We All Want Our Money Back

From the desk of Daniel Hannan on Sat, 2005-12-17 23:34

Let’s get a couple of things straight. Even after the rebate, the United Kingdom remains the second-highest contributor to the EU budget. Indeed, for most of the 34 years since we joined, the British and the Germans have been the only two nations to make any net contribution at all.

In the 21 years since Margaret Thatcher secured the abatement, Britain has handed over £120 billion gross (£50 billion net) to Brussels. A billion here, a billion there – after a while it starts to add up to real money. If Britain were to withhold this tribute, it could give the entire country a two thirds reduction in council tax. Or, if it preferred, it could abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and still have enough left over to scrap stamp duty.

Where exactly is the British money going? Well, quite a lot is being lost or stolen. Last month, for the eleventh consecutive year, the European Court of Auditors refused to endorse the EU budget on grounds that it could account definitively for only 11 per cent of the total spending.

Even if, by some miracle, we were able to eliminate the fraud, it would still be an odd way to spend money. Fully 42 per cent of the EU budget goes on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), surely the most expensive, wasteful, bureaucratic and immoral system of farm support ever devised. It’s not even as though British farmers benefit: as a food importing nation with relatively efficient farms, Britain gets remarkably little out of the CAP.

The second biggest component of the budget, accounting for a further 37 per cent, is made up of the structural funds that go to Eastern and Southern Europe. Many British people seem to be happier to pay for these than to subsidise French farmers. But it is worth standing back for a moment and asking what moral claim the poorer regions of the EU have to British taxes. States recognise a special responsibility to their own citizens: that is why we have social welfare. Equally, common humanity bids us acknowledge a duty to the poorest on the planet: the hungry peoples of Africa, for example. But the ex-Communist countries are in neither category.

More to the point, there is no evidence that these so-called “Cohesion Funds” do their recipients any good. The EU’s new members grew far faster during the 1990s than they have done since joining. Interestingly, they also grew faster than existing EU pensioners, such as Portugal and Greece. Why? Because permanent subsidies are debilitating to states, just as they are to individuals. They encourage people to arrange their affairs around the hand-outs, and so disincentivise enterprise.

I am not saying that every euro spent by the EU is misdirected. EU funds can go to worthy causes: indeed, I have sometimes helped constituents to open the Euro-spigots. But I never do so without wondering why we can’t simply allocate the money ourselves, instead of sloshing it through the various tubes and chambers of the Brussels machine, leaking all the way, before a little bit dribbles back to these shores.

So, here’s a suggestion for Tony Blair. Why not appeal directly over the heads of his fellow leaders to their peoples. “The electorates of Europe have just voted ‘no’,” he could say. “They want us to be doing less, not more. So let’s cut our programmes and, in so doing, cut the budget. Let’s scrap all these expensive boondoggles. If we can’t make the EU budget cleaner, let us at least make it smaller. That way all of you, not just the Brits, can get your money back.”

United Europe? Not with France

Submitted by Ronnie Horesh (not verified) on Wed, 2005-12-21 14:22.

There will never be a united Europe with the current French Government. Expel France and there's a chance. For a start, without France and its emotional hangups you would have one official language - English - instead of 20. Then you would get rid of the Common Agricultural Policy and the other corrupt protectionist scams, which do so much to keep Africa and the rest of the third world poor. (And, if the French but knew it, desperate to go and live in Europe.) Then you would have a group of countries who could put together a principled foreign policy, rather than what they are doing today: subordinating all their policies to the French need to maintain corrupt dictatorships and weaken the US. Get rid of France, the possibilities for a decent, prosperous, EU are immense.

Help me, I don't understand.

Submitted by DCM (not verified) on Tue, 2005-12-20 17:19.

As an uneducated and uninformed American, I am at a loss. Why does anyone put up with the French? The last useful thing they did was slow the German advance by a day or two allowing the British to get most of its troops out from Dunkirk. Its language is on the way to extinction, its wines, like France itself, live on unwarranted past reputation, and its economic might is quickly gaining on its military prowess. The only thing that France seems to be able to offer is to be a rally point for anti-Americanism. And we Americans miss the great value that many (Old?) European countries seem to place on that. Didn't we help save Europe from communism, fascism, and nazism? Oh, I know that there are those who miss those things, but not the people who had to live under them. I know that we don't always show Europe the deference that it thinks its due, but, all and all, haven't we been your best friend? How can Britain let France push it around like it does? Does Britain really disire French approval so much that it gives away its EU rebate to subsidize French arrogance and a few French farmers when they know full well that France will not give anything in return?

Is it irony

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Wed, 2005-12-21 13:51.

To point out French arrogance in the most arrogant way possible?

Anyway, to the point. Yes France is still an important country. Surely less important than in the past and less important than some of its elite like to imagine, but it matters a lot. The most obvious example : it is a major trade partner for most European countries and as such a major driver for economical growth. Especially its luxury goods industry is appreciated all over the world despite anti-French feelings. (Just like the American mass-consumer food industry)

France is still a very relevant democracy. It is in Europe's (and actually any country's) interest to see it do well.

Regional Funding (and the UK context)

Submitted by Jeff (not verified) on Sun, 2005-12-18 15:36.

I'll admit from the get-go that I don't know much about CAP, but I'll agree that it seems a black hole of money. My comment on the article is on Mr. Hannan's remarks on the Cohesion Funds. I agree with Mr. Hannan that the past programmes for regional funding, especially the Objective 1 (poorest regions) did seem to be indicative of the EU's overall development policy of just throwing money at problems and hoping they fix themselves.

Here's where things change. The regional funding programme has been revamped for the 2007-2013 period exactly to encourage enterprise! The objectives of the programme are geared specifically to work along the lines of the Lisbon Strategy (which is a whole different issue). The Structural Funds are expected to be linked with other funding programmes like CIP and FP7 (for innovation and research respectively). It is expected that the Structural Funds will provide funding for infrastructure and job training/education whilst CIP and FP7 will force these regions to compete for funding and work with other regions in the EU. I'll speak from firsthand knowledge that these regions from the new Member States are more than eager to work with the EU15.

As for the UK context, I hope you'll note that there several regions, including your own South Yorkshire, that used their funds wisely and have improved their economies and have grown about the 75% of EU15 GDP mark! Other notables are Ireland and Valencia (Spain). Don't think that Portugal and Greece are indicative of everyone receiving Structural Funds just because they can't pull their fingers out.

I hope this encourages Mr. Hannan to check and use facts the next time he wants to attack things like Structural Funds and use blanket statements based on the failings of only SOME of those involved in the programme.

"The EU really [has]to

Submitted by Jason (not verified) on Sun, 2005-12-18 20:50.

"The EU really [has]to become a UNITED STATES OF EUROPE. It is the only way to not be washed away in a world which will be dominated by five or six powerblocs who will not necessarily be Euro friendly. In that dangerous future world, the Grand Transatlantic Alliance of USA and USE will make the finest of coalitions in the history of mankind."

This is a rather curious asseveration. I'm not sure I completely understand your reasoning behind point #1, but it at least makes rudimentary sense.

However point #2 is completely unsubstantiated. Why exactly do you assume that there will be a "Grand Transatlantic Alliance of USA and USE" when so much of the ratiocination used to justify the establishment of a "USE" is couched in terms of an opposition (economic AND military) to the USA?

This assumption is doubly bizarre considering you concern that the world of the future will be dominated by "powerblocs who will not necessarily be Euro friendly". While, by and large, the USA presently remains quite "Euro friendly", the reverse is hardly the case...and that kind of one-sided dissonance cannot remain forever.

Sigh. Is there then not even

Submitted by Michael Cosyns (not verified) on Sun, 2005-12-18 02:11.

Sigh. Is there then not even ONE Conservative contributor to this site who is pro-EU? And why are the Brits so heavily opposed? What are you doing in the EU parliament if it is for tearing the concept down?

The EU farm subsidies conundrum will solve itself. Back in the days when Maggie was UK PM, farm subsidies made up, say, 90% of the EU budget. Today, it's not even 50% anymore. But YOU KEEP WHINING as if 9 in 10 euros spent by the EU serve for keeping farmers from cultivating their land or for storing superfluous milk seas.

For God's sake, DON'T YOU SEE that we need a UNITED Europe????? Why always the bickering? Twenty years ago, the rebate was fair. The UK would have contributed proportionally too much given the relatively unimportant British agricultural sector. But now that all through Europe the numbers of farmers are shrinking, the whole issue is due to become history anyway, and with it the rebate has to become history. Not in the course of one year, no. But in the course of six, seven or ten years at the most, yes. That is why I think that Mr. blair has - again - shown great leadership by agreeing to a steady rebate meltdown of one billion euro a year. He has chosen for the vision of a grand unified Europe in, say, thirty years, instead of clinging to past grandeur.

By that I do not wih to belittle the UK. In the economic field, the country is exemplary among the EU member states. In defense matters, the UK Armed Forces are like the EU's mailed fist. And I hear that great procgress has been made in the educational and health care sectors.

But por favor Brits, please accept the fact that the daysof Britannia Rules the Waves are over.

The EU really to become a UNITED STATES OF EUROPE. It is the only way to not be washed away in a world which will be dominated by five or six powerblocs who will not necessarily be Euro friendly. In that dangerous future world, the Grand Transatlantic Alliance of USA and USE will make the finest of coalitions in the history of mankind.

And please, STOP that garbage over the EU being something like a dark, sinister and undemocratic entity. I VOTED for my Europarlementarians!!!

the daysof Britannia Rules

Submitted by yellerKat (not verified) on Sun, 2005-12-18 14:15.

the daysof Britannia Rules the Waves are over.

Alas, the days of Britannia Waives the Rules are still with us.

More sighing and despair.

Submitted by Bob Doney on Sun, 2005-12-18 12:16.

The EU farm subsidies conundrum will solve itself.

That's all right then. We'll let our poor Brits at the bottom of the social heap know that everything's going to be fine in about another 10 or 15 years. So that will be about 40 years altogether. And should it be us or the other European governments that tell the poor farmers of the world that there's not much longer to wait for a fair world market in food. Could they just, please, hang on a little while longer, and if possible keep their kids alive in the meantime. M Chirac must die sometime. We all do. Look I'm just trying to look on the bright side here.

For God's sake, DON'T YOU SEE that we need a UNITED Europe?????

Well.......... No. I don't. I think it's thoroughly bad idea. The whole concept of dividing the world into half a dozen superpowers is a frighteningly bad idea.

That is why I think that Mr. blair has - again - shown great leadership by agreeing to a steady rebate meltdown of one billion euro a year. He has chosen for the vision of a grand unified Europe in, say, thirty years, instead of clinging to past grandeur.

OR, he has thrown away the best possible bargaining position for forcing France and Germany to face up to the iniquities of the CAP. If he had refused to budge on the rebate - which everyone knows is unfair - he could FINALLY have got the wicked subsidy system phased out. It would have been really painful, but it could have been done.

Thank you very much for the kind remarks! We've learned a trick or two about how to govern ourselves in our thousands of years of history. And our politicians realise it's part of their job to try to work out what we really really want. We're not entirely convinced, however, that our MEPs are quite up to speed with this aspect of their job.

But por favor Brits, please accept the fact that the days of Britannia Rules the Waves are over.

It's a bit irksome, though, having the Latvians, the Cypriots and the Estonians having the hump because it looked like we weren't going to act as Father Christmas. By the way, why is it, if the future of these countries is so good, they can't raise capital for their projects on the international capital markets?

And please, STOP that garbage over the EU being something like a dark, sinister and undemocratic entity. I VOTED for my Europarlementarians!!!

I can't think which would be worse - an undemocratic state where things are decided by unaccountable people in hugger-mugger deals, or a democratic one where the UK's vital national interests can be decided by a majority of Europe's many, different peoples - ooh, and soon the Eurabian ones as well.

Bob Doney