Growing rift? UK+Europe

[kronic]

I'd like to see a multi-speed EU. However, it's funny that those countries which would be in the slower group (the UK for example, but also the new members) refuse this concept. The reason is the same that made the Brits enter the EEC in the first place: they want to keep their influence. A multi-speed EU would weaken the influence of the UK.

[Thorgal]

I was not speaking about the CAP i was saying that UK has been historically and is nowaday the main obstacle for the EU, a ballast that the EU should deliver. They want to participate of all the perks of staying inside EU but none of the obligations. Even Spain, a poorer country will be a net contributor in 3 or 4 years and we are not whining continuously about it, allthough it will be *much* tougher for us. So less selfish and more long term vision or go out once for all.

About the CAP i am against it at least in his current structure. Here in Spain most aids go to large alimentary corporations or very big proprietors, even nobility. For instance the house of the duke of Osuna receives 3,5 millions every years and the duchess of Alba receives 2,5 millions.

[Dinner]

The UK is the second biggest contributor in total cash and has been since it joined the EEC back in the 1970's. You are whining like a mule over the rebate but France gets twice that amount and then some out of CAP. If a budget deal is to be brokered then the agricultural subsidies which eat up 40% of the EU budget simply must be part of it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Thorgal
I was not speaking about the CAP i was saying that UK has been historically and is nowaday the main obstacle for the EU, a ballast that the EU should deliver. They want to participate of all the perks of staying inside EU but none of the obligations. Even Spain, a poorer country will be a net contributor in 3 or 4 years and we are not whining continuously about it, allthough it will be *much* tougher for us. So less selfish and more long term vision or go out once for all.

Spain is the biggest net beneficiary. The UK, even with the rebate, is the second largest net contributor. Without it, we're the largest net contributor. If that's not contributing our obligations I don't know what is. And to use that as an argument that we're being selfish and you're being selfless? Spain is in the EU because it gains considerably from it.

More importantly, we don't share your vision. We are acting as our long term vision, and that vision doesn't involve giving a whole lot *more* money to the EU. We want what we want, and France, Spain and Germany are being a barrier to that vision.

It's not about who's being a barrier, who's holding it up. We have fundamental differences in our vision for the EU. We don't want a superstate.

[Dinner]

I love how the anti-English people are trying to turn this into a "WHAAAA!!! England is greedy and hates Europe!!!" when it is the French who killed the budget. Chirac said he wouldn't discuss any item on the budget accept ending the UK rebate which is bollocks. What do you expect the British to do other then tell Chirac to stuff it?

If the goal is to reach a budget agreement, and I think it is, then the whole budget will have to be discussed. That's not bringing in outside things or tying unrelated items but instead examining the budget is critical towards fixing the budget. I really don't understand how Chirac and his pet monkey in Luxembourg can even try to pretend anything else.

[kronic]

I love how the anti-English people are trying to turn this into a "WHAAAA!!! England is greedy and hates Europe!!!" when it is the French who killed the budget. Chirac said he wouldn't discuss any item on the budget accept ending the UK rebate which is bollocks. What do you expect the British to do other then tell Chirac to stuff it?

If the goal is to reach a budget agreement, and I think it is, then the whole budget will have to be discussed. That's not bringing in outside things or tying unrelated items but instead examining the budget is critical towards fixing the budget. I really don't understand how Chirac and his pet monkey in Luxembourg can even try to pretend anything else.

Again, Chirac agreed to freeze the CAP budget back in 2002. Now, everything the others wanted with the last proposal of Juncker was, that the British rebate can't be higher than € 5,5bn, i.e. they just wanted to freeze the rebate. With the exception of 2001, the rebate was every year clearly below these € 5,5 bn.

How is that unacceptable?

To put it in other words: the French already moved in 2002, why can't Britain now? Sure, it was a small step, but it was at least one.

Also note, that the reason why everyone blames the UK, is that there's only one country which profits from the rebate: the UK. France on the other hand gets only 25 % of CAP money. The CAP is an EU wide program, the rebate is not. It happens to be that France benefits the most from the CAP, but it's just BS that the French are the only beneficiaries.

[BlackCat]

Maybe because it was way too small ?

[kronic]

The history of the EU is a history of small steps. And with now 25 members, it will be even more so.

The British presidency will certainly be a lost half year. Blair has pissed off too many people. Juncker's message was quite clear.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by kronic
Again, Chirac agreed to freeze the CAP budget back in 2002. Now, everything the others wanted with the last proposal of Juncker was, that the British rebate can't be higher than € 5,5bn, i.e. they just wanted to freeze the rebate. With the exception of 2001, the rebate was every year clearly below these € 5,5 bn.

How is that unacceptable?

Because the CAP isn't frozen, and because we're not about to give a consession on our rebate unless we get a consession back.

And *any* consession to the EU is unacceptable with the voters It'd be political suicide for Blair to give a consession without something solid to bring back.

Originally posted by kronic
To put it in other words: the French already moved in 2002, why can't Britain now? Sure, it was a small step, but it was at least one.

The French moved a step in 2002 because they got something else from it (can't remember what, but they liked the deal too). When we're offered something, we;ll budge. Do you honestly expect us to just give away money without getting anything in return? If we're offered something, then we might accept it, but so far nothing's been offered.

Originally posted by kronic
Also note, that the reason why everyone blames the UK, is that there's only one country which profits from the rebate: the UK. France on the other hand gets only 25 % of CAP money. The CAP is an EU wide program, the rebate is not. It happens to be that France benefits the most from the CAP, but it's just BS that the French are the only beneficiary.

The reason we have the rebate is because we don't get much at all of any of the structural programmes. It's to even the balance. The UK is still the 2nd largest net contributor to the EU. We give away a lot of money with the rebate. The rebate makes it fairer, without it France would have made a surplus quite often and we'd be the biggest contributor.

The bottom line is - if you want to debate the budget, then let's debate the budget. If you want to just talk about the rebate, then we're not going to get anywhere. The UK has said it's happy to discuss reducing the rebate when we discuss the budget as a whole. France has said no, they won't debate anything else. And it's us who's being unreasonable?

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
Like you, I don't see anything wrong with a crisis or two.

Me either, the european ideal has always come stronger out of all it's crises (even back to the 'empty chair' crisis that deGaulle made)

The european ideal (as I see it) is in no danger of failing because of differences between member states (is democracy within a nation threatened when different subsections disagree?, not usually), or even the rejection of the consitituion (if a constitution is rejected by the people, that's a good thing as power without legitimacy is percieved as despotism, as the US has found out internationally regarding Iraq).

The real benefit and prize of european integration is the possible (note I said possible) success of widening the rule of law - which has transformed societies within nations over the last two centuries - to try to make it apply between nations.
This offers hope that the current bout of globalization (which has lifted more people out of grinding poverty, worldwide, than ever before) may not go the way of it's 19th century equivalent and descend into an orgy of nationalism and war.
Indeed in this age where the means of aquiring terrible destuction (WMD's etc.) are easier to get than ever before I suggest that the european project of pooled sovereignty and the application of the rule of law between states is probably the most important project humanity is undertaking.

Only europe can undertake this project, they US is too large to do so and Asia is too new to nationalism.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by kronic

Also note, that the reason why everyone blames the UK, is that there's only one country which profits from the rebate: the UK. France on the other hand gets only 25 % of CAP money. The CAP is an EU wide program, the rebate is not. It happens to be that France benefits the most from the CAP, but it's just BS that the French are the only beneficiaries.

Not everybody blames the UK for their rebate. It's the CAP that are the reason the UK has this rebate not the other way around because UK farming isn't that big.

Actually, the CAP is pretty rediciuosly the way it currently works. Countries such as france and denmark are reciving grotesque amounts of money despite they are some of the wealthiest in eu. 2006 is going to be the first year where we don't get more back than we pay, wich is about time.

[kronic]

Originally posted by Drogue
Because the CAP isn't frozen, and because we're not about to give a consession on our rebate unless we get a consession back.

Ah, come on. It can't grow more than 1 % pa, which is less than the growth of the EU budget and less than the inflation rate. If Blair said after Juncker's last proposal, we agree to the compromise, if we can get € 5,5bn + 1 % pa, the others would have taken it.

And *any* consession to the EU is unacceptable with the voters It'd be political suicide for Blair to give a consession without something solid to bring back.

If you can't make any concession even when you've just been reelected, then there's something seriously wrong.

The French moved a step in 2002 because they got something else from it (can't remember what, but they liked the deal too). When we're offered something, we;ll budge. Do you honestly expect us to just give away money without getting anything in return? If we're offered something, then we might accept it, but so far nothing's been offered.

I don't know of anything the French got in addition. But feel free to provide some information.

The reason we have the rebate is because we don't get much at all of any of the structural programmes. It's to even the balance. The UK is still the 2nd largest net contributor to the EU. We give away a lot of money with the rebate. The rebate makes it fairer, without it France would have made a surplus quite often and we'd be the biggest contributor.

So what is the justification? At first, it was the weak state of the British economy in the early 80's, then it was because Britain has few farmers and now it is because the UK is not poor anymore? The point of the structural programs is to help poor regions. Refusing to help poor regions is an even worse argument than connecting CAP and the rebate and then refusing to draw the conclusions, don't you think?

[kronic]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Actually, the CAP is pretty rediciuosly the way it currently works. Countries such as france and denmark are reciving grotesque amounts of money despite they are some of the wealthiest in eu. 2006 is going to be the first year where we don't get more back than we pay, wich is about time.

Agreed. So what? I don't deny the fact that the CAP needs to be reformed/abolished.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drogue
And *any* consession to the EU is unacceptable with the voters It'd be political suicide for Blair to give a consession without something solid to bring back.

You should write "solid" between quotation marks.

More accurately, the quote should read: "*any* consession to the EU is unacceptable with the voters It'd be political suicide for Blair to give a consession without something hyped to bring back"

The CAP is sure big bone of contention in the EU, but a reform of the CAP isn't actually solid for the British taxpayer's pockets. Even if the CAP was removed in favour of research, medicine, regional development etc., Britain would still be a net contributor to the EU, by far. The money would still pour to other countries (though less to France/Spain, and more to the new members). And it would be as legitimate for the average voter to whine about Britain losing all its money to the EU.

However, thanks to a relatively successful communication strategy, Blair managed to overhype the issue in Britain, so that it appears extremely important to the interests of the British voter.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by kronic

Agreed. So what? I don't deny the fact that the CAP needs to be reformed/abolished.

Maybe the fact that france won't discuss diminshing the CAP but demands that uk has to give in to their rebate ?