The European Union has insisted that David Cameron hand over £1.7 Billion in what is essentially a prosperity penalty.
Britain must pay at least £1.7 Billion to help with recovery, the EU has announced.
The UK was targeted for the bill, due on 1st December, as a result of the country out-performing other economies in Europe since 1995.
The controversial bill includes retroactive payments that the EU assumes Britain owes them based on the country’s success over the last two decades. It does not include the £680 million that will be taken out of British taxpayers’ pockets to support an estimated increase for next year’s EU budget.
This backdated surcharge highlights how the price-tag for EU membership fluctuates depending on how well an economy is doing, with the more prosperous nations paying the most, all calculated depending on gross national income.
News of this pending payment is likely to add to the growth of groups demanding that Britain quit the EU.
Poorer Nations Get Rewarded
Part of the controversy over Britain’s bill is that it runs parallel to a practice of rewarding poorer nations in the EU block. France is getting handed 790 million for having a poorer and much more stagnant economy over the past year.
The Netherlands, which is scheduled pay 642 million for its own success, has highlighted the problem of rewarding the economies of stagnant nations with cash handouts. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, representing both the Dutch and the British, scheduled an emergency meeting to discuss the payment crisis and how it should be dealt with. His concerns were echoed by Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex. “The EU punishes economic success and rewards profligacy and failure”, he said, adding that “Britain is right to support the world’s poorest countries we shouldn’t be supporting some of the richest.”
Illegal Economic Activities Are Include
Not all the money for this bill is coming out of the mainstay economy. Prostitution and illegal drugs make up about 10 million of the British economy and are being calculated in the EU payout. This has been criticized by Tim Worstall at Forbes Magazine who pointed out that “while it might be appropriate to use the total economy, grey and black portions included, as a measure of the economy for some purposes it simply isn’t for the purpose of working out how much should be coughed up to the EU. Quite simply because, by definition, those extra parts of the economy aren’t paying the tax which is what Brussels wants a cut of.”
£1.7 billion would allow us to hire an extra 60,000 nurses and fund their pensions. It’s more than is raised by the bank levy. It represents an extra £65 a year for every family in the direct payments they make to Brussels – on top of the £525 they are already paying.
I say “direct payments” because we are paying far more indirectly, through higher food bills (to subsidise the Common Agricultural Policy), higher fuel bills (to subsidise the EU’s carbon reduction programmes) and higher VAT bills (to subsidise – well, just to subsidise Brussels functionaries in general).
You’ll be lucky to find an elected representative in Britain prepared to defend the EU on this one. The additional £1.7 billion is being sought because, in essence, the UK economy is outperforming the rest of the EU. Several other countries are affected at the margin – bizarrely, debt-stricken Greece is being surcharged while wealthy Germany is getting a rebate – but no one else is being asked to pay anything like so much. Most of the adjustments are in the tens of millions, though the Netherlands is another big loser, and France and Germany are big winners. But the UK is the outlier: our hike would more than pay for the rebates of all 17 net gainers put together.
Why? Because, frankly, we stayed out of the euro and so – despite Gordon Brown’s best efforts to bankrupt us – we were able to recover more swiftly from the downturn than most of the countries that had surrendered their currencies.
The European Commission has made little effort to raise revenue by fining the Eurozone states that breached the Stability and Growth Pact, and thus contributed to the euro crisis in the first place. On the contrary, most of them are being rewarded while we are punished for having had the effrontery to have called monetary union correctly.
A prosperity surcharge is never a good idea. If you tax successful countries in order to subsidise unsuccessful countries, you end up with fewer successful countries and more unsuccessful ones.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
It does. Greece paying to help Germany is very surreal, when not long ago the obvious solution seemed to be that Germany should pay to help Greece, but many vociferous Germans were reluctant to do so. Also a little surreal is why Robin, an American, is telling us all about it, when we all know about it already. It seems to have not much to do with Christianity, either. I am rather curious about this, but “just asking”, as they say. No ill intent.
I suppose Britain is the son who took his talents and used them well, whereas France buried them away under the mattress, but this is a bit tenuous, and Robin doesn’t mention it. The Temple stayed outside the Roman denarius zone, but fraudulent exchange rate mechanisms had to be dealt with robustly. I’m struggling a bit.
The United Kingdom was among twenty European Union nations voting earlier this week for Monsanto's controversial 'Roundup' weedkiller, it has emerged.
The vote, held on...
The world gets more surreal every day
It does. Greece paying to help Germany is very surreal, when not long ago the obvious solution seemed to be that Germany should pay to help Greece, but many vociferous Germans were reluctant to do so. Also a little surreal is why Robin, an American, is telling us all about it, when we all know about it already. It seems to have not much to do with Christianity, either. I am rather curious about this, but “just asking”, as they say. No ill intent.
I suppose Britain is the son who took his talents and used them well, whereas France buried them away under the mattress, but this is a bit tenuous, and Robin doesn’t mention it. The Temple stayed outside the Roman denarius zone, but fraudulent exchange rate mechanisms had to be dealt with robustly. I’m struggling a bit.