Shocking waste of UK's money
Britain's EU budget contributions to rise by 60 per cent
By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: August 24th, 2009
I’m delighted that Philip Hammond, the Shadow Chief Secretary, is turning his formidable mind to the matter of how quite how much British taxpayers are handing over to Brussels (hat-tip, Open Europe). He draws out attention to the fact that our net contribution will rise by an eye-watering 60 per cent next year, from £4.1 billion to £6.4 billion. The increase is a consequence of Tony Blair’s decision to abolish the rebate (which I’ve always found deeply suspicious: see here) as well as of the devaluation of sterling.
Large as these numbers are, they understate the true cost of membership. I mean, why should we look at the net rather than the gross contribution? In what other field of politics do we do so? Does anyone argue that income tax, rather than being 22 per cent, is in fact zero, because the whole sum is “given back” in roads, schools and hospitals? What matters is what we hand over: depending on whether you take Treasury or EU figures, either £10.2 billion or £12.4 billion a year.
Since it is the job of a Shadow Chief Secretary to look for savings, let me offer Philip some ideas as to what he could do with such a sum. He could cut council tax by 45 per cent; he could build 50 new hospitals every year; he could take nearly 4 pence off income tax; or he could pay off our Olympic debt in just one year.
Oh, and don’t give me any nonsense about the EU budget being a way to help poorer nations. If Britain has money to give away, there are plenty of people in the Third World who need it more than the lobbyists, contractors and big landowners who are the major beneficiaries of Brussels spending. Incidentally, do you know which country has been the single largest per capita recipient of EU funds since the Treaty of Rome was signed? Luxembourg.