so err let get this right?

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Rich

Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted
Jun 7, 2001
66,827
48
Omnipresent
give away 7 billion quid and the C.A.P. stays intact till 2007 and then it might be reviewed unless the french veto it.?

have i got that wrong and miss read all the info or have we been shafted by Mr "I will not negotiate away our rebate"

fill me in coz im fucking confused..
 
Last edited:
We get bummed :hump:

I consider myself a Europhile, but not as the EU is now but as how it could be. :(
 
The C A P has been in place for ages, but more recently our farmers have got along just fine by themselvesa.
But in the early days the CAP was a greaty nidea.
 
Britain invests approx £30,000,000 a day (€43,675,073.07 a day) in the EU, and gets back approx half.

From the British Government's own Foreign and Commonwealth Office (obviously before the rebate was re-negotiated): said:
Some of the money Britain contributes is spent on EU projects in Britain. But most of the richer countries, including Britain, pay more into the EU than they get back. The poorer countries receive funds to help their economies catch up.

Britain gets a rebate to make our payment fairer. This was agreed in 1984 and it cannot be changed without the agreement of the British Government and Parliament.

Even with this rebate, over the years Britain has paid more overall than countries of a similar size and wealth like France and Italy. This is mainly due to excessive spending by the EU on agriculture.

This is a Goverment document.

The reason that Brits I know have a problem with the rebate, and belonging to the EU in general, is that there are problems over here with the health service, housing, transport etc etc. The rebate could be used to help this situation, although it's debatable whether it would be in good hands with Blair and Gordon Clown.

State health services, public transport and government housing etc etc in other EU countries is x10 better than here.

Why help poorer countries when your own is not up to standard?
 
Last edited:
Can we really expect to get 100% back of what we put in? If thats the case - whats the point in having a kitty in the first place for anything?

We need to be "part of europe" for many reasons, one of which being that it is one of the largest markets in the world. If we are not part of Europe we wouldn't have the same reach and impact across the world when it comes to the global ecomomy, internation trade agreements and negotiations.

An example might be - reduction in the amount of money spent on European farming could cause the prices of our meat/vegetable imports to increase - costing us more in the long term than the 50% of our EU CAP.

Really - I couldn't care less if we are or are not part of Europe. It doesn't matter to me personally - and I really do not believe that we would actually spend the money anymore wisely.

If we would like to see costs cut, we should (imo) do the following:
  • Dramatically reduce the crazy amounts of money being spent on anti-terrorism measures which restrict the freedom of UK citizens (counter productive measures which will cost us lots of money to implement without any significant increase in safety)
  • Withdraw our support from Iraq where our military costs must be £millions per day at least
  • Be more strict with people who owe the country/goverment/people money either from non-paid fines/tax back payments/speeding tickets etc (supposed to be several million or billion pounds outstanding)
  • Increase taxation on those in the higher tax bracket.
Fighting about anything to do with Europe is almost a waste of time. Like other people say, we need to focus on our own country, own own people and the majority of those - not the top 1% richest, the 0.5% poorest - but everyone.

We have higher priorties than this:
  • Health sector - improve the hospitals, waiting lists, doctors, increase awareness about diseases, obesity, AIDs and long substance abuse.
  • Improve the national unemployment rate - even though it is (or was) at an all time low - we still need to get more people back into work supporting themselves - without reducing the quality of life for those people, eg single parents being forced to work part time etc.
  • Increase the openness and transparency of the goverments and its decisions. Better use of investigations and public reports into goverment incidents. Hold our goverment and politicians accountable for their (in)actions
However - people only care about the high profile - highly sensitive things which happen in their lives. We (the TV watching population) worry about terrorism, think it is going to happen to us and appluade when millions and millions of pounds are spent on security that isn't effective.

The amount of money spent in Europe isn;t that important either - its still a lot less than the £trillions which flow through the country every year. It might also have some negative effects by not doign so - but either way I think in the general scope of things, nobody should be concerned about this - it's a distraction from the real problems which plague the country.
 
We are however still being shafted by his Tonyness, let me give you an example, if you give me £1m, I'll think about stopping drinking beer. Seem like a good deal? The review will take at least five years and conclude nothing of value.
 
Oh and the solution to sorting the health sector's problem is firing non-medical staff, my dad is a doctor, in the time he's been working there, this is the changes at his department since he started compared to now:

2 consultants => 6 consultants
Net decrease in patients treated
2 dedicated wards => 1 shared ward

Why? More doctors are doing less work. Why? They spend much of their time not actually treating patients, instead filling out forms. Why have the numbers of wards decreased? To save money. Why does money need to be saved? Because the numbers of non-medical staff have more than quadrupled.
 
We shouldn't get back 100% of what we put in, but Blair shouldn't negotiate away the rebate; like the quote says - even with the rebate we still contribute more than similar countries. Like we say though, whether or not he'd use it wisely is an entirely different matter. (I'm sure I've posted this before, but I once read somewhere the house of lords spends something ridiculous like 90 grand a year on ... biscuits)
 
the main problem about the rebate and why the french want to get rid of it is that the Eu doesnt spend less money because of the rebate... it still spends the same amount and making france(mainly) and germany pay for it...
this rebate is the only reason why france is a net-payer at all...

i seriously dont get why countries with a higher or similar income per capita pay a lot less money than germany - it just doesnt sound fair
germany itself got major problems to solve - health care, unemployment, eastern germany, etc

europe should focus on what its best at and thats not argiculture imo but technology
 
I don't know enough about the subject to really argue the case... but the reading I have done just leads me to think the EU is a joke, just like Britain. Blair has willingly negotiated away the money we have overspent in comparison to countries of similar size and wealth, i.e France and Italy, and it was only Blair who could agree to it.

(Dunno the facts/figures) I know Germany is the biggest contributor, and has the most wealth and income blah blah. I feel sorry for them too, who pay out loads and get little of interest/value back.

At the end of the day it is true like earlier said that the rebate would just be squandered somewhere anyway/ The real issues are among the few Martz said.

*biggest *SIGH* ever*