Argument: Enlargement could mean a new start

Britain should not alienate its natural allies among the new member states by insisting on the rebate. Like Britain, the new member states are largely economically liberal, anti-federalist regarding the future of the EU, and are pro-American in terms of foreign policy. As a result Britain is much more likely to be able to work with Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary on these issues. [1] They also recognise that Britain promoted the cause of their membership throughout the 1990s and appreciate its willingness to grant immediate free movement to their citizens who wish to work in Britain. In all these ways they are closer to Britain than to France or Germany, the two big states who have traditionally dominated EU decision-making. Enlargement presents Britain with a great opportunity to influence the future direction of Europe in partnership with these new states, but this opportunity will be lost if British insists on the rebate regardless of Central and Eastern European opinion.

[1] Number 10, ‘Transcript of press conference given by the Prime Minister David Cameron at the EU Summit in Brussels on 17 December 2010’, 2010

Candidate 1: "It might be worth giving up the British rebate for serious CAP reform, but it is unnecessary. If the CAP were abolished, Britain’s net payments to the EU would automatically be much smaller anyway, so the rebate (66% of the difference between the UK’s contributions to the EU and its receipts from it) would also shrink away to insignificance. CAP reform is worth doing for its own sake, and other EU countries will only agree to it once they realise that fact - offering up the rebate will make no difference. In any case, even if the rebate was a useful bargaining chip to be cashed in, there is no chance of individual countries such as France (or Eire, Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, etc.) agreeing to changing the CAP at present and any one country could prevent it, so Britain should hold on to the rebate card."
Candidate 2: "Britain should not feel sorry for the new EU members and give up its rebate out of pity for them. They chose to enter the EU and accepted the terms of membership - including the rebate arrangements. Indeed, it could be argued that membership was not necessarily good for the former communist states - having escaped one bureaucratic and ideological superstate, they have now chosen to be ruled by another, exchanging Moscow for Brussels. EU membership will impose thousands of unnecessary regulations upon them and tie them to a “European social model” which is clearly failing in the western states - both these things could hold back their economic growth and leave them poorer than they could have been outside the EU. Even the development aid they will receive will largely be wasted because it has to be spent in ways Brussels demands rather than in locally productive investment.

And if Britain did wish to be nice to the new member states, it could do so without giving up the principle of the rebate. Tony Blair agreed to alter the rebate in December 2005. Britain would not seek rebate payments linked to new member states agricultural and regional aid spending, but should keep the rebate in terms of spending of the original 15 EU countries who agreed ."
Candidate 3: "Britain can be on good terms with the East European states without dropping the rebate. Tony Blair in his deal on the rebate in 2005 gave a good deal to the new members of the EU which gave much more in structural funds to these members and at the same time reduced the British rebate. [1]

[1] White, Michael, and Watt, Nicholas, ‘Blair clinches deal with offer of big rebate cut’, 2005"
Candidate 4: "Britain does not want to be at the heart of Europe - it wants to be in the EU, but not run by the EU. Even if the rebate went, the UK would remain outside any EU “core group” of countries, as it has chosen not to join the Schengen agreement on passport free movement, and to stay outside the Euro. Both these decisions have very wide political and popular support in the UK, and neither will be changed even if the rebate was weakly given away. So tensions will continue between Britain and its European partners, but at least by defending the rebate they will know that the UK is prepared to stand up for its interests and respect it."
Candidate 5: "While the UK is the only country to have so far received a rebate the Commission pointed out that the Fontainbleu agreement was based on the principle that ‘….any Member State sustaining a budgetary burden which is excessive in relation to its relative prosperity may benefit from a correction at the appropriate time.’ [1] This could clearly apply to many other countries apart from Britain, Germany and other countries could therefore ask for a rebate if they wish. While there is no other compensation mechanism like the rebate there are lump sum payments to the Netherlands and Sweden [2] while Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Austria all have reduced rates of the European portion of VAT, [3] and the same states also pay less towards the rebate. [4]

[1] Patterson, Ben, ‘The UK rebate issue’, p.2 (link downloads pdf)

[2] Europa, ‘Where does the money come from?’, 2010

[3] Notenboom, Harry, ‘Structure and composition of the European Union own resources System’, 2009, p.17

[4] Ibid, p.15"

Britain can be on good terms with the East European states without dropping the rebate. Tony Blair in his deal on the rebate in 2005 gave a good deal to the new members of the EU which gave much more in structural funds to these members and at the same time reduced the British rebate. [1]

[1] White, Michael, and Watt, Nicholas, ‘Blair clinches deal with offer of big rebate cut’, 2005
