EU Government is crazy...

[Heta]

can someone ask them to give me £1000000 aswell, mean if the french *******s can get 585 I can get atleast one

[OohhoO]

Hmmm I agree in the most part with Xest, but just because the EU agricultural policy is a disgracefully flawed dinosaur doesn't mean the brit-rebate is eternally justifiable. However, the EU agricultural policy needs to be radically reformed much more urgently than the brit-rebate. Unfortunately this would be just as politically unacceptable in countries like France as getting rid of the rebate would be in the UK.

[Xest]

Yeah that's exactly my point, I agree totally the thing is, the UK doesn't get a lot out of the EU because of the agriculture focus, therefore the rebate right now can only be seen as what the UK gets out of the EU. As soon as we get something more balanced out the EU, which requires the EU to alter it's agricultural focus then it's a fair deal that we lose our rebate. We can't however be in a position where we're nothing but a cash cow for the other members whilst getting nothing much out of it ourselves - losing the rebate without reforms to the agriculture policy is exactly what that would cause.

[Alexandrinus]

Just because you read in some biased newspaper in a country that benefits greatly from the EU that the UK is evil for holding onto it's rebate doesn't mean you know the full story and can make a blanket statement like that

you dont know what i do, wich papers i read wich news i hear and see,maybe im 5 maybe im 65 maybe someone out from the finance minister office maybe a shoe seller. lol so much about the blanket statements

the truth is the UK pays not so much in %(because of their economical power) as they should be, or as others do :-)

[Quinlan]

Neither can you dismiss it as easily as that Xest. Lets take holland as an example. Holland is the biggest Netto payer per capita within the EU. (followed by sweden).

Holland also does not really heavily on agricultural subsidies. So why should they pay more then UK.

The rebate the Uk gets is from 1984. The situation since that time has changed drastically and compared to most 'old' EU members UK has no right to the rebate anymore.

[Quinlan]

the truth is the UK pays not so much in %(because of their economical power) as they should be, or as others do :-)

Nope. They do it based on outdated (at the current time) reasonings

The key is the way that individual member states' contributions are and have been calculated and the way payments were made, originally mainly from the CAP (EAGGF) which in the early days accounted for more than ninety percent of the EEC budget.
The system which was in place prior to the UK's entry to the (then) EEC depended on direct contributions from the member states. Then, in 1971, two years before Britain's entry, a system of 'own resources' was introduced. Funding now came from two sources, customs duties and agricultural levies, which was to become known as the Traditional Own Resource (TOR), and levy on VAT (which was not actually introduced until 1979).

When the UK joined the Community in 1973, it adopted the TOR system. But, because our agricultural sector was relatively smaller and structurally different from those in other member states, the UK did not benefit fully from CAP funding. On the other hand, because a larger proportion of food was imported from outside the Community, our TOR payments were higher than those of other member state. As a result, a budgetary imbalance was created.

In 1979, the situation got worse when the (then) EC finally introduced its levy on member states' VAT income. This, combined with an inability to contain CAP spending arising from the accession of Greece and Spain, meant that the UK's budgetary imbalance increased. Thus, as the Commission observes, 'Persistent complaints on the part of the UK became a feature of the budgetary disputes that were prominent during this period'.

After much posturing and politicking, a temporary resolution of these difficulties was secured at the Fontainebleau Council in June 1984 when the (then) Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, negotiated a reduction in the UK's net contribution, amounting to a sixty-six percent rebate of the imbalance. Additionally, a 1.4 percent cap was placed on the VAT 'rate of call'. But, tied up in the small print, was the establishment of a 'correction mechanism' for dealing with the continuing budgetary imbalances. Its complexity was such that, according to Hugo Young, it was 'outside the comprehension of every normal European citizen'. Even in the dry terms of Commission-speak, it 'inhibited transparency in the financial relationships between the Member States and the Community budget'.

[Alexandrinus]

thats an explaination Xest.......

[Gamblor]

<------- Blames the mids


















:hijack:

[Tare]

If anyone has a right to complain it's the Dutchies, looking at netto balance, we're the biggest contributor. The UK actually gets a special discount thanks to Thatcher.

Oh and about giving France money for the riots, F off, them Frenchies should sort it out themselves, it's their mess. It's a different story with a tsunami.

[Alexandrinus]

Oh and about giving France money for the riots, F off, them Frenchies should sort it out themselves, it's their mess. It's a different story with a tsunami.

true