Too
many scoffed at the Prime Minister’s prospects of achieving a satisfactory
outcome on the so-called ‘multi-annual financial framework’ – or the EU budget
to the rest of us. Last week’s European Council was a big event for those of us
wishing to reverse the seemingly uncontrollable growth in waste associated with
the entire Brussels operation. Mr Cameron deserves commendation for confounding
his critics, and getting a better deal for Britain.
I
suspect that this success is due, in no small part, to the combination of the
vote in the House of Commons on the issue last autumn, and the Prime Minister’s
recent ‘Bloomberg’ speech. With those clarion calls resonating around the
negotiating chamber, combined with the unambiguous pursuit of an alternative
relationship between this country and the European Union in the coming years,
it’s not difficult to see why we were able to make common cause with Frau
Merkel. The doctrine of ‘ever-bigger government’, championed most energetically
by the French, can do nothing but undermine the frugality of German budgeting,
as well as the credibility of the European Union more generally. As one of the
select groups of net contributors, the European Union needs us a very great
deal.
Yet,
although there is reason to be cheerful at the real-terms reduction in the EU
budget – to which I hope the European Parliament will accede – the reality is
that gnawing down into the figures leaves much scope for even further
efficiencies and reductions to the bloated, detached battalions of EU
officialdom. It has been little reported that the budget for administration is
to increase from €8.2bn to €9.4bn, which is most unsatisfactory.
And
it is possible that our contributions could still increase: under the terms
agreed by Tony Blair, the UK rebate could result in our paying above our share,
should eastern European countries get more money.
Equally,
we find ourselves cross-subsidising Eurozone economies to the tune of a further
€6.4bn. And that takes no account of the €6bn to be spent on youth training –
but only in those countries where youth unemployment affects more than
one-in-four your people: with the Government’s growing success in tackling
youth unemployment here, this is effectively, a further chunk of our cash to
support failure within the Eurozone.
Climate
action will comprise around one-fifth of spending, and is a priority even under
the Common Agricultural Policy. Yet reforms to this expensive white-elephant
are constrained if a member state wishes. I suspect that French intransigence
will offer limited scope to secure efficiencies there! Meanwhile, we won’t be
getting a bean to support changes in rural development, despite allocations
elsewhere clocking up to France accruing €1bn, Italy €1.5bn and even Ireland
€100m. And we will find ourselves spending €2.8bn more to secure grain
mountains and wine lakes once more.
The
classics tell us that Europa was a classy lady, captured by Zeus and
raped. The project most closely associated with the name of this classy female
has, in recent years, assumed the role of a truly political prima dona.
Let’s hope that the fat lady will soon be singing........for her supper!
BEING MEASURED FOR THE DROP!
ReplyDelete‘THIS GAY AFFAIR IS JUST AN EXCUSE FOR A TORY DIVORCE’ by Peter Hitchens
Brian, I hope you have read Peter Hitchens’ recent article as he is spot on with his assessments. You may be planning to retire in 2015 but what of the remaining right-wing MPs?
As I have said previously I believe they should be joining UKIP because the Tory brand has been damaged beyond salvage by its latest custodians.
Peter writes, ‘Why is David Cameron so keen to trample on his own party and its most loyal supporters?’ noting that the ‘BBC and the grand papers have not noticed’ this ongoing saga. As you rightly said in your last blog Cameron and Osborne appear to be in competition with each other in recent days to see who can best alienate themselves from their party’s MPs, supporters and voters. Osborne’s decision to freeze the inheritance tax threshold until 2019 was just another stab.
Peter’s conclusion is, ‘Mr Slippery did this precisely because it would wind up the remaining conservatives in the Tory Party. HE IS MEASURING THEM FOR THE DROP’.
Cameron ‘knows that, without a miracle, the Tories will lose the next General Election. He, and the liberal coterie who created him out of nothing, are planning ahead for the battle for control of that party which will then take place’.
‘The rebels will either be cowed into conformity, or deselected and replaced by another wave of equality and diversity fanatics, indistinguishable from New Labour and the Liberal Democrats.’
‘And so the process will be complete. All three parties will be exactly the same. It began with the putsch against Margaret Thatcher in the autumn of 1990 and continued with the putsch against Iain Duncan Smith in 2003 and the skilful destruction of David Davis in 2005.’
‘That party’s only function is to be a safety valve for the anger of the remaining voters who have not been reconciled to Left-wing rule. Every few years they can go through the motions of protesting. Eventually, wholly deprived of a voice in Parliament, excluded from the BBC, they will be browbeaten into silence and total defeat’.
I HOPE THAT UK VOTERS ARE NOT DEFEATED – I HOPE THEY VOTE FOR UKIP IN VAST NUMBERS
LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY