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: "The rebate could never be regained

Margaret Thatcher fought for four years to win the rebate for Britain, famously wielding her handbag at EU summits until it was agreed. Giving it up is a clear betrayal of Thatcher’s legacy and shows the present government’s unwillingness to stand up for Britain’s interests in Brussels. With the situation now different due to there being more members there is no chance of any future British Prime Minister being able to repeat Mrs Thatcher’s achievement of 1984, so once the rebate is given up, it can never be regained."
Candidate 3: "The Rebate makes membership acceptable to the British people

The EU is a vast wasteful bureaucracy, for example creating a ‘House of European History’ for €14 million, [1] and is beyond reform. Anything to limit Britain’s contribution to this monster with pretensions to becoming a super-state is desirable. Many in the UK, between 35 and 65% of the population, [2] would prefer that we withdrew altogether, but if we can’t at least we should “starve the beast” by limiting the amount of money we give it to do harm with. Even if you think Britain should stay in the EU, you must recognise that the rebate is one of the only things that makes EU membership acceptable to ordinary people. Giving up the rebate is likely to swing British opinion strongly in favour of withdrawal.

[1] Banks, Martin, ‘Parliament hits back at claims of ‘wasteful’ spending plans’, 2011

[2] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Would Britain vote to leave the EU?’, 2009"
Candidate 4: "Europe needs to tackle much bigger problems

Those EU leaders who are most critical of the rebate are ignoring the EU’s real and serious problems by spending large amounts of time in rows with Britain over the rebate. Europe has immense problems such as persistent 10% unemployment, which has gone up as a result of the financial crisis, the rejection of the EU constitution by voters, the challenge of globalisation, the failure to make the single market in services work fairly, corruption and waste at Brussels, etc. This is even before the immense difficulties with the Euro which the Eurozone is currently suffering from. All these issues are much more important than the rebate for the future of the European Union. If Europe can once again become competitive economically then the financial gains for Europe will be much greater than persuading Britain to drop the rebate."
Candidate 5: "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 6: "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 7: "Britain should not pay more than other countries

Britain’s rebate is completely justified. Without it Britain would pay far more into the EU than it ever received back. The UK government argues “Without the rebate, the UK's net contribution as a percentage of national income would be twice as big as France's, and 1.5 times bigger than Germany's.” [1] This is because most of the EU’s budget goes to pay for the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy and regional aid programmes. The UK’s farming sector is a very small part of the economy, and very few of its regions count as poor in Europe-wide terms, so Britain receives little funding back from the EU. Meanwhile as a result of new members joining the EU development funding has been taken away from poorer areas of Britain, many of which will no longer be eligible, to be redirected to Eastern and Central European countries which need it much more, [2] Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget will go up .The rebate recognises this and returns two-thirds of the UK’s net EU contribution (payments less receipts) every year. Even with the rebate, the UK is still the second biggest net contributor (proportional to population) of all the EU states. Over the past ten years Britain has contributed 2½ times as much to the EU budget as France has [3] - and without the rebate it would have been 15 times as much!

[1] BBC News, ‘EU budget commissioner calls for UK rebate to end’, 2010

[2] European Union Committee, ‘Future Financing of the European Union’, 2005, p.154

[3] The Economist, ‘About a rebate’, 2005"
Candidate 8: "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"
Candidate 9: "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"

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
