Growing rift? UK+Europe

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Wasn't the original purpose of the rebate because Thatcher objected to paying for farm subsidies for French farmers? That seems valid and the situation has gotten worse not better.

Rebates for everyone who's paying then!

[MikeH]

We still have a veto n'est pas? We'll veto any plan to lose our rebate, and we'll veto any plan to lose our veto.

[Dinner]

The British had the Franco-Germans over the barrel where they needed the British not to veto something and Thatcher said the only way she wouldn't was if the UK got a rebate. You folks got what you wanted and the British still have what they wanted.

[BeBMan]

The entire idea of the Eu is that the rich guys pay more than the poor guys. Since this isn't a fixed ranking, things can and have to change over time. So I personally don't really care what Thatcher negotiated decades ago, the situation now is important.

Of course Blair can probably defend the rebate now. Over a longer time span however it has to go (with the overdone agro-subsidies for example).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Wasn't the original purpose of the rebate because Thatcher objected to paying for farm subsidies for French farmers? That seems valid and the situation has gotten worse not better.

Not quite. The rebate was originally because the UK was one of the poorer EU nations in the 80s, and also one of the largest net contributors. It's now one of the richest.

The issue now is that without the rebate, Britain would be the largest net contributor and the largest per capita net contributor - with Germany being the largest economy. The crux of the matter, to me, is that even with the rebate, the UK contributes more money to the EU than the French, both net per capita and net total contribution. This is due to the fact that the UK gets the least from the CAP per capita of any nation in the EU.

While the distribution of the CAP and other programmes is so skewed away from the UK, we won't budge on the rebate. Simple as. Make the system more equitable, and we won't need a payment to try and redress the balance.

Originally posted by Krill
I would be more than happy to lose the rebate, so long as all of the subsidies are re-evaluated.

[Provost Harrison]

The huge agricultural subsidies must go! Why should we lose our rebate just for it to go to French snail farmers who make a loss?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by BeBro
The entire idea of the Eu is that the rich guys pay more than the poor guys. Since this isn't a fixed ranking, things can and have to change over time. So I personally don't really care what Thatcher negotiated decades ago, the situation now is important.

Exactly. Which is why France contributes less than the Netherlands and less than the UK even after the rebate.

What needs to be remembered is that the UK is still the second largest net cotnributor to the EU after receiving the rebate. It's also the second largest economy. I'd say that's pretty equitable.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Drogue
The issue now is that without the rebate, Britain would be the largest net contributor and the largest per capita net contributor - with Germany being the largest economy.

Well, if the numbers here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4090274.stm are correct the UK would be still the second largest net contributor without the rebate, although with not much of a difference to Germany then.

(Graphic shows 2,8 bn € now + 4,4 bn € rebate mentioned in the article)

But yeah, I agree that there should be general changes to balance the system, not just finger-pointing towards the UK.

[Drogue]

But Germany's contribution is also lessened if they don't pay the rebate. We'd contribute €7.2bn and Germany's would be about €7bn, IIRC.

[DeathByTheSword]

loose CAP loose rebates...loose veto...make european elections stand for something other then just advisors...EU saved

[Dauphin]

Déjà vu:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/188769.stm

[Dinner]

I just noticed that the Netherlands pays more into the EU then France does while the UK pays nearly a billion more Euros per year then France even after the rebate. That's seriously screwed up. If I was in charge of the UK I'd just stop paying until the greedy Frenchmen gave up their huge subsidies and started paying their fair share.

[Drogue]

We can't, they have a veto too. They are paying their share, they just receive a lot more because they have more farmers eligable for the CAP.

Structural programmes and the CAP are not done based on nationality, they're done based on criteria. France receives more because more French farmers qualify. We can't just say "redude the amount the French get" nor would we want to. We just want the CAP to be salted and burned

But yes, it's screwed up. The French should stop being hypocritical calling for the UK rebate to be lost while also wanting to keep their lower contributions.

[Provost Harrison]

It certainly sounds like there needs to be a far more equitable way of making EU contributions...

[DeathByTheSword]

yes the netherlands (a little country in between the EU big powers) pays netto per head of the country the most in whole of the EU...(big reason why constitution was blocked here)...this is partly because the politicans here and most of the people for a long time wanted the EU to work...but now that a lot of fact are coming out about how slow and a lot of times unfair the EU works (germany france and UK have a lot of behind of the screens power) people here start blaming the EU for everything ...a year ago it was totally different...

so Remove CAP and rebates...make on big pot to help underdeveloped areas in the EU...and be done with it...if people cant make a profit because of purely economic reasons (it can be produced cheaper somewhere else) then they should go bankcrupt...i can remember times we burried food because we had to much while africa was starving...ofcourse it has to go slowly over time but i has to be done.