By Hans Hoogervorst, who served as Dutch State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment in the Kok II cabinet, as Minister for Finance in the Balkenende I cabinet, and as Minister for Health, Welfare and Sport in the Balkenende II and III cabinets. From 2007 to 2011, he was chairman of the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets, and from 2011 to 2021, chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in London.
‘Unacceptable, unaffordable and unbalanced.’ With these scathing remarks, VVD Finance Minister Eelco Heinen dismissed in June a proposal by the Cypriot EU Presidency for the European Union’s new multiannual budget. Heinen’s strong words are entirely justified, as the Cypriot ‘compromise’ reduced the European Commission’s megalomaniacal budget proposal – which would have seen the EU budget rise to 2,000 billion euros – by a mere 2 per cent. This effectively means that the size of the COVID-19 Recovery Fund – which, when established in 2020, was sworn to be a temporary measure – is being permanently added to the European budget.
Moreover, virtually not a single cent is being cut from the existing subsidy streams for agriculture and the so-called cohesion funds (internal development aid within the EU). Many are wondering whether these old subsidy streams are still necessary. Minister Heinen therefore has every reason to be furious.
Growing imbalance
To my great surprise, however, hardly any attention is being paid in The Hague to the growing imbalance between what our country contributes to the European budget and how much we get back from Brussels. As a trading nation, we pay a huge amount in customs duties to Europe, whilst we are also heavily taxed due to our relative wealth. At the same time, we are hardly, if at all, eligible for agricultural subsidies and cohesion grants (the EU’s internal development aid). The result is that the Netherlands has, for many years, been paying much more into the EU than it receives in return. In recognition of this imbalance, the Netherlands has, since 2007, received a rebate on its contributions, which has now risen to around 1.9 billion euros.
Despite this rebate, the Netherlands’ net contribution to Europe will continue to rise sharply in the coming years. By 2030, we will be paying 17.8 billion euros to Brussels, whilst receiving back only 1.4 billion euros from Brussels. We will therefore be paying no less than 12.5 times as much to the EU as we receive back from Brussels, and our net contribution will then amount to 16.4 billion euros. That is approximately 1.5 per cent of GDP and around 2,000 euros per household per year. So we are talking about a huge sum of money. There is not a single other Member State that allows itself to be fleeced in this way.
If Belgium were to suffer the same fate as the Netherlands, Prime Minister Bart De Wever would undoubtedly be complaining loudly about the stepmotherly treatment of his country. A Spanish prime minister would be torn to pieces at home if he were to return with such a negotiation result. But in the Netherlands, almost no one is talking about the unfair contribution to the EU. In one of his first debates, Prime Minister Rob Jetten even stated that it was unrealistic to expect the Netherlands to be able to retain its existing rebate. Perhaps he was not yet aware at that point of just how dire the Netherlands’ financial relationship with the EU is. But in Brussels, they were no doubt rubbing their hands with glee.
The House of Representatives, too, has so far remained virtually silent on the net contribution. Perhaps this is because the underlying figures are not easy to find. I only came across them on page 247 of the annexes to the Budget Memorandum; it took some searching. But it may also be that the figures are so embarrassing that people would rather ignore them. After all, a majority in the House of Representatives has approved all the European proposals that have led to this imbalance. The situation is now so dire that people seem to prefer to look the other way.
An overwhelming majority of MEPs have approved a motion to make the EU’s next seven-year budget 10 percent higher than a proposal from the European Commission, which would already almost double EU spending to more than €2 trillion (!)
This despite the EU Court of Auditors… pic.twitter.com/aHFXAoJoM3
— Pieter Cleppe (@pietercleppe) April 28, 2026
Excessive regulation
Perhaps our politicians also believe that, on balance, Europe is still an enormous source of prosperity for our country. But given these figures, that is no longer plausible. Certainly, the European single market is of great importance to our trade, but a large part of this benefit is simply eaten up by these ever-increasing contributions to Brussels.
Moreover, our business community is severely hampered by excessive regulation from Brussels. Furthermore, the European economy is barely growing, partly because the European Central Bank’s protection relieves debt-ridden countries of the need to implement much-needed reforms. The euro’s exchange rate is also too low for our economy, resulting in a permanent loss of purchasing power for Dutch consumers. For geopolitical reasons, Europe remains of great importance to the Netherlands. However, the notion that the European Union offers our country immense economic benefits has, on balance, long since ceased to be true.
It is therefore absolutely essential that the excessive contributions to Europe be curbed. The Dutch negotiating strategy has so far been aimed at pushing down the overall level of expenditure as far as possible. That is certainly necessary, but the question is how much it will actually achieve. The southern and eastern Member States will never accept drastic cuts to cohesion spending. France will never allow substantial cuts to agricultural subsidies. Unlike the Netherlands, these countries will not hesitate to use their veto to get their way.
The Netherlands’ best chance of limiting its contribution is to push hard for a substantial increase in the Dutch rebate on contributions. The absurdity of the Netherlands’ high net contribution must be clearly highlighted, and it must be made clear that this is no longer acceptable to the Netherlands.
Jetten could tell his European colleagues that a net contribution of more than 16 billion is indefensible, whilst he is having to cut more than 6 billion from the Dutch social security budget. A Thatcherite ‘I want my money back’ stance may not be a natural fit for a D66 leader, but the way in which ordinary Dutch people are being bled dry for the European subsidy machine is patently unjust. Protecting the average taxpayer should surely provide our ministers with the necessary motivation.
A substantial increase in the Dutch rebate would have the added benefit of forcing the net recipients within the European Union to contribute more to the budget themselves. This would dampen their enthusiasm for ever-further increases to the European budget.
Blocking decision-making
The Netherlands is certainly not powerless. Unanimity is also required for the new European multiannual budget, so the Netherlands can block the decision-making process if our demands are not met. Many other Member States would do this without any hesitation in similar circumstances. However, in recent years the Netherlands has certainly not demonstrated that it possesses such resolve. There is therefore a strong likelihood that, in the coming years too, the Dutch taxpayer will continue to foot the bill for Europe.
Originally published in Dutch by Wynia’s Week.
Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.
