Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, May 30, 1980
Page 9
ON THE WORLD SCENE
"CYCLONE MAGGIE" SAYS "NO" TO EEC BUDGET; WILL EEC SAY "GOODBYE" TO
BRITAIN? The Common Market is in the throes of its gravest crisis in
15 years. Attempts on the part of the British and their continental
partners to resolve the issue of the size of Britain's contribution to
the EEC budget have hit a stone wall--in the person of Britain's "Iron
Lady" Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher may be "Mighty
Maggie" to Britons who solidly support her, but to the French she is
"Cyclone Maggie" and to the Germans, "Frau Nein" (Mrs. No).
The nexus of the crisis--which in particular pits London against Paris--is
the fact that, measured by per capita income, Britain is the third poorest
member of the Common Market. Yet Britain has been assessed a $2.7 billion
net contribution to the EEC central budget this year--a figure more than
twice what prosperous Germany pays and ten times as much as France.
The imbalance is due to the complex mechanism of financing the EEC budget
--much of which goes out as transfer payments to support high priced
continental agriculture. France, which still has a sizeable--and
politically powerful--farm population is the biggest beneficiary of the
EEC budget. Its inefficient farmers cash in the most on guaranteed farm
prices for their products which, if unsold, are then added to mounting
surpluses.
The crisis has been brewing for a long time. But it came to a head at
the Common Market summit in Luxembourg in mid-May. Trying to avoid an
impasse, the continentals made an offer they thought Mrs. Thatcher
couldn't refuse--but she did. Chancellor Helmut Schmidt offered an
immense and immediate $2 billion cut in Britain's dues--asking only that
London make a $745 million contribution this year and just slightly more
for 1981. But Mrs. Thatcher insisted that London's contribution should
be frozen at $745 million for the next five years--a proposal the other
European nations quickly rejected. Said a West German spokesman: "There
are limits to our wallets." French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing
was even more direct: "Under these circumstances, Madam, I am no longer
able to help you in any way."
EEC officials were irked by the tone of Thatcher's rejection. "She seemed
to treat all proposals as her due, a kind of divine right," complained one
minister. "We offered her money and got our heads bitten off in the pro
cess. The dominant impression was that she simply despises us Continen
tals."
The British press, with the exception of the Times, which urged caution,
rallied to Mrs. Thatcher's side. "Britain has a 'lawyers dream of a case'
on the budget," said the conservative Daily Telegraph (about the only
newspaper Mrs. Thatcher reads).
"Yet appeals to reason," continued the Telegraph, llseern fruitless, cer
tainly where France is concerned. The stronger our case the more
impenetrable, it seems, are the obstacles raised in Paris-.�Why the
French are so unfriendly is � mystery about which we can but speculate.
What is certain is that the Government must not allow itself to be
weakened in its purpose by suggestions that the goal is unattainaLL2 or