Europe

What has happened to Germany? Policy-makers and analysts have been pondering the question for the last few years. No longer happy to be the pro-European par excellence, Germany has become more assertive, more self-centred - in others words more normal. German scholar Ulrike Guerot has called the new Germany "post-Romantic", ie more interest-based and less willing to let its history determine its future. Dominic Moisi says Germany has become "a second France." Part of the reason is the change among the country's political elite. The post-war generation has left the scene and the new leaders - on the Left and Right - have little time for Helmut Kohl's cheque-book diplomacy.

I'm off to Brussels, capital of the superstate, home of the EUSSR, or whatever you might want to call it. It has made me re-engage with European issues for the first time in six months. If Europe is not dead as a political issue in Britain then it is at least firmly stored in a coalition freezer, which can only be unlocked in the case of a thumping electoral for the Conservatives. But if the Tories scrape in at the next election or come up short of an outright majority,  David Cameron is likely to want the Coalition to continue. That would mean another decade of euro-pragmatism. A decade is a very long time in politics.

The Entente Cordial Redux has generated a lot of commentary, most of it ill-informed, some of it ridiculous. Tory MP Bernard Jenkin, in particular, has singled himself out to be a perpetuator of stereotypes with his reference to the duplicitous nature of the French. But many historians, like the otherwise brilliant Orlando Figes, have not fared much better, talking about the Crimea War as if it had any relevance at all for modern warfare. It’s good fun to tease the French. That is what boozy lunches ought to be about. But it should not pass for serious commentary by MPs. Since the 1990s the French have worked very closely with UK forces, even when disagreements at the political level have been profound.

It was unlikely that the Coalition could have played for any more time before lifting the ban on prisoner voting.  That was the tactic played by the previous Government, but now it seems the will of Strasbourg will prevail.  But the policy is wildly out of step with public opinion, hard to justify and difficult to administer – it is also another example of how our own Parliament and domestic courts have been undermined.     The public are opposed – usually on principle – to granting additional privileges to serving prisoners, especially when they have done little or nothing to earn it.  They are against voting rights in particular on the grounds that it is one of the rights that lawbreakers give up by virtue of their crime.

David Cameron’s statement on the European summit just now was an opportunity for pro-European politicians to tweak the Conservative party’s tail about the coalition’s stance on Europe. Ed Miliband told the PM that on Europe ‘we’re here to help him’ and ‘we’re prepared to ignore his previous convictions if he is too.’ Charles Kennedy welcomed the PM as a new pro-European. While Denis MacShane, the very communitaire former Europe Minister, said that there was nothing in Cameron’s statement he disagreed with. There was some grumbling from the Tory benches. Sir Peter Tapsell asked why if Merkel can get a Treaty amended can’t Cameron do the same and allow the country the referendum it was promised.

What has David Cameron achieved in Brussels so far? In truth, it's fairly hard to tell. In a meeting with his European Council counterparts last night, our prime minister didn't get the "freeze or a cut [in the EU budget]" that he mentioned last weekend. But ten other countries, including France and Germany, have now allegedly hardened their resolve not to go beyond the 2.9 percent increase that they agreed back in August. A Downing Street spokesman explains that these countries will resist the usual compromise between their 2.9 percent and the European Parliament's demand for 6 percent, when the two sides meet over the next 21 days.

Answer: it depends on how you look at it. I've put together the chart below (click for a larger version), which sets how much money we've given the the EU since 1973. There are three lines for each year: i) our gross contribution, ii) our total contribution (which is the gross contribution minus the money we get back from the rebate), and iii) the net contribution (gross contribution minus both the rebate and the money that the Treasury gets to pay for various EU projects across the UK). In terms of how much the EU costs the taxpayer, then, I'd say the second line is the best one to follow:   As for the future, there are no comparable figures yet (as the Treasury works in financial years, whereas the EU works in calendar years).