Every Irish person contributes €53.20 a month to the EU. We should be prepared to pay more
European Commission's
publication of its draft of the
union's
€2 trillion 2028-2034 budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (
MFF
), once again opens up a tortuous two years of likely acrimonious budget negotiations.
Twenty seven states and the
European Parliament
must unanimously agree – in talks as complicated as four-dimensional chess – a new package of political imperatives, from defence, immigration, climate change, industrial innovation and inflation to safeguarding historic programmes such as
CAP
and cohesion. By all appearances, this will be an utterly impossible reconciliation.
Helping to steer a path towards it will be the onerous central challenge of
next year's Irish presidency
. And complicating that challenge for cash-strapped Dublin negotiators will be a plethora of threats to programmes that are particularly important to us to us – CAP; changes to delivery mechanisms; new demands such as defence; and arguments about the scale of increasing burdens on budget net contributors.
In truth, according to Zsolt Darvas from think tank
Bruegel
, MFF spending needs to double to finance the climate transition and pay off its Covid-19 debts. His views echo those in
an important report last year
from former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi, calling for an additional €800 billion a year of private- and public-sector investment to revive Europe's economic competitiveness.
READ MORE
The commission's budget is more modest, some €1.816 trillion (plus €165 billion in pandemic recovery debt repayments), up from the current 1.1 per cent of union gross national income to 1.15 per cent. And all at a time when member states are all adamant they will not pay a penny more, although commission president Ursula von der Leyen insists unconvincingly their contributions do not need to go up.
[
The Irish Times view on the EU budget: major barriers to getting an agreement
Opens in new window
]
Irish farmers should be pleased to see direct income payments to farmers ring-fenced. However, agricultural economists here worry that rural development and environmental support payments are to be hived off into a broader regional fund pot and are likely to be squeezed – similar to the cohesion fund for poorer regions, which was once an important Irish staple.
MEPs from the regions are also already screaming blue murder at the 'renationalisation' or centralisation of regional funding – 27 national plans would replace more than 500 current programmes. They are alarmed it would substantially reduce regional autonomy and funding which makes up more than one-third of the current budget.
Von der Leyen's juggling trick also involves fancy footwork in respect of expanding the union's 'own resources' – or funding from non-member state sources. Such taxation needs to be targeted so that it does not impinge on the domestic tax base and revenues of governments. Most controversially this time is the suggestion of levying a tax on companies with a net annual turnover of at least €100 million. This is expected to generate only €6.8 billion but is already facing determined opposition. Speaking like an Irish finance minister, Germany's chancellor Friedrich Merz has warned that 'there is no question of the EU taxing companies, as the EU has no legal basis for this'.
Other proposed new 'own resources' include taxes targeting electric waste (around €15 billion annually), tobacco products/companies (€11.2 billion), a carbon border tax (€1.4 billion), and a tax on revenues generated by emissions trading (€9.6 billion).
EU capitals will also worry how the new budget would affect the politically sensitive difference between national contributions and receipts.
[
Proposed €2tn EU budget would increase funding for defence
Opens in new window
]
From 1973 to 2018 Ireland was a net recipient, in nominal terms, of more than €40 billion in EU funds. By 2023, 10 countries, including Ireland, were net contributors, and 17 were net beneficiaries. Top of the net contributors were Germany (€19.8 billion), France (€9.3 billion), with Ireland in eighth place (€1.3 billion). Poland was the top net beneficiary, receiving €7.1 billion. Ireland was second in net contribution per head, at €240 per person.
Courtesy of our growing relative wealth (measured dubiously by 'GDP per cap') we displaced Luxembourg in 2024 in paying the most to the EU budget on a gross per capita basis – with every Irish person contributing some €53.20 a month to the union's coffers compared to the EU average of €25.20 and Germans' €29.70. Bulgarians contributed €10.70 a month. Net cash contributions have been seized on by many national politicians and the press as evidence that the countries of the supposedly indolent south are unfairly milking the system at the expense of fiscally responsible northerners. But the real benefits of membership to the countries of the north amount to far more than can be measured by such direct transfer figures.
Apart from the progressive aims of redressing EU-wide economic imbalances, helping poorer neighbours and levelling the playing field, the EU provides huge indirect and non-cash benefits disproportionately to net contributing members such as Ireland. These include financial rewards from the European Central Bank in maintaining financial stability and financial returns, valuable access to the single market and research grants through the Horizon programme.
Making the political case for increasing our contribution yet again will not be easy but it must be done.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Irish Times
21 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Number of failed asylum applicants granted leave to remain in State drops by half
There has been a reduction of more than half in the number of unsuccessful international protection applicants who have been given leave to remain in the State by the Minister for Justice over the past two years. New figures released by the Department of Justice show that then minister for justice Helen McEntee gave permission to remain in the State to 1,010 people who failed to be granted asylum or refugee status in 2023. In 2024, however, that number dropped sharply to 483. Under the current Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan, there appears to be a continuing reduction in permissions. A total of 210 permissions have been granted between January 1st and July 18th this year, suggesting the overall number for 2025 could be as low as 400. READ MORE Mr O'Callaghan disclosed the figures in response to a parliamentary question from Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín. He pointed out that an exceptionally high number of permissions had been granted in 2022 – 2,835. The higher numbers for that year, he said, were attributed to the impact of Covid and the moratorium imposed during the pandemic on removing people from the State. He also said there was a once-off scheme that allowed undocumented people to regularise their status in 2022, and that included people living in the State who had failed to get protection status. 'It is a central priority for me that our international protection and immigration systems are robust and enforced,' said Mr O'Callaghan. [ Asylum seekers: Numbers seeking international protection in Ireland fell by 43% this year Opens in new window ] The International Protection Act sets out what the Minister should consider when making a decision to grant or refuse permission to remain. The factors include a person's connection to Ireland; humanitarian considerations; character and conduct; and national security. The Minister must also consider if there is a risk that returning a person to another country could lead to them suffering harm, particularly from torture, degrading treatment or facing the death penalty. The figures show that people from Nigeria make up more than 20 per cent of those allowed to remain. Other countries with a high number of permissions are Georgia; South Africa; Zimbabwe; Pakistan; Malawi; Egypt; Congo; China; Botswana; Brazil; Bangladesh; India; and Morocco.


Irish Times
21 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Why is Sinn Féin so reluctant to amend climate legislation to improve the A5?
Sinn Féin's loyalty to Stormont's climate change legislation is perplexing self-sabotage. Liz Kimmins, the party's infrastructure minister, has announced an appeal against June's ruling on the A5 dual-carriageway from Aughnacloy to Derry. The Northern Ireland High Court quashed the scheme, the largest single road-building project in the North's history, because it did not comply with emission reduction targets in the 2022 Climate Change Act. These targets can supposedly be met by drawing up carbon offset plans but no serious attempt had been made to do so. Nor does compliance look feasible within the timeframe Stormont has set itself: net zero by 2050, with interim reductions of 48 per cent by 2030 and 77 per cent by 2040. READ MORE The judge in June's case, Mr Justice McAlinden, said it might be possible to make a plan for the A5 consistent with the Act. In theory, perhaps, but experience in Wales suggests otherwise. The Welsh government scrapped all major road-building in 2023, declaring this was the only way to meet its similar net-zero schedule. The Scottish government took a more realistic approach last year when it repealed the interim targets in its climate change legislation, while retaining the aim of net zero by 2045. It did this largely to save a dual-carriageway upgrade from Inverness to Perth. There has been no mention of any of this from Kimmins or her department. All statements on the appeal indicate it will be based on saving lives. The current A5 has a horrendous safety record , averaging one fatality every four months. [ From the archive: 'Everyone who has lost a loved one on that road will be happy' Opens in new window ] This was addressed in June's ruling, however. Mr Justice McAlinden acknowledged lives will continue to be lost but the A5 can still only be built 'in accordance with the law'. His comments reflected the extent to which the Climate Change Act had tied the court's hands. The Court of Appeal will hardly see it differently. Kimmins also referred this week to the A5 as 'regionally significant'. The project is often framed as correcting historic underinvestment in the west of Northern Ireland. If that is being considered as grounds for appeal, it is equally doomed: the Climate Change Act does not care on which side of the Bann carbon dioxide is emitted. Of course, Stormont's hands are not tied by its own laws – it can amend, repeal or replace them. Sinn Féin's refusal to countenance this is bizarre, given how little the party had to do with the 2022 legislation and how important the A5 is to its constituents and supporters. Delivering the project has been a key party promise since the 2006 St Andrews Agreement. Its safety and travel enhancements would be complemented by the symbolism of all-Ireland infrastructure: the Irish government was to have co-funded it to connect Dublin with Donegal. Sinn Féin stepped up these promises last year, when it assumed the first minister's post at a restored Stormont. June's ruling has undermined the credibility of the party and of devolution itself among republican voters. The Climate Change Act has eccentric provenance. It began life as a 2021 private member's bill from Clare Bailey, then leader of the Greens. Sinn Féin supported it, as did the SDLP, Alliance and the UUP, with reservations. The DUP opposed it, arguing Bailey's targets were unachievable. So Edwin Poots, then the DUP environment minister, produced a rival bill. Both bills progressed together amid haggling over targets and several other issues, until Bailey was satisfied enough to let her bill lapse and the DUP's pass, with the support of every party except the TUV. Poots described his final legislation as 'a compromise'. The DUP and TUV both oppose the 2040 deadline, required by the 2022 Act but set by a separate vote last December. Why is Sinn Féin prepared to suffer any political pain to defend a DUP law that even the DUP only begrudgingly supports? If Sinn Féin proposed repealing interim targets, as in Scotland, the DUP would agree. Alliance now holds the environment portfolio but the DUP and Sinn Féin have the numbers to put any change through the assembly. Deborah Erskine, the DUP chair of Stormont's infrastructure committee, responded to June's ruling by saying the Climate Change Act 'will have to be looked at as a matter of priority'. She noted this week that an appeal will take years. Even sluggish Stormont can amend laws quickly, when it wants. Although tactical retreat on climate change would be briefly embarrassing, Sinn Féin has managed far greater reversals in the past. It is managing a trickier U-turn even now on transgender medicine. One possible explanation for the party's behaviour is that it no longer believes the A5 will be built. The estimated cost has quadrupled since the project was proposed, rendering it increasingly implausible. If that is too embarrassing to admit, an appeal kicks the can down the road. But this is speculation on my part, over a genuine mystery. Sinn Féin really needs to explain itself.


Irish Times
35 minutes ago
- Irish Times
HVO is a climate ‘quick fix' that could be worse than fossil fuels
'For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.' This aphorism frequently comes to mind when I reflect on climate solutions. Problems don't come more complex or urgent than climate change, and sadly there is no shortage of solutions that seem appealing and straightforward, but are, at best, distractions. In the worst cases, some of these solutions can be more harmful than doing nothing at all. Hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) is one such solution. HVO is being aggressively promoted as a convenient, low-carbon 'drop-in' substitute for diesel, heating oil and jet kerosene, requiring no modifications to engines or boilers. Its apparent simplicity makes it an attractive quick fix. Proponents claim HVO is a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels because it is manufactured from waste, like used cooking oil (UCO) and palm oil mill effluent (POME), a byproduct of palm oil processing. Using these waste products ostensibly sidesteps the well-known pitfalls of crop-based biofuels: land use change, deforestation, biodiversity loss and rising food prices. If only we had enough genuine waste oil in the world to make even a small dent in our vast oil demand. The numbers simply don't add up. Take a typical fast food restaurant, which might produce 50 litres of waste cooking oil weekly. This would produce enough HVO to fuel a typical diesel car to drive perhaps 600 kilometres. Useful, yes – possibly enough for the restaurant's delivery driver, but nowhere nearly sufficient to meet more than a small fraction of Ireland's diesel demand. There are simply not enough chip shops in the world. So, where does our imported HVO actually come from? According to data from Ireland's National Oil Reserve Agency (Nora), about half of the transport biofuel entering our market in 2024 came from UCO and POME, which are mostly imported from Malaysia, Indonesia and China, regions plagued by deforestation as a result of expanding palm oil production. Suspicion is mounting internationally about rampant fraud in these supply chains. Given lax auditing and strong financial incentives, it's disturbingly easy and attractive to pass off virgin palm oil as a waste product. The implications for the climate are dire. Many studies have show n how biodiesel from virgin vegetable oils cause similar greenhouse gas emissions as diesel, and in some cases, are much worse. According to one study, emissions from palm oil biodiesel are three times greater than those from fossil diesel, because of its association with tropical rainforest deforestation. Substituting fossil fuels with palm oil-derived HVO isn't just unhelpful, it's blatantly harmful and irresponsible. I first raised this issue in my column two years ago , calling HVO a 'life raft for the liquid fuels industry'. In many ways, the situation has deteriorated since then. 'HVO-ready boilers' are widely marketed as an easy solution to decarbonising home heating and, anecdotally, I have heard that plumbers are discouraging homeowners interested in installing heat pumps, in favour of these oil boilers. The new programme for government also commits to supporting HVO in road freight and to consider its use in older homes. Support for HVO has followed from strong advocacy and lobbying from Ireland's fuel industry and affiliated groups. A group misleadingly named the Alliance for Zero Carbon Heating (TAZCH) – actually a Coalition of trade organisations representing boiler manufacturers and fuel distributors, including Fuels for Ireland – is lobbying heavily for mandates to blend 20 per cent HVO into home heating oil. Their own research acknowledges this blended fuel would not offer significant climate benefits compared to electrification via heat pumps, and that HVO costs roughly 80 per cent more than regular heating oil. Alarmingly, HVO may also be taking off as a fuel for data centres , allowing them to claim sustainability. On the other hand, there is growing awareness of the problems with importing such dubious biofuels. Nora has flagged some of the risks in a letter to the Government this January, and it has taken steps to reduce additional incentives for POME and tighten import rules in the Renewable Transport Fuel Policy. It also commits to working at the EU level to tighten supply chain integrity. However, these are small regulatory steps, mainly covering transport, and incentives as well as loopholes remain. For example, HVO is still treated as a zero carbon fuel in our carbon budget and greenhouse gas accounting. Incremental measures won't solve the underlying issue. The core problem isn't simply inadequate regulation or unreliable supply chains; it's the fundamental unsuitability of liquid biofuels as a large-scale decarbonisation strategy. The vast majority of applications targeted for HVO use should instead be electrified or reduced through energy efficiency measures. Electrification and energy demand reduction involve complex, sometimes disruptive changes and upfront investment. While these transitions pay dividends through lower costs, healthier homes, cleaner air and genuine climate progress, inertia remains at many levels. An electricity grid that isn't yet fully ready, alongside lingering fears about heat pumps, electric vehicles and renewable infrastructure, creates a tempting but false allure for simplistic solutions like HVO. Prof Hannah Daly is professor of sustainable energy at University College Cork