UK EU Budget

grizzly1911

Masomnia wrote: »

National governments cutting back the size of their states whilst the spending of the EU increases is just another way of transferring power from a national level towards a federal Europe.

The EU are not interested in fairness, just their project. Time to put our foot down.

In effect we are making cuts to give a bigger proportion (RPI increase) of our GDP as we flat line. If the majority of states are flat lining or worse it makes absolutely no sense to expect an increase other than for the reason you allude too.

chewmylegoff

Halve the budget every year.

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

....Rather than RPI linking why not do it linked to a countries GDP growth/deficit?.

This year, that would be fine. But when we get good growth, we need the money, and not put "icing" on the gravy train.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

This year, that would be fine. But when we get good growth, we need the money, and not put "icing" on the gravy train.

When, if, I for one am not holding my breath.

Are we really going to see 5% growth, the budget increase they want , anytime soon? Achieving our RPI as GDP would be a good start.

When most the eurozone is cutting back it is ludicrous to expect any increase at all.

Funny how the technocrats wheeled into Greece and Italy can see it but the EU leadership can't

Daedalus

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'd freeze the budget but that's not a poll option. There can be no possible reason to give more money when people here are experiencing hardship.

People will always be experiencing hardship here. Not that I support an increase, but I dislike this short sighted flawed argument that 'Charity begins at home'. It is part of the reason we are even in this mess, spending money to temporarily solve some hardship now instead of investing and solving more hardship later.

Graham_Devon

The media appear to be laying into labour on this one, suggesting they are merely playing politics, and u-turning on everything they said before.

Shot themselves in the foot in a way. Not often the media does this.

John_Pierpoint

tripled wrote: »

Given the fact that if no agreement is reached the budget will automatically be increased in line with inflation, and we won't get an agreement in Europe to cut the budget, tonight's vote seems largely pointless to me. The choice is leave the EU (not going to happen, at least not yet), accept an increase in line with inflation, or agree to an increase above inflation, which Cameron has ruled out.

Just do what any sensible debtor does - slow your payments to remain at the same level and pay the priority bills first.
Insist that the payments must come from a fixed percentage of VAT, then they would automatically go down in hard times, and that would also help spike the guns of our "taxation by inflation" entitlement MPs proposals. Don't forget this budget is in Euro !!

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

This year, that would be fine. But when we get good growth, we need the money, and not put "icing" on the gravy train.

That tastes as disgusting as the proposal to feather bed Brussels appears. The peasantry needs incentivisation not subsidies. When the land prices in the likes of Poland drop far enough, there will be a flood of Polish builders back to Poland to rationalise the farm structure - we don't need to subsidise multinational companies to "cohease" the situation not do we need to subsidise a peasant to grow things on a small holding that is nearer the size of an allotment than what we would call a farm.

You do realise that "large farmers" - still tiny by American & Australian standards - will be losing their subsidies. Funny thing which country has lots of "large farmers"? You have guessed it.
We are being twice over.

FTBFun

The Kiwis withdrew subsidies entirely for their agricultural sector in the 1980s, leading to greater efficiency gains. I'm all for doing that here and across the EU.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02farm.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Output has quintupled since the end of subsidies, positioning New Zealand to take advantage of a global boom in demand for dairy products, driven from China and India.

John_Pierpoint

The price of hill land in NZ dropped to £75 an acre during the resulting reorganisation.

When Britain was still a petro to currency, any "young" farmer with half a brain (Britain has very few young farmers - the old pensioner is still living off the subsidies until he goes into his box - should have emigrated.
There was good land going in Tasmania for about £500 an acre as against £3,000+ for similar subsidised land here in the UK.

Wookster

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The media appear to be laying into labour on this one, suggesting they are merely playing politics, and u-turning on everything they said before.

Shot themselves in the foot in a way. Not often the media does this.

They are getting the coverage they deserve. Margaret Hodges comments were particularly telling: "I hate this vote. I do not want to do it. It's hateful. I just think it's outrageous. I'm almost wanting to abstain."

More so because she is a well respected MP on all sides of the house.

But this vote is also a damning verdict on the lunatic side of the tory party, the fact that some are willing to side with Labour to undermine their own leader beggars belief.

What the UK needs is pragmatic government not ideologically minded zealots.