Growing rift? UK+Europe

[kronic]

France can demand many things but were they really part of the last Juncker proposal?

[OPD]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

Chirac knew full well the UK wouldn't budge and wouldn't give something for nothing. The French are just happy to have the UK looking like the bad guys and portray it as Blair being anti- EU.

Also the CAP is BS and a waste of money, you should remember the milk mountains and wine reseviors that it once created. Each cow in europe gets 2 euros a day in subsidies, that's more than half the worlds population lives on. In Ireland where they've stopped linking subsidies to production famers get paid simply for owning land, whether they work it or not.

If the French want to waste money subsidising farmers that's fine but let the UK keep and decide how to spend it's piece of the EU pie so it can do something that will be better for the economy and growth.

[Thorgal]

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.

Can you read mate? I said Spain WILL be a net contributor in 3 or 4 years, because the next ampliation to the east. That change will be in fact an important (and i mean important) sacrifice for many people right here. But you hardly will see spaniards whining and opossing to the ampliation or underming the EU in any manner. How can this be?

About The UK being the second biggest contributor is highly laughable. Look at the graphics in previous pages UK is not even the 5th contibutor (it should be) in GDP % what is that matters.

[Sandman]

As far as I'm aware the rebate goes straight back to the UK government and is added to the budget. I'd change this so that the rebate is spent exclusively on research and development. Not just in the UK either, but across the EU.

And it would be as legitimate for the average voter to whine about Britain losing all its money to the EU.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be legitimate for them to whine about the money effectively being destroyed via the CAP.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by el freako


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.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

True.

The average citizen will not see the money taken from their pockets should the rebate be abolished even though €100 per person is sizeable. Its a massive stealth tax because no-one realises where its coming from in the first place. (I don't even know, but I'm thinking its primarily VAT)

So, its not the paying of the money that is the bone of contention as no-one will notice the difference. Its the realisation that "our" money is spent on something that is considered a complete waste - CAP. It is compounded by the fact that the French are the biggest beneficiaries of CAP money. In Westminster it is therefore easy to galvanise the population to a European message "Why are we paying to subsidise French farmers?".

If the CAP was reformed, and other developments such as research, medicine, regional development etc. increased by more than the CAP savings Britain would forego its rebate. Under such a situation Britain would be paying more, but the politics of Westminster would say that "We aren't subsidising the French farmers, we got the reform of disproportionate spending that we wanted, we are paying our share in line with the wealthy countries of Europe". The populous would happily swallow that line.

[CapTVK]

The CAP was originally intended to modernize agriculture and make sure Europe was self-sufficient to prevent famine. At both counts it has been a remarkable success for European cooperation. Now that the goals have been reached, the CAP should be (slowly) dismantled.

Apart from modernizing agriculture and introducing modern production methods in Eastern Europe I see no reason why the CAP cannot be lowered to about 10-20% of its current level in the next 10 years (We still need some of the funds to modernize agriculture in the new EU member states).

The free funds can be invested in R&D, education and other scientific projects.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by CapTVK
The CAP was originally intended to modernize agriculture and make sure Europe was self-sufficient to prevent famine.

True

At both counts it has been a remarkable success for European cooperation. Now that the goals have been reached, the CAP should be (slowly) dismantled.

Apart from modernizing agriculture and introducing modern production methods in Eastern Europe I see no reason why the CAP cannot be lowered to about 10-20% of its current level in the next 10 years (We still need some of the funds to modernize agriculture in the new EU member states).

The free funds can be invested in R&D, education and other scientific projects.

Reasonnable

[Dinner]

Originally posted by kronic

Again, Chirac agreed to freeze the CAP budget back in 2002.

No, he didn't. Chirac was forced to set the rate of increase to the CAP budget at 1% per year. Setting a rate of increase isn't the same as "freezing" a budget item.

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 that actually does freeze the amount the UK reciueves where as CAP was only set at a certain rate of increase. Either both are frozen without increases or both are cut by equal amounts but the UK will not accept one being set in stone while the other gets to continue increasing every year.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Because that actually does freeze the amount the UK reciueves where as CAP was only set at a certain rate of increase. Either both are frozen without increases or both are cut by equal amounts but the UK will not accept one being set in stone while the other gets to continue increasing every year.

The problem with this theory is that Blair did not offer to set a rate of increase of the rebate of 1%. It is even likely that he refused this offer.

[Dinner]

That's because he wanted to open the whole budget up so they could come to a comprehenisve budget agreement instead of little fixs which only last for a few months then bring about another crisis. That can't happen as long as Chirac is saying the UK's rebate will be discussed but nothing else will. That's not a way to conduct budget negotiations.

[Spiffor]

Chirac didn't want to open budget negociations. Chirac wanted to weaken the UK, so that the UK doesn't benefit from the weakening of France/Germany.

[DanS]

Chirac is extremely small-minded. The benefit to the UK would have been very minimal in any event.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Chirac is extremely small-minded. The benefit to the UK would have been very minimal in any event.

Chirac is extremely small-minded, but this time the weakening of the UK was essential for Europe's future.

After the French Non and Schröder's stunning defeat, the British could have more easily pushed for a European future that matches a British perspective. The British perspective flys radically in the face of many European countries (including France and Germany), and if the Rosbifs had it their way, it would be a catastrophe for Europe.

As Chirac weakened the UK, the UK couldn't push for its own vision of the European future. And this is absolutely essential for the decades to come.

Chirac

[Odin]

Originally posted by DanS
Chirac is extremely small-minded. The benefit to the UK would have been very minimal in any event.

He Idolizes DeGaulle, what do you expect.

Most ag subsidies: