On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:29:30 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

"There are some variations however. Thanks to its rebate, the UK
pays a smaller proportion of its GNI than other countries."

Exactly, so Harry's original claim was even more wrong than I
originally proved.

The UK pays less than it otherwise would but it is still a major
contributor and gets much less back than it pays in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036802.stm

"Even taking into account the rebate, the UK is one of the largest net
contributors to the EU budget. Had it not been for the rebate, its net
contribution would have been even bigger than Germany's in 2007."

In absolute £ terms, yes. But as a % of GNI, no. It's a fairly relevant
distinction, do you not think?

It might be if % of GNI was the whole of the payment

ITYM if %age of GNI was basis for the calculation of the payment. It
isn't, that's true. But it's also irrelevant when you consider the
"affordability" of any payment. It's the exact same logic as looking at a
£100 parking ticket - pennies to a premier-league footballer, but a
fortune to a pensioner.

but it seems to me to be moot since it really has nothing to do with
JJ's bogus argument that Harry was wrong to suggest that the east
European countries get some financial support from the UK via the EU.

I don't think JJ suggested they didn't. Of course they do. One of the
whole points of an international economic community is to help narrow the
gap between richest and poorest. Generally, that's considered a good
thing, whether it's within a country or within a group of countries. It's
the situation now - just as it was, before 2003, when other EU states got
similar support. The reversal in Ireland's position from net recipient to
net contributor is largely why the Celtic Tiger choked on a furball,
since they were no longer one of the poorer EU nations.

JJ's objection, as I recall (but without trawling back), was to the claim
that the UK was being squeezed hardest. Quite simply, we aren't. Because
of the rebate (which IIRC was ignored at first), we contribute far less
than any other nation of our wealth would. Considering "affordability",
our position in the contribution table is much, much lower than Harry's
misrepresentation was alleging.