like Savita’s, from happening.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Everyman
    Favourite John Everyman
    Report
    Jun 21st 2013, 10:37 AM

    Nobody says you have to keep coming here if you dislike the content.

    12
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Suzi Günbay
    Favourite Suzi Günbay
    Report
    Jun 21st 2013, 2:58 PM

    Must be sunny over in denial. I can see that’s working out for you.

    5
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute JoJo
    Favourite JoJo
    Report
    Jun 21st 2013, 5:02 PM

    Other countries at least give women a chance though.

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute agenbolakaki
    Favourite agenbolakaki
    Report
    Mar 2nd 2015, 10:07 AM

    They’re not doing it themselves, they’re going to the Russians to do the same thing.
    In the long run sports like soccer, cricket, volleyball
    and other exclusive sports events World Cup and Olympics
    are more enclosed because of their ideal viewership in the world which
    furthermore captured a large number of the dignified viewers.
    Learn to be aware of your intuition, and you will get better over time.
    http://ibcbetkita.net https://supertangkas.com

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute MyBIZ
    Favourite MyBIZ
    Report
    Apr 11th 2014, 11:29 AM

    The Missy Scouts instrument presently be commerce their cookies entry to entry in an period fundraiser that’s turn a fixture practice for umpteen supporters. Considering the afoot philosophical leanings of the Lover Scouts, it strength be instant to catch purchase those cookies. http://seomantab.com/asus-notebook-terbaik-dan-favoritku/
    http://seomantab.com/bisnis-online-dan-peluang-usaha-terbaik-di-indonesia-profit-virtual-com/

    1
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

Leave a commentcancel

 
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds