eurealist.co.uk

After a Eurostat calculation that Britain last year was the richest of the net contributors with a Gross National Income at 111.2 percent of the EU-15 average. Michaele Schreyer, EU budget commissioner, is pushing the idea of replacing the British rebate with a “generalised correction mechanism” for all big net contributors.

He is seeking to stave off increasing concern in Germany, the Netherlands and even Sweden at the increasing costs of financing the EU. The Dutch each pay far more into the EU than anyone else, so individually perhaps they should have a greater say in the EU than anyone else?

There were several options on the table but talks behind closed doors in Brussels this week have settled on the most far-reaching option. This would have the effect of doubling Britain’s EU fees from around £10 billion annually in recent years to around £20 billion by increasing contributions from 0.25 per cent of GDP to 0.5 per cent. This would make Britain the Biggest net contributor paying twice as much as France.

It is interesting to note that whilst Britain has remained outside the Euro zone and has resisted some of the more draconian socialistic tendencies of the others she has become the richest nation in the EU, it makes one wonder if there could be a link between the two facts.

Although Mr Blair has stated, he has a veto on the EU Budget, and therefore on Britain’s rebate, the European Scrutiny Committee said in a report on the Convention on the Future of Europe: “We are concerned that the UK’s rebate does not appear to be one of the matters on which decisions would be made by unanimity.”

This of course may have been one of Mr Blair’s Red Lines and we may find he is correct, but we must also remember Mr Major, who fought very hard against the Working Times Directive, obtaining the famous opt out, only to find that the Commission backed by the ECJ brought it in through the back door.

The draft treaty makes clear that there will be unanimous voting on the overall size of the EU budget and how contributions are made up. But a further section states that for “detailed arrangements” on budgetary matters, the Council of Ministers will take a decision. This section has alarmed British negotiators because it is assumed by those drafting the constitution that where there is no reference to unanimity, qualified majority voting will apply.

This is the way of EU negotiation and treaties, one part very clearly makes a statement then another undermines the statement, so you build your arguments on solid ground, only to find they are on quick sand and the opposite of your expectations is the case.

When I have in my life been offered a legal document, I do read it and I do make sure that I understand what that document entails. With the EU, it has to be understood that the Commission and the ECJ will interpret the words in a manner that will enable more centralisation. That is after all their very basic remit, It has been in all the treaties from the very beginning of the European movement and it is the Commission, which is empowered to achieve the wishes of the States and the people

“Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions, and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny”

Although our British leaders and Europhiles would like us to ignore such clauses and are very proud of the fact that they have had the previous manifestation of this clause removed “the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe” this has been replaced a different form of words that means exactly the same thing.

So we wait to see if Mr Blair has retained a veto on what the EU is going to cost us, the British people in the future. If he has then and if he is prepared to use it all well and good, if not, then those who are working out if it would be financially better to stay in or leave had better start adjusting their figures accordingly.