Talk:UK rebate

largest net contributor
The article mentions under History "Currently the rebate is worth £3bn (GBP) a year and the UK remains the second largest net contributor after Germany." I've always heard the Netherlands is the largest net contributor. So I tried to find out and the BBC agrees:, see graph halfway through the page. What it does say in the BBC article though, is that the UK likes to compare itself to like-sized countries and then it's second after Germany. But that isn't clear in this article. Mtcv 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How could Germany be a beneficiary of the UK rebate when it it is also a net contributer to the EU [budget? I am not sure what the graph means, can you explain.--Silverback 07:31, 18 ''December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the difference is because of the total amount of money a country contributes, and the amount of money per capita. Per capita the Netherlands currently are the largest net contributor (at least till 2007), but I would presume that Germany pays a lot more as it is a lot bigger. However, I do think one should state clearly whichever method is used in determing 'the greatest net contributor'.
 * Yes, the sentence is clumsy. 'Despite the rebate, the UK remains the second largest net contributor after Germany.' I am currently looking for some sensible figures on different countries contributions. There are some somewhere, I saw them once.



''If France, and Britain continue to veto changes to the rebate and the CAP, what would be the position of countries' net contributions in, say, five years' time? David Jones, Aldershot, England

''The European Commission says that between 2008-13, if the same system is used, the average net contributions would range from 0.56% of gross national income (GNI) for the Netherlands to 0.54% for Germany, 0.41% for Italy, 0.38% for Austria, 0.37% for France and Cyprus, 0.31% for Denmark and 0.25% for the UK and Finland.

''You can see why the UK likes the rebate. Without it, it would be the biggest net payer at 0.62% of GNI.''

There is another graph from the BBC at, showing a different figure. It is captioned net givers and takers 2004, but it is not clear to me if it includes the rebate, and it is certainly not definitive since the rebate is only finally calculated retrospectively 4 years later.Sandpiper 22:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Netherlands is, in percentage of GNI, the largest net contributor to the EU budget. In 2002, the net contribution was equal to -0,51% of its GNI, but Germany is the largest net contributor in absolute terms with, in 2002, -5067,8 Millions Euros, againts -2187,7 M€ of the Netherlands (which is actually the fourth largest after germany, italy and the UK). In some year (i.e. 1997) Germany has been the largest net contributor also in percentage of GNI.

I think it's important to remember that the net contribution is a relative concept, since it's basically related to accounting and doesn't take into account other real and indirect benefits (i.e.: Polish highways, financed by EU funds, have been built by German firms, or: ERASMUS funds go to the students of a country, say, spain, but then those students spend their money in the host country, say, germany). About the rebate and its possible solution: it has been introduced in the 70s, when the UK was the second poorest country in the EEC, because of UK's small gains despite its large contributions to the CAPs, at the price of a large distortion in the EU budget. Nowadays the situation has drastically changed and the UK is far above the EU average GDP, but, obviously, the british don't want to leave their privilege, unless the CAPs, which are the source of their 'loss' in the contribution are cancelled, thing that makes France, the largest beneficiary, worse off. Until unanimity on the financial perspective is required, i think it's hard to solve this dispute unless France or Britain give in some of their national interest for the good of the all European Union --Nebu87 (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And as reported in the article, Tony Blair & the British were will to do this, but due to a lack of reciprocation a poor compromise was reached instead.Jamesbloke (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased on this subject, eg " popular view in the UK is that if the UK rebate were reduced with no change to the CAP, then the UK would be paying money to keep an inefficient French farming sector in business - to many British people, such an injustice would be seen to be grossly unfair. However, this argument ignores that France remains a net payer to the EU budget". 137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the fact that without the UK rebate, France would no longer be a net contributor. It is not biased because without the UK rebate, France would no longer be a net payer to the EU despite being a wealthy country. France has tricked Germany and tried to trick the UK into paying for a farming policy that France itself could not afford, but the British government would not have it. If the UK rebate is removed then France will have succeeded. From a game theory perspective, the only way to resolve this is to cancel the UK rebate and modify the CAP simultaneously. The Brits know the French won't ever modify the CAP and therefore they use their veto, creating a deadlock. AadaamS (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * France being a net contributor means it can indeed afford its farming policy. Politically, it wouldn't be a problem at all, French people love their farmers, supposedly good products, etc. It's economic liberalism, pushed by the UK above all, that would prevent each country subsidizing their farmers that way. Even the US subsidizes its farmers greatly ! Aesma (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just the facts
Both the article and this talk page are getting politically loaded, with mixed comparisons between contributions, net contributions and with/without UK rebate. I'd like to make some major changes to shift the political content into the history section and keep the remaining area to consistent facts.

I also don't think the use of the Deutsche Bank report is appropriate given that the source data is available (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm), and is more up-to-date.


 * I haven't been following this article very closely, but the DB Research report has several advantages over official figures:
 * It is a secondary source that provides a competent discussion of the figures, which is what Wikipedia prefers, because the average reader may not be qualified to assess the unexplained figures.
 * It is a third-party source, independent of the EU institutions and the British government.
 * It is also neutral in the sense that it shows several different ways of looking at the figures, rather than a particular view.
 * On the other hand, the up-to-date figures should be provided, if they can be shown in such a way that the reader is unlikely to be misled by the manner in which they are provided and the choice of figures. Some sort of commentary is probably necessary, and this should be provided with reference to a reliable secondary source. --Boson (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your points regarding the DB report, but it is based upon data supplied by the EU and it compares a single non-representative year as far as the UK is concerned.
 * The graphs below were created using the source data from EU showing a comparison over a number of years and can easily be recreated:


 * These give a comparison of four similar sized economies by GNI, their Net Contribution to the EU including and excluding the UK rebate and the respective comparison based on the contribution as percentage of GNI.
 * What these graphs show is that the rebate brings UK net contribution into line with France, that if anyone is overpaying, it is or rather was Germany and that ultimately, the amounts are small by national standards.
 * I'd rather present the data this way, as can be seen in the article, people cherry pick the statistics to suit their arguement - eg: France is a bigger contributer than the UK - true, but this is a gross figure and the rebate was to address the net contribution.Jamesbloke (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the upcoming referendum in the UK I'd suggest it's really time to update the figures in this article. The net contribution claimed in this article by the UK is out of date and way below the actual one. Indeed it remarks that the UK's net contribution without rebate and reform to the CAP would be €10bn. It was £11.3bn, that's Sterling, not Euros, in 2013. The remark regarding it being a popular view that the UK is paying to keep an inefficient French farming sector in business carries no citations at all and, frankly, contributes nothing to this dicussion. It is very clear that the CAP hasn't been reformed in response to Tony Blair surrendering part of the UK's rebate, simply because the necessary legal changes haven't happened.

This is from The Guardian, a paper hardly famed for its adoration of Eurosceptic points of view, but it nonetheless notes the rapidly increasing net contribution by the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.174.178 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on UK rebate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206074157/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/land/download/xls/ldtb08.xls to http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/land/download/xls/ldtb08.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060928112500/http://www.swisscore.org/Policy%20docs/general_research/sapir_report_en.pdf to http://www.swisscore.org/Policy%20docs/general_research/sapir_report_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)