As it happens, I would agree with a lot of your emotion in the matter but not the logic as far as this thread is concerned. What is under discussion in this thread is the question of the UK's contribution to the budget of the EU. My point is simply that other EU countries include in their assessment of the appropriate response more than the figures contained in the actual budget.
Whether you like it or not, the UK and France are the major military powers in Europe, holders of nuclear weapons and permanent members of the UN Security Council.
As to the threat, I said that I had identified it, I did not say that I agreed with it. Indeed, I think the involvement of the West in both Iraq and Afghanistan to be a disaster. The only reason many countries are involved is that they have had their arms twisted to become involved by the US as part of its "out of area" doctrine for NATO. Or, as Bush might have put it, "those that are not with me are against me". There are welcome signs that this approach is changing under Obama, promoted by every bomb that explodes under NATO personnel. Whatever they are, the Taliban are not stupid.
Calm down and read what others write. And stay with the topic under discussion.
Emotion is one thing, logic is another.
Whether you like it or not, the UK and France are the major military powers in Europe,
There are no major military powers in Europe - haven't been since the Suez Crisis. Just minor powers with delusions of grandeur.
holders of nuclear weapons
And we should care about that for what precise reason, again?
and permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Where they will vote in lockstep with Washington on every remotely important issue. Now, if the UK and France were to actually leverage their seats in the UNSC to promote legitimate European interests, I could see a point of compensating them for their efforts. But as far as I can tell that's not the case for the UK at all, and neither is it most of the time for France.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I will respond to your last point as it seems to me to be the only one relevant to the thread. It is not a question of compensating the UK for anything. The UK went into the EU with its eyes open and the other Member States have responded in kind. The simple contention that I make is that, in confronting the inevitable budgetary funding crisis that is looming for the next financial perspectives, the other Member States will take into account the overall context of their relations with the UK and not just the budgetary one. They have always done so in the past. I do not see why they should not do so in the future.
I have identified the central bone of contention as the nature of the UK budget rebate mechanism.
DOCM:
it does supply much of the heavy lifting with regard to the heavies at the door,notably those troublesome Al Qaida people, and this is a consideration other members have to bear in mind
was relevant to the discussion of the UK rebate, then it would seem logical to accept further debate on the matter without suggesting that it is off-topic.
I do not know technically how to lift quotations - especially partial one - out of the contributions of others and I do not intend to find out. It is the most tiresome feature of this blog that I have noted to date.
I would also disagree with your contention that it is the mechanism - or even the existence of the rebate itself - that is the bone of contention. The rebate is merely a symptom of a much larger problem of British obstructionism, "special relationship(s)" and delusions of grandeur.
There is a quib in the English-speaking press that Russia cannot join the European Union because it would want to deal with the rest of the Union on an equal footing: One vote to Russia and one vote to the rest. This seems to me to be a case of projection.
