Britains EU Rebate

[Libertine]

Should we give it up?

Maggie Thatcher, one of Britains greatest Prime Ministers got us our cash rebate of £3.8 billion from the EU, now Tony Blair is trying to give it up. What is the opinion of the TWC British and European members on this?? (they would have the strongest views as it affects us - the British & European Tax Payers).

Obviously the French want us to give it up, as does 90% of the European nations who pay for it. But the question is, if we give up our rebate will the French give up the 10billion Euro's they recieve from the EU for farming?? - Britain recives less from the EU than Germany, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal - we do however have our Rebate which our leader is negotiating away.

I feel strongly against this idea but to be brutally honest i am anti British involvment in the EU and EC as i feel they are corrupted organisations (others will disagree with me, but my personal experiance with EC commisionars is not good)

[imb39]

Being a Brit, of course I think we should keep it...

The whole budget needs looking at. I really object to money being used to keep French farmers using outdated 'traditional' methods... Yes, I can French bash!

However, we should also ensure that we claim as much as possible (we haven't been doing this, I think). I do like Blair's idea of paying back the part of the rebate that the new Eastern European countries would be paying. - Grimsta - he was not proposing to give it all up. Don't believe everything you read.

I am also aware that the rebate was negotiated when we were the 2nd poorest country in Europe - why should we pay for other countries when they haven't reformed their economies? We went through a lot of pain to create the modern economy we have today.

I am also aware that I am distinctly hypocritical on this issue.

[Erik]

Being a Brit, of course I think we should keep it...

And being Dutch I of course disagree because we pay for it all.
Even if Britain gives back their rebate they would only pay a fraction of what we do.
How come a country that hardly contributes anyways gets a rebate, while the real contributers get nothing?

The whole budget needs looking at. I really object to money being used to keep French farmers using outdated 'traditional' methods... Yes, I can French bash!

I agree.
The EU should not give money to French farmers.
They should in stead support Polish farmers and other poor regions.

This however is no argument for the rebate.
France isn't paying for the rebate, the Netherlands is.

I am also aware that the rebate was negotiated when we were the 2nd poorest country in Europe - why should we pay for other countries when they haven't reformed their economies? We went through a lot of pain to create the modern economy we have today.

You mean: WE helped you to recover your economy by sending you money.
Now don't get me wrong because the Netherlands has received money too, when we were one of the poorest regions, and I don't mind helping others in turn.
I just think we should stop helping Britain and France, and start helping those who need it more, like Poland.

I get the feeling France and Britain are just playing a game and they both benefit.
Britain can keep their rebate and France can keep their subsedies, they both win.
Meanwhile the rest of Europe has to pull the cart.

I am also aware that I am distinctly hypocritical on this issue.

No your not, not distinctly

edit: I dug up a list of how much each country contributes/gets from the EU. (sorry that it's Dutch, but I think you can de-cypher it)
"Verenigd Koninkrijk" = UK.
It shows totals (left), %of GDP (middle) and per citizen (right).


http://www.nrc.nl/evj/artikel/1132552824293.html
Notice that Luxemburg gets the most out of the EU... and they are already the richest member!

[imb39]

You mean: WE helped you to recover your economy by sending you money.
Now don't get me wrong because the Netherlands has received money too, when we were one of the poorest regions, and I don't mind helping others in turn.
I just think we should stop helping Britain and France, and start helping those who need it more, like Poland.

Of most of your post, I cannot argue. But I am being distinctly hypocritical. One area I will argue with, though, is that about the economic reforms. The EU rebate is a drop in the ocean of Britain's overall budget. It didn't make THAT much of a difference.

Bringing unions under the power of government (in the sense that unions do not rule the country, the government does) and deregulating the labour market were crucial reforms that really made a difference. The result was high unemployment and the destruction of outdated industries (and, alas, communities) but the result was the transformation of the country. We are still behind Germany but have caught up enormously.

I still don't understand why everyone harps on about the rebate but says little about CAP. The everyone is not directed at anyone on this thread, btw.

[Erik]

The EU rebate is a drop in the ocean of Britain's overall budget. It didn't make THAT much of a difference.

You are right, but it's more a principal matter.
It's not like we can't miss the 194 euro's a year.
But why do Dutch people pay 2.5 times as much as British people?
The union should be fananced in a fair way.

My solution: look at NET contributions in stead.
IMO all countries should contribute according to their GDP compared to the average GDP.
(So: "GDP" - "EU average GDP" x "Some sum of money" = net contribution).
This IMO is the only fair way to do it.

I still don't understand why everyone harps on about the rebate but says little about CAP. The everyone is not directed at anyone on this thread, btw.

This is just the impression you get because you are British.
The French wil get the impression that it's all about CAP.

France holds on to CAP because Britain holds on to rebate and vice-versa.
We just want to get rid of both.

[Siena72]

Britain should lose the rebait. France should reduce subsidies to farmers. Eastern Europe should manage funds it gets more efficiently.
Politicians should be more reasonable and make smart reforms.

And none of the above will happen...

From Eastern European perspective - it is unfair that richest countries get to use EU money to boost their economy and poorest countries (which need that money the most) would have their subsidies cut.

[Ldvs]

First off, before calling me a UK basher, know that I have nothing against Brits taken individually. I like your culture and I prefer your language over my native one.

That said, there's no reason whatsoever that could possibly justify that the UK keeps its rebate. It's not even a question of money, it's a matter of fairness. Not even Blair is ashamed after his lamentable proposal of budget, and it took him four months. The UK's presidency was definitely a big step... aside. So much for his supposedly impulse in order to bring a new dynamism into Europe.

If the UK was to join the EU right now and we were granted the right to decide whether accept it in or not, I would certainly vote "no". Besides financial contributions, the UK doesn't agree on much, not to say more. I'd prefer to have a lighter budget but being rid of a country hindering most of the efforts to build a Europe where "money' isn't the sole value.

But the question is, if we give up our rebate will the French give up the 10billion Euro's they recieve from the EU for farming??

I'm terribly sorry, but Blair gave his word. Obviously he's not a man of honour. Aside from that, I willing agree way too much money is wasted in farm subsidies. It would undoubtebly benefit research better.

Britain recives less from the EU than Germany, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal - we do however have our Rebate which our leader is negotiating away.

This one will always make me laugh. You Brits always manage to make it sounds as though you are to be pitied. Do you know who is the greatest net contributor to the EU? It's Germany and by a huge margin. Yet, do they complain? I assume it has something to do with mentality.

I really object to money being used to keep French farmers using outdated 'traditional' methods...

I agree with you. Pesticides and chemicals all the way!

why should we pay for other countries when they haven't reformed their economies?

That's only your personnal viewpoint. Moreover, how are they to cope with their reforms without the money they were promised?

[adamus]

Britain should lose the rebate.
France should reduce subsidies to farmers.
Eastern Europe should manage funds it gets more efficiently.

Politicians should be more reasonable and make smart reforms.

And none of the above will happen...

Hmmm, I think that sums up Europe rather aptly, in attempting to look after the interests of all its members, it actually looks after the interests of none of them.

In terms of the topic, I agree in principle with what Tony Blair originally said (even though he's now changing his tune) - Britain shouldn't give up its rebate without reform.

However, seen as Britain recently signed an agreement on the CAP in 2003 (?), which lasts for 10 years, it is unfair of them to now turn around and say that it needs to be reformed, which is why their position has no support in the EU.

However, the CAP is hopelessly outdated - the Europe for which it was created no longer exists, I really, really don't understand why the CAP still does. On a similar note, when Britain's rebate was agreed, the country was effectively "broke" (which is partly why they got the rebate), now its the richest in the EU, is the rebate really still justified?

[Erik]

Britain should lose the rebait. France should reduce subsidies to farmers. Eastern Europe should manage funds it gets more efficiently.
Politicians should be more reasonable and make smart reforms.

And none of the above will happen...

This is why I have an alternative:
Rich members stop giving money to the bureaucratic dragon that is the EU.
In stead they become a patron to one or two poor members.

For example:
My country currently gives 3 billion to Europe each year.
This is about the same as Poland and Ireland get together.
If we adopt those two countries we can give them the same amount of money without going trough the bureacracy of Brussles/Strassburg.
And we could also give them non-financial aid, like helping them to manage the funds.

[imb39]

Ldvs,

I'm sure that French farmers use pesticides and chemicals - don't be so niaive! Having said that, I cannot answer your points. My reply to Erik is the same as my reply to you. I'm sure Lord Tomyris or Grimsta can give you more coherent replies.

I think that Luxembourg gets the most (per person) is because they have an EU office or two. In a small country like that, this has a big effect.

[Ldvs]

Ldvs,

I'm sure that French farmers use pesticides and chemicals - don't be so niaive! Having said that, I cannot answer your points. My reply to Erik is the same as my reply to you. I'm sure Lord Tomyris or Grimsta can give you more coherent replies.

I took your bait and chose to reply ironically. Of course I know most of the French farmers are using large doses of chemicals. We certainly have one of the most serious trouble concerning the pollution of rivers and spring water in Europe. The problem is farmers making efforts towards a less polluting way of producing have higher cost of production due to a developping but small market. The best solution would be to redirect the subsidies of the French farmers who don't need them. This way the EU would be saving money and we'd be eating saner food.

France isn't paying for the rebate

We aren't, are we? Check your figures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../15/weu315.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4094652.stm

[imb39]

Ldvs,

Using the BBC link reveals the following paragraphs...

In 2003, the latest year in which official figures are available, France paid 15.15bn euros into the EU coffers, but received 13.43bn euros in return, making a net payment of about 1.7bn euros. This 1.7bn euros figure includes a 1.6bn contribution to the UK rebate.

Britain paid 9.97bn euros into the EU budget but received 6.22bn euros in return, so it made a net contribution of about 3.8bn euros. This figure would have been much bigger, but for the 5.2bn euros the UK received as a rebate, one third of which came from France.

Our countries are strikingly similar:

France GDP $1.737 trillion
UK GDP $1.782 trillion

I don't think France has any right to complain. I do, however, think that the Eastern European countries do have a right. This is why I support Blair's proposals.

[Ldvs]

I don't think France has any right to complain.

I have never said such a thing either.

I do, however, think that the Eastern European countries do have a right. This is why I support Blair's proposals.

Rather contradictory, isn't it?

It boils down to how you measure it.
France is a lot bigger than my country, so naturally they contribute more in total.
But if you look at it on a per-person basis the average Dutchman still pays more of the rebate than the average Frenchman does, even with the little discount we got to make us shut up about it.

Just compare the EU net contributions:
Dutchmen: 194 Euro's.
Brit: 74 Euro's.
Frenchman: 51 Euro's.

If you take a Dutchman, a Brit, a Franchman and a Dane, the Dutchman contributes more than the other 3 put together!
And the Brit and Frenchman are arguing?
But I guess because we are just with 16 million peole we can't complain?

Did I question the fact you're paying the largest tribute per capita? I don't think so, I merely pointed out your mistake.

Like IMB39 said its just a drop in the ocean, but it also symbolises why Britain is in Europe...to make a profit.
...
Now I do feel sorry for the Netherlands, but I must still stick to my views that Britains Rebate is a symbol, showing our intentions for joining the EU - I mean come on! Its not like we are in it for the Euro, its the Single Market we want.

"but I must still stick to my views that Britains Rebate is a symbol, showing our intentions for joining the EU." Oh. I must admit I have trouble understanding what you mean there. Is paying less than your share proving the UK's willingness to join and contribute to the EU? As you rightly said it, the British rebate is a symbol. This is in what it is subject to criticism. I don't care about your money, I do care that this advantage is unfair to the poorer members.

We deserve the rebate due to the unfair agricultural benefits that we do not get

I forgot how much agriculture is a strong point of the UK's economy... Perhaps it has something to do with economic orientation?

[Erik]

We aren't, are we? Check your figures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../15/weu315.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4094652.stm

I guess you refer to:

Who pays for the rebate?
All the other EU countries, under a formula tied to the size of their economies.

Isn't that a bit straightforward for Brussels?
Indeed it would be. Which is why, after some nasty rows, four major net contributors were given "rebates from the rebate", so they shoulder less of the burden. The lucky four are Germany, Holland, Austria and Sweden - leaving France and Italy to pay the lion's share of the British rebate.

It boils down to how you measure it.
France is a lot bigger than my country, so naturally they contribute more in total.
But if you look at it on a per-person basis the average Dutchman still pays more of the rebate than the average Frenchman does, even with the little discount we got to make us shut up about it.

Just compare the EU net contributions:
Dutchmen: 194 Euro's.
Brit: 74 Euro's.
Frenchman: 51 Euro's.

If you take a Dutchman, a Brit, a Franchman and a Dane, the Dutchman contributes more than the other 3 put together!
And the Brit and Frenchman are arguing?
But I guess because we are just with 16 million peole we can't complain?

btw: I just love next next part.

Doesn't that make France cross?
Yes.

[Libertine]

btw: I just love next next part.

Doesn't that make France cross?
Yes.

You and me both buddy

Having seen the stats that Erik has laboured to get, i do feel sorry for Holland. But i am afraid im going to have to stick to my obstinate pig headed patriotic view that we should keep our rebate. Like IMB39 said its just a drop in the ocean, but it also symbolises why Britain is in Europe...to make a profit. I Think that a quote from Yes Prime Minister is in order here

They are Symbols! you dont fund them for doing work, you fund them to show what you approve of, most government expenditure is symbolic

Now I do feel sorry for the Netherlands, but I must still stick to my views that Britains Rebate is a symbol, showing our intentions for joining the EU - I mean come on! Its not like we are in it for the Euro, its the Single Market we want.

Im sorry if i put across the impression that Britain always gets the :wub: end of the stick, i *know* we dont, but, i mean look at this! we pay more than France and the French get more out of it, thats not right.

EDIT: Oh, and Erik, i love your siggy

[Carach]

if europe stop being france's :wub:, only then would i think about giving the rebate up.

[Masquerade]

We deserve the rebate due to the unfair agricultural benefits that we do not get, but being willing to compromise is what will move the EU and subsequently Britain (and all members) forward, and Lord knows it will have to be us, never France, that will take the high road with that retarded vulture of a President in control.

To say that Blair is trying to give it up is, well, wrong. He has gestured that we may be willing to sacrifice a proportion of it.

[Francisco Montana]

It's very interesting for us Yanks to watch this debate. Some of us just can't help but to think of our own "State's Rights" battle, as a matter of fact.

Could someone explain this whole 'rebate' thing for us? I haven't the foggiest idea what it is.

TYIA.

[adamus]

It's very interesting for us Yanks to watch this debate. Some of us just can't help but to think of our own "State's Rights" battle, as a matter of fact.

Could someone explain this whole 'rebate' thing for us? I haven't the foggiest idea what it is.

TYIA.

Basically, every country in the EU pays a contribution into a central "pot" each year, this money is then spent by the EU. Around 40% of the EU's annual budget is spent on something called the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which in a nutshell is a subsidy for European farmers (i.e. they receive more than the "market value" for their goods/produce).

Because Britain does not have a strong agricultural sector, so was effectively subsidising European (:cough: FRENCH) farmers and not receiving money back from the EU, comparable to the country's contribution. Margaret Thatcher negotiated a rebate (effectively a refund) of part of Britain's annual contribution to reflect this, way back in 1984.

Too lazy to explain it properly, but look here for an explanation (Wikipedia article), first paragraph sums it up.

[Masquerade]

Without the rebate the UK would be proportionally the highest contributor to EU funds by far. The French can fornicate themselves with an iron pole if they want us to give it all up.