The Great Deception Behind the Rebate Row Deception: Now it Can be Told!
by Christopher Booker

Tony Blair was quite right to point out that, without the UK rebate, Britain would be the largest net contributor to the EU budget, paying 15 times more than France. It was precisely this imbalance which prompted Margaret Thatcher to fight for the rebate. It was never properly explained, however, why this ridiculous anomaly arose in the first place.

One of many remarkable episodes which Richard North and I were able to bring to light in our book, The Great Deception, just republished in a new updated edition, was the bizarre story behind the setting up of the Common Agricultural Policy in the 1960s. This was triggered off by the crisis facing France, through the runaway bill she was paying to subsidise French farmers for producing food nobody wanted.

President de Gaulle was terrified that this would bankrupt the French state, provoking social collapse. The French therefore cunningly devised a CAP to get other countries to buy their surplus food and foot their subsidy bill. The real reason why de Gaulle twice vetoed British entry was that it was vital first to get these arrangements agreed. Otherwise Britain could have sabotaged a system deliberately designed to benefit France, from which Britain, because she imported more of her food than anyone else, would be the biggest loser. Not only would she have to pay levies to Brussels for the food she imported, but, with a smaller farming sector, she would also get fewer subsidies.

Only in 1969 did France get her way, at which point she needed Britain in, and Edward Heath accepted the absurd arrangement. Within a decade, with the CAP then taking up 90 per cent of the entire budget, Britain would become the biggest contributor.

Hence Mrs Thatcher's fight for her rebate. But even this was only a partial solution, because Britain's farmers have continued to receive dramatically smaller subsidies than their competitors, contributing to the crisis which in recent years has brought much of British agriculture to its knees.

Thus are we still living with the problems created by that French stitch-up of 40 years ago, for reasons now almost lost in the mists of time. For the full story, I naturally recommend The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive?, just published by Continuum at £9.99.
The Sunday Telegraph, 4th December 2005

Blair Will Pay for his Betrayal in Brussels

When it comes to international negotiations, possession is nine tenths of the law. A country may be under any amount of moral pressure, but, as long as it is profiting from the status quo, it has nothing to fear from a breakdown. It is instructive, then, to compare the behaviour of the EU at the Hong Kong trade talks with that of the United Kingdom at the Brussels summit.

In Hong Kong, the EU, represented by its Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, was determined not to open its markets to developing countries. Its stance was wrong-headed and ethically indefensible.

Euro-protectionism drives up prices, erodes Europe's competitiveness and causes much poverty in the Third World. But, despite the pleas of the southern hemisphere nations, and despite a generous American initiative to cut tariffs, Brussels remained intransigent, secure in the knowledge that no deal would mean a default to the existing situation.

Britain's position in Brussels was even stronger. No mechanism existed to reduce the British rebate without Tony Blair's agreement. Here, a failure to reach terms would mean not a continuation of the status quo, but something even more attractive: a drying up of the budget.

Britain - which, for almost the entire period of its membership, has been one of only two countries to make any net payment to the EU - would thus have been spared its annual tribute of £12 billion, and might have used these savings to (for example) give us all a two thirds cut in council tax.

Why, then, was Mr Blair so determined to find an accommodation? Why did he climb down from his own position that there would be no reduction in the rebate without a commensurate dismantling of the CAP? Because his Europeanism has never really been based on a computation of Britain's national interest.

For him, being pro-EU is about being a modern internationalist, not about securing specific gains for his country. This is, of course, the worst possible frame of mind in which to enter negotiations.

More to the point, though, Mr Blair has failed in his own terms. A generous internationalist might indeed believe that Britain ought to give money to needier countries. But the EU budget is not a mechanism for doing so. Its largest per capita beneficiary is Luxembourg. By failing to secure CAP reform, Mr Blair has, in fact, done immense damage to the world's truly deserving states.

Make no mistake: the sums of money involved are immense - £7 billion, the amount Mr Blair has handed away, is roughly the entire police budget for England and Wales. At the last election, Mr Blair claimed Tory plans for a £4 billion tax reduction would mean savage cuts in public services. Never again will he be able to level such an accusation.

From now on, every time they are asked where they would find the money for tax cuts, the Tories can reasonably reply: from Brussels. Mr Blair has betrayed his word and his electorate. His budget surrender will be hung, albatross-like, around his neck and invoked every time he raises taxes. He will quickly come to rue the day that he embarked for Brussels.
The Daily Telegraph, 19th December 2005

Further Resources
Find out about the EU's real agenda and JUST SAY NO.

Ten Minutes to Midnight by Phillip Day
The Real Face of the European Union by Phillip Day, video documentary (PAL format only)
Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.
Click here if you wish to contact Credence for information on treatment options or resources.