CAP HAS been renegotiated several times, and most countries get a lot out of it. Did you not read that it was the UK and Germany that blocked the reform to limit payments per farm? A number of countries are happy to "hide" behind France in these negotiations,
As to the number of votes, Germany has as many as the others, not just France, so why blame France for that fact? The constitution would have changed this, but that issue was not mentioned one in France.
as to "economically efficient Britain and Germany are forced to support inefficient France", give me a break. It could be argued very easily that France and Germany paid for the UK's prosperity, by welcoming them in the EU when it was inreally dire straits. Since the UK has been in the EU, it has been thriving. Coincidence? And France is just as "efficient" as the UK on most metrics. (Go read the "what's wrong with the eurosone labor market" diary by Colman for some numbers and I can provide more). These comparisons are driven by the UK-based english speaking business press who seem at times to still be at war with the continent. It's certainly an ideological war, but it seems that the UK has never made peace with Germany following WWII.
Face it, Europe without France will never happen. Europe without the UK is very easy to conceive (I don't support it, but i can see it happening). We made peace with Germany. We built prosperity for europe, and opened the door to all. The CAP was an important brick in that effort. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The simple issue is that without the rebate Britain would be second only to the Netherlands in terms of per capita contributions. In the government's mind the rebate is closely tied to the CAP and so any negotiations must be a joint one. Even with the rebate, Britain gives more than France per person to the EU funds.
Why should French agriculture be favoured so much over the other European Countries? Over the new countries? Everyone in the EU understands that there should be donor countries and recipients, Spain and Ireland seem particularly grateful. But why should France give so little? They have a strong economy and a high standard of living.
The deal you speak of does not have any bearing on the current politics of the EU, or in Britain. If Chirac wants to deal with the British Rebate (and it should) they need to negotiate, not petulantly demand without offering any compromise. The only international crime is losing a war
The debate about the rebate has been disingenuous, to say the least. All British arguments have been about how much the UK would have paid in recent years without it, which of course is not what was discussed, as the issue is only about what happens in the future. As it were, under current rules, the rebate is set to grow massively, from 5 to 9 billion euros, and the way it is structured (with other rules applying to Germany and the Netherlands), that increase will basically be paid by Italy, France, and the new member states. Blair smartly suggested to give back that last one, the most offensive part of it, but the numbers with respect to France and Italy are pretty impressive, as provided by no other than the increasingly euro-bashing Economist:
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Victory in Brussels for any UK government means something for the UK. Victory for the continental countries means something for Europe. This is the fundamental distinction between the UK and the core EU. (And yes, I know that France et al. fight for their national interests. The point remains. The only national victories that will ever be claimed are those against the UK. You will never hear - "we beat the Germans") In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Victory for Britain in this case means getting something in return for agreeing to reduce the Rebate. This isn't just a strike at France, but the current structure of spending in the entire EU. You showed us the projected future contributions assuming the rebate, but what would it look like without. I was looking at the projections with and without for 2003 in The Economist, it makes it pretty clear what Britain is worried about.
Why does France want to beat the UK, but not the Germans (is that what you meant)? I get that sense as well and I think that my British friends think that Germany and France are aligned to make things difficult for Britain. How can a leader ask another country to sacrifice and then stonewall when his own country is ask to do similarly? The only international crime is losing a war
As you know, I think that europe will only get anywhere when France and/or Germany and the UK finally decide to stop sniping at each other and force themselves to compromise. any compromise between France and the UK is likely to be acceptable to most, as they represent widely opposite views of what to do.
But there is no will to force a compromise, like there is between the French and the Germans (who, remember, disagree about pretty much everything, but force themselves to talk and find common ground). Only sniping and blaming and stone walling. This is pathetic. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Are the French glad that the Rebate was put on the table? At all surprised that Blair didn't just give in? Surprised that Chirac was unwilling to compromise? Is there really a consensus that Blair should just yield a bit of the Rebate without any concessions in return?
To me it didn't seem like diplomacy but an attempt at showmanship. So far as I can tell, Blair won on the exchange, but may be forced to pay for it when he tries to put forward his agenda as EU president now that he has to deal with the budget as well. Blair offered a compromise and immediately France and Germany joined together and declared it unworthy of consideration. The only international crime is losing a war
The focus has now switched back to domestic issues - and the heat wave. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
