FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

it all stems from the early days of the CAP when France agreed to drop tarifs on German goods providing Germany effectively subsidised inefficient french farmers. (It was a war reparation of sorts).

And once you are paid for being inefficient, you tend to stay that way.

No wonder that De Gaulle blocked our entry first time around! That man knew when he was on to a good thing.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Nimh wrote:-

"The HM Treasury graph you posted earlier, on the other hand, does not show "per head" contributions, but national totals (for 2002) - which of course will tend to be bigger the bigger a country is."

Then please explain to me why France (same population as UK) paid only half the amount we did?

We already know why France pays less - the agriculture thing has been beaten to death here. I'm in favour of cutting into agricultural subsidies as well (if for other reasons), though I do think its only logical that the French, who are considerably less prosperous than the Brits / Dutch / Germans, should in the end still pay less than them.

I thought the issue was, who pays what per capita and is it fair? I had understood your position to be, the Brits pay waaay too much and it's scandalous that now they want you to pay even more!

If we have numbers for 2002 and 2003, I dont see whats wrong with looking at the latest ones.

That being so, the way I look at it, if the Brits have the highest per capita income and the second or third highest per capita purchasing power, but are only the fifth net contributor of to the EU per capita, it is neither paying way too much nor would it be so scandalous to ask them to pay more.

Especially since there is something these graphs do NOT show yet - and that you do not seem to have reflected on yet.

Ten new member states. All of them poorer than Spain, Portugal or Ireland.

Either we're going to say, "no folks, none of you are going to have any of the benefits the old EU countries profited from, sorry about raising your hopes all these years while you were busy throwing all your lawbooks upside down on our request", or all of the richer Member States will have to chip in a little bit more in any case.

Its not like we cant afford it; we (the Brits and Dutch, in any case) have never been more prosperous than now.

And yes, if that placates you, all that means that the French will be having to pay a lot more too.

0 Replies

Nimh, I would like to know your opinion regarding the fairness of the French net payment, and the fact that they are moaning about the UK only paying a long term net average of only double their share?

Aren't you concerned about this state of affairs? It's not as if we are talking about some impoverished ex Eastern bloc country, trying to scratch a living! It's FRANCE for gods sake.

You SHOULD be concerned, as the Dutch long term net average works out as even HIGHER than ours!

Relevant snippet from my previous link (Telegraph):- "Since 1984, Britain has consistently been the second biggest contributor after Germany. Britain's net contribution was 4 billion (£2.7 billion) in 2002 and has totalled 35 billion since 1995. Even with the rebate, it has contributed twice the amount of France and three times the amount of Italy.

The other 24 nations believe that the rebate is no longer justified as Britain is now one of the richest; whereas it was one of the poorest in 1984. Holland is especially angry. If net contributions are calculated on a per capita basis, Dutch citizens pay more than the British."

Well? Do you think that the French are playing fair?

Dont you think that they should just remove their collective fingers from their rectum and actually earn the money to pay a reasonable and fair contribution, like the rest of us?

0 Replies

The British army is so overstretched these days that the temptation for the French to take advantage and invade must be getting near irrisistable.

A sneak attack to take control of Folkstone, and French tanks could be through the Tunnel and surrounding Westminster in a matter of hours.

0 Replies

Nimh wrote "I thought the issue was, who pays what per capita and is it fair? I had understood your position to be, the Brits pay waaay too much and it's scandalous that now they want you to pay even more! "

If you look at my previous posts, Nimh, you will see that I have said on many occasions that I am in full agreement that the richer Countries should be paying more.

My actual words in a very recent post were:-"Like I say, I dont mind paying more, as long as it is a level playing field".

To give you another scenario....just say for arguments sake that both Germany and the UK adopted the same policies as France, and became "significantly poorer" than Holland over the next few years. You would then have a massive increase in contributions on your hands in Holland, to subsidise our failures. Fair?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I do think its only logical that the French, who are considerably less prosperous than the Brits / Dutch / Germans, should in the end still pay less than them.

The CIA World Factbook says that in 2004, per-capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power, was $29,600 in the United Kingdom, $28,700 both in France and Germany. I would expect data for 2002 and 2003, which you are talking about, to be roughly the same. So we're talking about a difference of $900 a year, sure, but does that really make France (and Germany) "considerably" less prosperous than Britain?

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Nimh wrote "I thought the issue was, who pays what per capita and is it fair? I had understood your position to be, the Brits pay waaay too much and it's scandalous that now they want you to pay even more! "

If you look at my previous posts, Nimh, you will see that I have said on many occasions that I am in full agreement that the richer Countries should be paying more.

My actual words in a very recent post were:-"Like I say, I dont mind paying more, as long as it is a level playing field".

Well, my point here would be that a level playing field, in my rough estimation, would actually have the Brits paying more than they do currently, especially with the ten new member states joining us.

And if your point was not that you thought the Brits were paying too much and that requests for them to pay more were scandalous, I am sorely mistaken, but that is indeed what I'd gotten from your posts so far. Apart from that the French should pay more, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Lord Ellpus wrote:

To give you another scenario....just say for arguments sake that both Germany and the UK adopted the same policies as France, and became "significantly poorer" than Holland over the next few years. You would then have a massive increase in contributions on your hands in Holland, to subsidise our failures. Fair?

Well, lets put it this way. I can not conceive of any reasonable standard by which a mechanism that determines how much is paid by whom takes into account not just the relative wealth of the country, but also an evaluation of the economic policies of the country in question.

Who'd do the evaluation? What would be the measure? Bad policy translates in low growth, so would one increase the pay load of countries with low growth because it shows up their bad policies? That's hardly going to help, is it?

So unless one proposes doing away with taking variety in wealth/income into account at all (which would have the average Latvian paying as many euros to the EU budget as the average Brit or Dutchman), I dont really see how you are going to avoid the risk of a country's bad economic policies landing it in a poorer category, and thus lower EU contributions.

I dunno. Perhaps you can suggest how you would envisage bringing the relative worth of a country's economic policies into the contribution equation, exactly? I mean, beyond the "those bloody French should pay more!" thing?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

The CIA World Factbook says that per-capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power, was $29,600 in the United Kingdom, $28,700 both in France and Germany. [..] So we're talking about a difference of $900 a year, sure, but does that really make France (and Germany) "considerably" less prosperous than Britain?

Ah, you got me there. I dont know exactly how I came to the "French is considerably less prosperous" factlet in my head. I thought it to be the case, and had indeed not looked it up.

It's just that I clearly remembered seeing a stat showing that US individual wealth was 1,5 times (or something) that of countries in "Old Europe", with France in particular falling far behind. But come to think of it, I do think I saw those numbers in a thread here somewhere - one of those in which some conservative and/or American fellow-posters were arguing about how Old Europe's 'socialist' politics, and France's in particular, had left the country much poorer than such models of free market reform as the US and the UK. (Was it this thread?)

Anyway, there's no way I'd be able to find it back.

But, thanks for the correction! Quite a surprise to see that the much-maligned, overly egalitarian/state-interventionist economics of France has apparently so far yielded almost as high a living standard as that of a country that's been blazing the Thatcherite trail for two decades already. A somewhat gratifying one, even. Much in line with the one I saw on Euronews, which was slightly different in that it had Germany eking out in front of the UK when it came to purchasing power/capita.

But yes, that definitely means no cop-outs for France when it comes to EU contributions. If they have as much to spend at home as the Brits or the Germans, then they should pay as much too, obviously.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Nimh, I would like to know your opinion regarding the fairness of the French net payment, and the fact that they are moaning about the UK only paying a long term net average of only double their share?

Fairness of the French net payment: think I already answered that - twice.

1) EU agricultural subsidies need to be drastically reformed, even just for the sake of third world farmers. Thats gonna cost the French in particular.

2) I favour a system in which each country truly pays a rate in proportion to their national per capita purchasing power, if I may adapt Thomas's suggestion that way. That probably translates to a higher British contribution, but yes, as I said before, "if that placates you, that means the French will be having to pay a lot more too".

Lord Ellpus wrote:

You SHOULD be concerned, as the Dutch long term net average works out as even HIGHER than ours!

Unlike some of my fellow countrymen, I am not in the least concerned about the Dutch contribution to the EU.

I mean, come on, what are we talking about? 1,0% of our GNI, according to the post Walter copied. Works out to 77 eurocents a day for me, it says.

Thats not something I'd waste caps and exclamation marks on (and its not like I'm some big-earner).

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Well? Do you think that the French are playing fair?

Dont you think that they should just remove their collective fingers from their rectum and actually earn the money to pay a reasonable and fair contribution, like the rest of us?

Frankly, I dont give a whit about this whole "those bleedin' worthless [nation of choice]"-style stuff. I think it's silly.

Do I want every country to pay a share roughly proportional to their economy? Yes. Will I rant over whether the French are sitting on their lazy bums drinking coffee instead of working like us sensible (mosque-incinerating) Dutch or you diligent (binge-drinking hooligan) Brits? Can I be bothered? Unhuh. Work towards a clear rule, and all that's irrelevant anyway. And you might be surprised who'd all be on the receiving end of the new rule - not just or particularly the French.

The main issue to me is how to avoid the new Member States from being cheated out of the support that's helped so many West-European countries (Ireland, Spain, Portugal) get up on their feet - and in turn made Europe a much more peacable place (don't Franco and the colonel's regime seem unreal, now?). That probably means making both the French and the Brits (but I'm guessing not the Germans), pay more.

0 Replies

Oh, and just to complete my posting spree, just in case anyone missed this great news... Razz

0 Replies

I think all here generally agree with the sentiments Nimh expressed above. I suppose, compared to Germany and the Netherlands the UK is getting a good deal with respect to net contributions to the EU. However, compared to France they are all doing badly. I can sympathize with the frustrations of the Dutch, Germans, and British - but not at all with the ever ready criticisms of others offered so willingly by Chirac.

I suspect the crunch comes because now, for the first time, the prospect of not being able to sustain the social welfare systems that have so painstakingly been developed - and with, so far, generally good effect - has confronted the "donor" nations of Western Europe. This comes precisely at the moment so long anticipated by the nations of Eastern Europe that suffered so long under Socialist folly and tyranny. What to do?

Opinions differ. Some see a solution in forced "harmonization" of taxes and welfare programs - in short further socialization, now on a larger scale. Others call for the creation of enhanced free market conditions for labor, services and industry - all to better enable the nations of Europe, individually and collectively, to deal with the growing new competitive factors that are being thrust on them by a world that is indifferent to their current stife. I favor the second alternative.

0 Replies

Quote:

EU leaders extend deadline for battered charter
Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:27 PM BST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union leaders agreed on Thursday to extend a November 2006 deadline for ratifying the bloc's first constitution after French and Dutch "No" votes, but stopped short of declaring the charter dead.

"The date of November 1, 2006 initially foreseen for ratification is no longer tenable," Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, current EU President, told a news conference of a charter which aims to smooth decision-making in the enlarged EU but which needs ratification by all members to come into force.

He said EU leaders agreed that those countries that had not yet ratified the charter would be unlikely to do so by mid-2007, and it was now up to each individual member state to decide how to proceed while a "period of reflection" was launched.

source: reuters

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

But, thanks for the correction! Quite a surprise to see that the much-maligned, overly egalitarian/state-interventionist economics of France has apparently so far yielded almost as high a living standard as that of a country that's been blazing the Thatcherite trail for two decades already. A somewhat gratifying one, even.

As I understand it, France was quite far ahead of the UK when Thatcher took over, and the success of Thatcherism is that it made the UK catch up. But I don't have the data at hand for proving it. (And on a related note, your suggestion to correct my formula for PPP was a much-appreciated improvement too.)

0 Replies

While the last point seems to be "solved" by now (see my above post), there remain still these:

Quote:

Summit sticking points

THE BRITISH REBATE

The British rebate on its contribution to the European Union was won by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 and has been jealously guarded since. Jacques Chirac, the French President, wants the rebate to be phased out, or at least frozen at 4.6bn (£3bn) until 2013. The other EU countries agree.

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Subsidies under the CAP eat up 45 per cent of the EU's budget. France, whose farmers are the biggest beneficiaries of the CAP, is spearheading opposition to cuts demanded by Tony Blair. Mr Blair is backed by Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland. M.Chirac is backed by a majority of the other members.

THE BUDGET

The EU spends about 1bn a year, or 1.1 per cent of member states' GDP. The European Commission would like that figure to rise to the equivalent of 1.26 per cent in the budget for 2007-2013. This is thought unlikely to succeed.

THE EU CONSTITUTION

'No' votes from the French and the Dutch have thrown the constitution into turmoil. Ten countries have ratified the treaty but EU leaders appear to be leaning towards putting future ratifications on ice. Portugal, the Czech Republic and Denmark are considering postponing their referendums.

Source

0 Replies

Leaders deadlocked on EU budget

The division between France and Britain threatens the entire summit

A deal on the European Union budget looks unlikely after several hours of talks between EU leaders in Brussels failed to bridge differences.

French President Jacques Chirac has again insisted that he is not prepared to cut French EU farm subsidies as part of a deal to end Britain's EU rebate.

0 Replies

The period allocated for ratification of the new constitution is extended for a year, but the UK, Denmark, Portugal, and Ireland have postponed (possibly cancelled) their scheduled votes on it.

Blair appears to have won his gambit for a comprehensive review of the EU budget, including the agricultural subsidies which he and others want cut, but which Chirac defends. For his part Chirac appears to have failed in his attempt to blame Blair and the UK for the whole thing - here I refer to his suggestion that "a few rich countries" were attempting to deny the new members their promised subsidies. (I find it interesting that, even with the budget rebate, the UK is a much larger donor to other EU countries than is France.)

Meanwhile time passes and the hour of Schroeder's departure from the scene - and Chirac's as well - is fast approaching. These and other related financial and economic issues are likely to unhinge the Franco-German solidarity on EU matters that has so far controlled the organization. That, plus the constitutional impasse, is likely to bring about a new political situation in Europe, one in which the UK, and allies in Scandinavia and the Netherlands have a stronger role and the voices of the new members from Eastern Europe are better heard.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Blair appears to have won his gambit for a comprehensive review of the EU budget, including the agricultural subsidies which he and others want cut, but which Chirac defends.

My impression, from listening to Deutschlandfunk, is that the leaders of Europe have simply talked past each other. Every few hours, I heard Juncker, Chiraq and Schroeder annouce that the UK rebate cut has been reduced yet another bit, and Blair announce that he wanted to change the structure of the EU budget. The last of Juncker's compromises suggested that Britains rebate would increase, and Blair rejected it because it only talked about "reviewing" the structure of the budget, some year in the future, I think 2007.

My interpretation is that Blair seriously, honestly wanted the budget structure changed. His opponents, however, seem to have believed that Blair's talk about structure was just a token argument for protecting the rebate. They stuck to their misunderstandings until it was too late. Not good -- lets hope somebody learns something.

0 Replies

Anger erupts as EU summit fails
A bitter war of words has erupted among EU states after the failure to reach an agreement on the union's future budget.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder blamed UK and Dutch obduracy for one of the EU's "gravest" crises.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw expressed sadness, but said the failure could prove a turning point.

The EU's current president Jean Claude Juncker said he was ashamed poorer countries had offered to cut their EU income to reach a deal.

The summit collapsed after Britain refused to accept a demand by France and some other countries to accept a reduction in its EU rebate.

The BBC's correspondent in Brussels, William Horsley, says the recriminations mark perhaps the deepest and most spectacular bust-up ever in the EU.

It comes just weeks after voters plunged the union into uncertainty by rejecting its proposed new constitutional treaty.

UK 'pathetic'

The failure of the talks gave way to verbal sparring, as France, Germany and Luxembourg rounded on fellow member states.

French President Jacques Chirac said Britain's behaviour was "pathetic", adding he was shocked by the "arrogance of several rich countries" in the talks.
The UK rejected proposals to limit its annual rebate without a wider reform of the EU's agricultural subsidies.

Chancellor Schroeder said the summit failed because of the "totally unaccepting attitude" of Britain and the Netherlands, while Luxembourg Prime Minister and EU President Jean-Claude Juncker spoke of a "profound crisis" in Europe.

Britain, however, defended itself against the criticism, saying it was not alone in rejecting the proposed deal.

Speaking to the BBC on Saturday, Jack Straw said he was dismayed but optimistic.

"It is in many ways a sad day for Europe. But out of this sad day there is an opportunity to reconnect."

He said Britain would take the responsibility of leading the debate on the EU's future when it assumes the body's rotating presidency next month, although he conceded the task would be difficult.

"This will be seen as something of a turning point for the European Union. Sometimes to secure a turn in democracies, there has to be a shock," he said.

'Cause for shame'

As the talks disintegrated, 10 EU newcomers from Eastern Europe offered to cut their funding to salvage a deal, although their call went unheeded.

HAVE YOUR SAY
The EU does not exist only for the benefit of the UK
Niclas, Uppsala, Sweden

Mr Juncker said that only made matters worse.
"When I heard one after the other, all the new member countries, each poorer than the other, say that in the interest of reaching an agreement they would be ready to renounce some of their financial demands, I was ashamed."

But Britain said it has the backing of four or five other EU states in its rejection of the budget.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said the rebate was needed to compensate for the distortions caused by agricultural subsidies, the biggest beneficiary of which is France.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4106250.stm

Published: 2005/06/18 09:54:27 GMT

0 Replies

This is only one of many problems with the EU. To expect that all 25 countries will come to any concensus on major issues is somewhat similar to trying to get the four or five tribes in Iraq to agree on anything. With 25 different cultures, economies, and leaders to agree on any major issue now or in the fture is highly questionable. Any agreement made today will probably end up upsetting others who feel they are being taken advantage of. They have more mountains to climb which makes Mt Everest look like a small hill.

0 Replies

This hand-wringing is exaggerated at best. Postponing a decision is always preferable to rushing into a wrong decision; this constitutional / budgetary debacle will only strengthen the EU-25 in the long run.

0 Replies

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know