This time, the territory is the EU budget. France is allergic to the UK rebate of 4.6 billion Euro and the UK gets a fever over the EU subsidies for France's agriculture. Now, if you study the net benefit from the EU budget of major countries in the EU, it becomes very clear that the UK and Germany are getting milked.
Were it not for the rebate, the UK would have been milked at the rate that Germany is. Spain on the other hand, seems to be having a ball. That country gains 8.8 billion Euros per year from the EU budget, mostly to benefit its agricultural sector. The UK and Germany are practically keeping the shoestrings on the Spanish budget. I do not understand how Germany can quietly tolerate such abuse of its immense economical power. Don't throw me the WW II bone. It is 60 years on. That bone is dry and chewed bare. Time to walk on.
More crucially, France keeps their agricultural industry alive at the cost of the German and UK public. Yet, Jacques Chirac has the audacity to insist that under no circumstances should the agricultural subsidies to France, or anywhere else in the EU, he adds politely, be tied to the argument over the UK budget rebate. Mr Chirac requests a "gesture of goodwill" from the UK.
Says Tony Blair: "First of all, Britain has been making a gesture, because over the past 10 years, even with the British rebate, we have been making a contribution to Europe two-and-a-half times that of France," he said. "Without the rebate it would have been 15 times as much as France." [2]
The reason for the rebate at stake comes from arguments forwarded by Prime Minister Thatcher during 1984. Basically, the UK used to have a much smaller economy than France and Germany and therefore won the rebate from the EU. Now, things go better for the UK. However, the BBC reports: "[If] the UK did not get a rebate, then France's contribution to the EU would be just 100 million euros while the UK's contribution would be 9 billion euros." [2]
Another view on the contributions is to express these contributions as a percentage of GDP. In this case, France made a net contribution of 0.12% of GDP in 2003, and the UK 0.16% of GDP, a difference of about 33%. [2]
The above was about what goes into the EU budget. Looking at what comes out of the EU budget, the picture appears like a page out of a Communist manifesto - well, at least as far as agriculture goes. The EU appears artificially to keep its farmers in business and a good life alike. [3]
According to British assessment of the EU budget, what comes out of that budget for research, science, technology and education is one seventh of what is spent on agricultural subsidies. It is one thing to sustain a traditional way of life for a large portion of the EU population, but times move on and the EU should look forward. It is quite another thing to ensure staying abreast and ahead of times in education and research. The EU should reassess how and where it spends its money. Britain is correct on this point and France knows it.
What appears as a turf war over the budget is at a deeper level a turf war over the basic role of the EU and who steers the EU to that role. In the recent referenda on the EU constitution, the populations of France and The Netherlands have spoken on the hopes and fears for and over the EU. It is time the EC listens.
I support the UK on the point of right now reviewing the role and long terms goals of the EU, reconnecting the EC with the EU population. Starting with the EU budget is as good a place as any. After all, money makes the world go round - or so some claim.
[1][Last effort to break EU impasse][2] [Fact check: Britain's EU rebate]
[3][How the money is spent]
No comments:
Post a Comment