ABSTRACT
Introduction At the European Summit of June 2005 under the Luxembourg presidency a heated debate arose on the CAP and the European Budget for 2007-13. The then UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, tried to break the commitment originating in the socalled Schroeder-Chirac agreement which was usually interpreted in France as a guaranteed envelope for CAP expenditures up to 2013 but which, in the wording of the Presidency conclusions to the Brussels Council of October 2002, defined a ceiling for agricultural expenditures up to 2013.1 In that context the UK Prime Minister refused to discuss the revision of the British rebate unless the financing of the CAP was also restructured before 2013. This Summit failed to agree on the budgetary perspective and the UK Presidency inherited the dossier. In October 2005, Commission President Barroso launched a five-point initiative endorsing a ‘fundamental review of the EU Budget’. He stated that the spending ceilings ‘should be fully respected’, but also that changes could be accepted within this ceiling. He emphasized the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda and advocated devoting more resources to boost growth, jobs, competitiveness and rural development, and to foster adjustment to globalization. The timetable suggested tackling the task of overhauling the financial perspective by 2009, i.e. somewhat before 2013, and a white paper by the Commission was promised early that year. The UK officials circulated a paper at the end of October 2005 stressing the need for equality, by which it was meant that countries with similar levels of resources and income should receive similar amounts. No reference was made to the special status of the UK due to the rebate, nor was there any precise proposal on the CAP. The link between the rebate and further reform of the CAP was, however, central to the UK position as can be seen from the Foreign Secretary’s declaration to the House of Commons that while the UK rebate was an ‘anomaly’, ‘the most profound anomaly was the structure and funding of the Common Agricultural Policy’.
