So we blinked...

[TheOstrich]

Would it not be correct to say that the idea of a "federal" type EU has only really evolved during the years that we have been a member of it?

I agree with Aggers, we wanted to join a Common Market, but the concept has totally shifted over the decades to encompass political and judicial union alongside trade. We Brits have had a choice to make - did we go along with this evolution, ignore it and hope it would go away, or choose to try to frustrate it. Our approach has been a combination of the second and third options. I know it's a cause of irritation to some folk like WM that we didn't take Option 1, but if we had, we'd now be further entwined in Europe and I would dispute the notion that we would have any influence over them, because the EU are completely set on creating a United States of Europe.

I have no wish to belong to a US of E; unlike Suff I don't identify myself as a European, and for me, one of the tipping points from apathy into downright opposition to the EU was the creation about 10 years back of that Arc Manche federal co-operation area, encompassing South East England with North West France, because I viewed that as the thin end of the wedge; the start of the dismantling of our sovereign state power.

Anyway, lets face it, Federal Europe will be a much happier place without our presence.

I sometimes wish we'd just quietly accepted De Gaulle's approach of "Non" in the first place .....

[Workingman]

I know it's a cause of irritation to some folk like WM that we didn't take Option 1.

I know it's a cause of irritation to some folk like WM that we didn't take Option 1.

My frustration is not and never has been with those who voted Leave.

My frustration goes back a long way in that we did not forcibly kick to foot off the accelerator leading to Option 1.

Please allow me this. When the UK, Ireland and Denmark became the first countries in the expansion of the EEC we could also have had Norway as well. They had a ref and said "No". Nonetheless the three new countries had close trading links and economies due to being members of EFTA. The three could have made an effective group able to speak out and influence. At the time of our joining, Italy and the Netherlands, and to some extent, Luxembourg, were peripheral to the Franco-German alliance. We could certainly have brought the Netherlands into our group. The EEC would then have been made up of groups of the old and the new and a lot of horse trading could have been done.

Had that happened the EU, as is, would not exist. The EEC would still have evolved with the convergence of laws, tax, the environment and so on, but as we saw with referendums in France, Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands there was no great love for the embryonic entity that would eventually become the EU. What was needed was for one of the big three to draw Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands, and later Sweden and Portugal, under its wing. The one of the big three was the UK.

Unfortunately for the little guys the giant in the corner was nodding off, sulking and sucking his thumb as he had been doing most of the time. Even if he woke up there was not much confidence that he would do anything. There lies the birth of my irritation.

So why Remain? Well we still had a veto, we still had our rebate, we still had the opportunity to use the EU rule as others did and we still had the means to campaign for change, to make alliances, to offer alternatives. By staying in we could have been the real bastards we should have been years, decades, ago.

[AliasAggers]

It would have been better for us never to have joined.

We wouldn't have done, if we could have foreseen just how it would turn out to be.
We were tricked into it.

If I was running the country now , I would just say, '
"We are getting out now, and not paying you a penny more. If you don't like it, hard luck".

[Suff]

Please allow me this. When the UK, Ireland and Denmark became the first countries in the expansion of the EEC we could also have had Norway as well. They had a ref and said "No". Nonetheless the three new countries had close trading links and economies due to being members of EFTA. The three could have made an effective group able to speak out and influence. At the time of our joining, Italy and the Netherlands, and to some extent, Luxembourg, were peripheral to the Franco-German alliance. We could certainly have brought the Netherlands into our group. The EEC would then have been made up of groups of the old and the new and a lot of horse trading could have been done.

I will and do, allow you that the UK could have influenced the EU much more at the time of entry.

If you will allow me this. I remember that time fairly well even though I was out of the country from 65 to 68 and only had a few years to pick up on the feeling of the country before we joined the EEC. Also I was quite young but I did listen to the news with my parents and I would, from time to time, read some newspaper articles about the situation even though I was only 12 when we joined. I was already fairly aware of "Europe"; as my parents had chosen to take a ferry to Athens and drive through the Balkans and over Europe when we came back from Cyprus in 68 and we also holidayed, camping, most years, in France, Switzerland, Belgium and Holland. My Uncle was also serving in Germany in the BAOR back then.

As you can imagine debate was quite rife in my home. It was also extremely apparent that the UK was a country going through Massive upheaval.

Reading back through the articles on the EEC (later EU), budget funding rebate for the UK, it is quite clear that the UK was viewed as an ex Empire country going through shock reduction in size, wealth and influence. We were viewed as an "also ran" and France treated us with contempt when we finally joined by demanding that we pay an outrageous sum in contributions, the UK paid driven by a need to present a stronger front than actually existed.

Even though the UK was still a massive force in the world, still the third largest nuclear power, still had a massive Army and Navy, the UK was deemed, by the Nouveau EEC, to be a has been. Ireland was never going to stand with the UK, we'd done as much as possible to damage their economy since their independence that we had earned no friendship there (quite rightly).

We talk about UK influence in the EU as if the current state of affairs existed then. It did not. Our industry was in disarray, our economy was crashing, our Unions were out of control and making it worse and our governments were limited to flip/flop changes at the elections.

Whilst our friends would have stood by us for most things, the losers of WWII (almost everyone except the UK), were absolutely determined that the UK would not use that position to have a strong influencing stance in the EEC nor the EU.

That position continues today. The one thing you can absolutely guarantee to unite the states of the EU; is in denying the UK something they want. It is as it has always been.

Yes if we were staying in the EU, I would have wanted the UK to make a firmer stand, to have allied with other nations and to have created a counteracting block to the Franco German alliance. But that is just a wish. Let us look at the reality.

We, the UK, championed the New10 of the EU. We gave of our rebate so they would also be funded by us. We did not apply the 5 year rule banning their people from coming and working in the EU (one of only 3 countries not to do so in the EU).

What did they do for us? When it came to Cameron asking for concessions, did they say "You have given us a lot we can give you a little"? No in fact they stood up and shafted us. Told us that they were going to use the EU law to the letter to suck as much money out of the UK as they possibly could and that they would vote against anything we tried to do about it.

I know the UK is a "fair weather" friend when it comes to EU relationships. Very much because of our polarised government and the flip flop between elections. However many of the EU countries have made no bones about the fact that they don't want to be "friends" at all. Fair weather or Foul.

[Suff]

This is very long. But building a picture and laying out the relevant pieces from which that picture is made takes space.

Apologies.

About the rebate.

Let us start here. Yes I know it's Wikipedai, but I have been able to verify just about every claim.

Everything I have ever learned about the rebate says it's difficult. If you read the calculation section

Calculating the size of the UK's annual rebate is complex.[8] Broadly, the UK gets back 66% of the difference between its share of member states' VAT contributions and its share of EU spending in return. The European Commission sets out the detailed calculations in a working document

This becomes really difficult when you realise that:

The budgetary balance of the United
Kingdom, however, shows an even greater variability because of the operation of the correction mechanism
itself which foresees the payment of the compensation with a one year lag (an exceptionally large imbalance
in one year leads to a large compensation which is paid in the following year, thus reducing further what
may have been a normal imbalance, and so on)

Which leads me to finally understand why nobody gets the tables right when the EU, themselves, don't actually present the real picture.

This gets even worse when you realise that

The calculation of the rebate for any one year is budgeted and paid for the following year, and the payments are subject to revision for up to three further years

And the fact that any revision is paid in the fourth year. Thus muddying the waters so completely that it is virtually impossible to actually work out how much the UK has paid, net, in any one year. Especially as the future three years could revise it up or down (we saw up recently and it was in the billions).

Now if we contrast this little piece of fiction from Fullfact.org, purporting to explain the reality of the rebate.

The calculation of the rebate for any one year is budgeted and paid for the following year, and the payments are subject to revision for up to three further years

This was presented as fact and directly contradicts the EU Parliament and the EU Commission documents who clearly state the Wikipedia 1/3/4 year scenario.

Now let's go to another part of reality....

The effect of the rebate is to increase contributions required from all other member states, to make up the loss from the overall budget. Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria all have their contribution to make up for the rebate capped to 25% of the figure which would otherwise apply

No the UK is NOT the only country with a rebate. In fact there are some countries who have a PERMANENT rebate on how much they pay of the UK rebate and others, in each 7 year budget cycle, who also receive rebates because their payments are too high as a proportion of GNI.

Just another little lie about the whole "adjustment" landscape in the EU. Yes the UK has a fixed one and yes it is becoming harder to justify, but YES they bloody well deserve it for trying to shaft us in the first place and refusing to discuss adjusting the CAP to balance it.

Another point. Which I made, from the wiki page. It is corroborated in the EU documents but never get beyond stating that the UK rebate distorts the UK use of EU funds... A polite way of hiding the fact that the UK is, essentially, cut off from EU funds because of the rebate.

The rebate distorts UK funding negotiations with the EU. Normally, countries and independent agencies within each country bid to receive central EU funds. The UK government is aware that two-thirds of any EU funding will in effect be deducted from the rebate and come out of UK government funds. Thus the UK has only a one-third incentive to apply for EU funds. Other countries, whose contributions into the budget are not affected by funds they receive back, have no incentive to moderate their requests for funds.

Furthermore, many EU grants are conditional on the recipient finding a proportion of funding from local sources, frequently national or local government. This increases the proportion coming from UK government revenue even further. This has the effect of artificially reducing EU expenditure returning to the UK and worsening the deficit which the rebate is intended to redress.

In short, if the UK wants to get EU money, we have to pay some 80% or more of it ourselves then we get to have the EU tell us how to spend it. Until, of course, we have consumed the entire rebate. Then we've had so much "EU" money that other countries complain that we're getting too much. Because to add irony and cheek onto insult, the EU marks rebate money as EU funds given to the UK. Even though they do not actually calculate it in the rebate.

Remember all that EU scientific funding the universities keep wittering on about losing? Yep, we pay for it.

The calculations become so complicated in the change from VAT to GNI, that they report.

This calls for complicated calculations for each revision
of the UK rebate and its budgeting in two different chapters (Chapter 15 and chapter 35) which produces the
somewhat surprising result that the United Kingdom appears to participate in the financing (albeit for very
small amounts) of its own rebate.

Define small??

I also stated the fact that the EU reported that they were, at every change, reducing the impact of the UK rebate. I've lost the original article and I only have the EU parliament one here. Which has a statement that was not in the original Council meeting document I found. It states that the changes are designed to lock the UK rebate to the value it would have been if it was only calculated on VAT. Yet the council statement I read did not have that rider and was worded differently. It was worded that the calculations were being modified at every budget (7 years), to reduce the impact of the UK rebate on the whole EU budget. Two very different positions.

Read and make up your own mind based on the above.

Over time, adjustments to the result obtained from the main variables have been
introduced progressively, to take additional elements into account (such as the creation
of an own resource based on GNP,7 the capping of the VAT bases for the related own
resource and the increase in the collection costs retained by Member States from the
amounts of customs duties they collect). The objective of the adjustments agreed by all
Member States and included in the calculation is mainly to neutralise the effects on the
UK rebate of developments in the own resources system and in the EU that are
independent of the rebate itself. In other words, the idea is that the result of the
calculation should be similar to what it would have been had the overall state of play
not changed since 1985.

If you look for this, you will find that at each budget cycle there is an attempt to remove the UK "adjustment". It is always worded the same way. That they will remove ALL adjustments and replace them with an assessment system which assesses, by GNI, how much each state should pay.

Thus removing the EU rebate and a thorn in the side of the EU. Fortunately we still have a Veto on that one given how many other veto's have gone by the board.

Hence it noted that introducing a new phase in the evolution of EU financing could provide
gains in three closely linked dimensions – the simplification of Member States' contributions,
the introduction of one or several new own resources and the progressive phasing-out of all
correction mechanisms. As these changes are phased in, the essential elements of the EU
financing system should be retained: a stable and sufficient financing of the EU budget,
respect for budgetary discipline and a mechanism to ensure a balanced budget.

Yep we veto'd that one.

There is another document, submitted this year, by another group, on the EU budget and removing "Adjustments". I'm not going to bother tracking it down again. It is more of the same but we are leaving and it's no longer relevant.

The short version is this. We were shafted right and royally when we joined. When the EU uses the words Unfair or substantially greater than, they are not talking about a small discrepancy. They are talking about a huge discrepancy.

As every budgeting round has gone by and every position paper has been put in, the EU has tried to cajole the UK into exchanging its "Adjustment" for another mechanism. We have veto'd every single try.

Let us examine why. Because, today, our rebate is locked in by council decision which can only be overturned by another council decision and that requires a unanimous vote. Simply the UK just has to vote no.

If we allow them to implement a much "fairer" system, our veto will vanish as we'll never get another unanimous vote to change it again. We will then be left having to try and "influence" the rest of them to ensure our payments are capped.

Every document I have read on the rebate says that the UK economy is significantly different from the rest of the EU (even today after 44 years of being Inside). We would then be relying on 27 other states who's economy does work the same, to play fair.

If there is anything we have ever learned from the EU, it is not to give up our Veto. As Cameron, ever willing to play along with the EU in the name of "Unity", had to do over the transaction tax; shocking the Entire EU as if a kitten had turned around and ripped their arm off.

I'm not saying this is all one way traffic. The rebate is now, essentially, pretty unfair the other way. The problem is that to undo it relies on trust and the EU has given us no reason to trust them.

So we are leaving.

After this very long post, I leave you with one thought about our negotiations.

Our 2018 rebate will be calculated in 2019 and our 2019 rebate will be calculated in 2020. We will already have paid the 2018 budget funds and will only have paid a small sum in 2019.

Any bets on getting our money back?? If I were May I'd pay nothing in 2018 and settle up at the end of 2019. Ensuring that the EU only gets what they are entitled to and that we get back what we are entitled to.

Not that it will happen of course.

[Workingman]

It really is a long read and a big thank you for the links, but I still disagree with your claims:

"Every single review of budgets and payments in the EU had a component which was designed, solely to screw the UK rebate.

Every single funding request which was approved by the EU, had a rider on it that a large chunk of the money came out of the UK rebate. Meaning that every other country in the EU could get funding form the EU, but the UK d to fund the largest share itself until the rebate was used up, then the EU would der funding UK requests."

It comes down largely to semantics and our different views on the EU. It comes across that you hate the EU and that nothing it ever does, as far as the UK is concerned, can ever be good. I am a lot more forgiving and I also support actions by the EU that might not be of direct benefit of the UK but are actioned for the greater good of the whole. These things happen in all clubs and not everyone can have their own way all the time, there has to be give and take.

When it comes down to claims of riders being put in place solely to screw thee UK I have to disagree. All of the things shown are quite normal for funding negotiations and rules. They are unique to the UK based on one simple fact - the UK has a rebate. No other member gets a rebate so no other country can ever enter into such negotiation. It the EU was trying to royally screw the EU, which is not and never has done, it would be making attempts to abolish the UK's unique and beneficial, to us, rebate. Fortunately for us we have a veto against any such action and our Prime Ministers, including T Blair, have not been shy in letting the EU know we would use it.

We might have to enter negotiations into how our rebate is calculated and we might not like the way some of them go, but as we are the only member getting such a rebate it is hard to see how we are being picked on and screwed.

[Suff]

When it comes down to claims of riders being put in place solely to screw thee UK I have to disagree. All of the things shown are quite normal for funding negotiations and rules. They are unique to the UK based on one simple fact - the UK has a rebate. No other member gets a rebate so no other country can ever enter into such negotiation. It the EU was trying to royally screw the EU, which is not and never has done, it would be making attempts to abolish the UK's unique and beneficial, to us, rebate. Fortunately for us we have a veto against any such action and our Prime Ministers, including T Blair, have not been shy in letting the EU know we would use it.

We might have to enter negotiations into how our rebate is calculated and we might not like the way some of them go, but as we are the only member getting such a rebate it is hard to see how we are being picked on and screwed.

Not quite. There are quite a lot of rebates right now. There are 5 permanent rebates. One is for the UK "Adjustment" and the other 4 are about how much the rebated states pay to fund the UK rebate.

The country not in receipt of a rebate at all, right now, is France. Who, interestingly, with no rebate and having to fund the largest portion of the UK rebate, pays, net, into the EU, slightly more or slightly less than the UK depending on the 4 year trailing rebate for the UK and how it skews each years figures. Essentially France has been massively in receipt of EU benefits and it is only the UK rebate which redresses that. Something which it was designed to do. Spain, whom it was also designed to redress, not only pays less than the UK, but actually is a net recipient. Still. Despite being the 5th largest economy in the EU.

If you read the 2011 document I posted, you will see that it attempts to remove the UK rebate and replace it with a GNI rebate which is then applied to all states. Right now our rebate is re-calculated to fit in with that GNI calculation and retrofitted back to the VAT/CAP imbalance it was designed to redress.

You say that no other country has a rebate. Have a read of those links again. Several countries have had rebates in the last 14 years, Germany is one of the countries currently with a rebate based on GNI. As are the Netherlands and Sweden.

You say I hate the EU. Let me refine that. I am quite happy with Europe, the European countries and their cultures. I even speak, to a larger or smaller degree, 5 of their languages. Although my Italian, Spanish and Dutch are very limited they are used.

However the European Union, that backstabbing self adulating money sink? Yep I hate that, mistrust that and truly believe that it is out to screw the UK. Screwing the UK has been good business for the EU for decades now. Because there are always enough states willing to come onside, so long as the UK is getting a kicking, than there are willing to cry foul. This current farce of a negotiation on exit is a point in case.

So why should I trust an attempt to remove the UK rebate by resetting "ALL Adjustments". So we can throw the UK back on collective bargaining for the UK payments to an EU we do not export to out of choice. qualification, we choose to export more out of the EU where there are barriers to that trade, than we do inside the EU where there are (supposedly), no barriers to that trade. We have already learned that lesson once, the EU only negotiates with the UK when it is forced to. Rebate, transaction tax and many, many other examples over time.

I have to listen to the insanity of Labour idiots (shadow International trade secretary), saying that they will stay in the single market but negotiate a new customs union. It is childs play for the EU to get anything it wants from the UK when our government ministers are so stupid that they don't know that the single market IS customs union. All the EU has to do is wait for these idiots to get into power (Major, Blair, Brown), then push through every single thing they want.

Even without the attitude the temptation must be overwhelming. If the stupid fools don't know what they are talking about, why should the EU not take advantage??

It is not just the EU I do not trust. I do not trust the politicians of the UK to make decisions in the best interest of the UK in the way that the other 27 states do for themselves.

Whilst my distrust may come out as hatred, it generally is driven by bitter experience of watching the wrong thing happen over and over again. Yes I detest the EU central organisation. But I expect the rest of the countries to do what they do, fight for their own best interests. The fact that the UK seems to be incapable of understanding that they should fight in the first place, or actually fighting in the second place, only makes me that much more implacable.

So when I say the EU is firmly intending to screw the UK, I mean they will take every opportunity to take advantage of our crippling inability to look our for ourselves within the EU. Because we simply do not understand it.

I must admit I'm quite amused that Ireland is allowing itself to be cast as the big bad wolf right now. Of course the republic is bought, lock, stock and barrel, by the EU bailout fund. Germany suddenly becomes castrated with a failed Government and, mysteriously, Ireland finds a pair of cast iron cojones.... Really, am I meant to be that stupid?

I also find it interesting that the news articles I was reading on Thursday, about Barnier assuring May that if she just agreed to cover the rest of the budget that the EU would shift it's stance at the summit, have vanished. No trace. I read them on the mobile then close the links and follow on my PC. Which is a curse because when the links vanish from Google, I have lost them. I should be more careful.

However I see that Barnier lied to get the ball rolling. Davis knew much better. Hold the EU to account for not negotiating, don't offer a figure until they tell us what we're buying. May thought she had the ability to break the deadlock and all she did was erode the UK negotiating position.

You would have me believe that this kind of thing does not go on in negotiating a rebate? Not a chance and we have no politician with the strength of Maggie to refuse to pay and bring them to the table for simple talks. Negotiate or face the consequences as each budget tranche fails to appear.

We are leaving. The EU is playing the stonewalling game. When they are finished and when they have extracted the maximum money possible from the UK, they will then insist that the UK get's nothing better than CETA, if as good. Damaging the NI border agreements, risking conflict in NI, making the UK decide to either throw the whole thing in the bin or bend over and take it.

Try reading to the bottom of the Guardian articles. Where they report that the Irish EU commissioner talks about the UK "Insisting on believing in fictional trade deals". What does this mean? It means that no matter how much money we offer to pay, the EU have no intention of giving us an all encompassing trade deal.

What would I do?

Walk away and tell them that when they have their stuff together and when they want to negotiate, then we'll be there. If they don't have time to make a deal to get the money that is their issue, not ours.....

You ask me to trust that we can bargain with them? We only still have a rebate because it is a majority council decision to remove it. The reason the council is not voting on these issues by QMV is because the UK vetoed QMV for the council. Why did it veto it? Because the first order of business would have been to remove the UK rebate by QMV. Even the idiot Blair was not stupid enough to do that and Brown was never given the opportunity.

It is better that we leave and it is better that we give the EU the absolute minimum it is possible for us to give when we leave.

Anything else invites a shafting.