Cameron loses EU budget vote

[Zod]

thinfourth2 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20157063



So how are the tory fanboys going to react to this.

Labour and a bunch of tory MPs defeat cameron wanting an increase in the EU budget



Labour are right the EU budget should be cut

Labour voted in favour of an EU budget increase on every occasion during their fifteen years in government. The new "policy" emerged in the last few days, solely as a way to cause embarrassment to the Government. It is pure cynical opportunism. Miliband has never previously uttered a word in favour of cutting EU spending.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

fbrs said:

in the event a budget is not agreed it will automatically increase with inflation!
no point fighting a battle you can't win

Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 31st October 22:05

Then we need to fight a different battle - as a sovereign nation we shouldn't be powerless in what we contribute to a broken concept.

I don't really know why Cameron chose this stance. Surely the better communication would be "we'll fight to get the best deal we can within the constructs of the current EU, and if that turns to ratst for us we will explore more severe action about our path with the EU".

If we're powerless, no point making pseudo promises either way. So show some strength and negotiating vigour. He cannot be misreading public feelings on Europe. So what does he have to lose?

i dont disagree. just pointing out the reality. we WILL end up paying more regardless of what the twits in westminster do. hopefully that money buys another nail for the coffin of our continued eu membership.

[AJS-]

Zod said:

Labour voted in favour of an EU budget increase on every occasion during their fifteen years in government. The new "policy" emerged in the last few days, solely as a way to cause embarrassment to the Government. It is pure cynical opportunism. Miliband has never previously uttered a word in favour of cutting EU spending.

Cameron can be wrong without Labour being right.

[Zod]

He can indeed, but be fair to him; he's already trying to make the toughest budget settlement any UK PM has ever attempted with the EU. He's being optimistic enough, even in that.

[AJS-]

True. But why does he need a mandate to give away even more money that they will automatically get anyway?

It's pretty simple to me - agree cuts or use the veto. A strong message to this effect from his parliament can only help. I also imagine he won't be the only one facing similar pressures at home.

[Blue62]

Zod said:

Labour voted in favour of an EU budget increase on every occasion during their fifteen years in government. The new "policy" emerged in the last few days, solely as a way to cause embarrassment to the Government. It is pure cynical opportunism. Miliband has never previously uttered a word in favour of cutting EU spending.

It's politics, all sides are guilty of opportunism and for Clegg to accuse Labour of hypocrisy is laughable, but to be fair, Labour did vote to cut the budget earlier this year. The more interesting point is that it was Balls who pushed for this, a devout Keynesian voting for austerity takes the biscuit in my book.

[The Black Flash]

Caulkhead said:

The Black Flash said:

I'm sure they'll all be good little party drones and vote through the actual budget when it comes up though, having had their moment in the sun on this one that doesn't really matter.

Which ones - the anti-EU tory drones who were told to support it yet voted against or the pro-EU labour drones who were told to vote against and did?

Both of them.
"The best we could get" will be the cry, I'm sure.

[Caulkhead]

The Black Flash said:

Caulkhead said:

The Black Flash said:

I'm sure they'll all be good little party drones and vote through the actual budget when it comes up though, having had their moment in the sun on this one that doesn't really matter.

Which ones - the anti-EU tory drones who were told to support it yet voted against or the pro-EU labour drones who were told to vote against and did?

Both of them.
"The best we could get" will be the cry, I'm sure.

Well the options are:

1)Vote for the increase.

2)Vote against the increase.

3)Veto the vote.

Which do you favour?

[anonymous-user]

Caulkhead said:

Well the options are:

1)Vote for the increase.

2)Vote against the increase.

3)Veto the vote.

Which do you favour?

all of which will result in us paying for the increase. you couldn't make it up

[s2art]

Caulkhead said:

Well the options are:

1)Vote for the increase.

2)Vote against the increase.

3)Veto the vote.

Which do you favour?

There is another option:- Cameron goes to Brussels equipped with Maggies handbag, Churchills trousers and wrapped in the Union Jack, and tells all and sundry 'Cant Pay, Wont pay, deal with it'.

[AJS-]

s2art said:

There is another option:- Cameron goes to Brussels equipped with Maggies handbag, Churchills trousers and wrapped in the Union Jack, and tells all and sundry 'Cant Pay, Wont pay, deal with it'.

To negotiate effectively Cameron needs to have the option of withdrawal on the table. Without that he really has no cards, because as noted above the budget increases automatically anyway. Unless we adopt the US's approach to the UN and simply withhold payment until we get the reforms we want without leaving. Such a move would probably be more damaging to our relations with EU states than leaving however.

[s2art]

AJS- said:

s2art said:

There is another option:- Cameron goes to Brussels equipped with Maggies handbag, Churchills trousers and wrapped in the Union Jack, and tells all and sundry 'Cant Pay, Wont pay, deal with it'.

To negotiate effectively Cameron needs to have the option of withdrawal on the table. Without that he really has no cards, because as noted above the budget increases automatically anyway. Unless we adopt the US's approach to the UN and simply withhold payment until we get the reforms we want without leaving. Such a move would probably be more damaging to our relations with EU states than leaving however.

Perhaps, but Sweden, Finland, Netherlands and probably Austria and Germany would be cheering us on if we did simply refuse to pay more.

[Caulkhead]

s2art said:

Caulkhead said:

Well the options are:

1)Vote for the increase.

2)Vote against the increase.

3)Veto the vote.

Which do you favour?

There is another option:- Cameron goes to Brussels equipped with Maggies handbag, Churchills trousers and wrapped in the Union Jack, and tells all and sundry 'Cant Pay, Wont pay, deal with it'.

Indeed - the leave the EU completely option. I favour this, but I don't think it's a realistic option while we have a coalition government containing lib-dems. Maybe next time.

[Benny Saltstein]

s2art said:

Perhaps, but Sweden, Finland, Netherlands and probably Austria and Germany would be cheering us on if we did simply refuse to pay more.

Indeed, whats the worse that could happen? We get kicked out of the EU?

That would be a real tragedy.

[s2art]

Caulkhead said:

s2art said:

Caulkhead said:

Well the options are:

1)Vote for the increase.

2)Vote against the increase.

3)Veto the vote.

Which do you favour?

There is another option:- Cameron goes to Brussels equipped with Maggies handbag, Churchills trousers and wrapped in the Union Jack, and tells all and sundry 'Cant Pay, Wont pay, deal with it'.

Indeed - the leave the EU completely option. I favour this, but I don't think it's a realistic option while we have a coalition government containing lib-dems. Maybe next time.

Maybe, but I suspect they would fold and give in before losing the UK contribution.

[AJS-]

s2art said:

Perhaps, but Sweden, Finland, Netherlands and probably Austria and Germany would be cheering us on if we did simply refuse to pay more.

You would think so wouldn't you. So why aren't our dunderhead politicians building these alliances, and getting those countries (I would guess ~50% of the EUs budget) to do this as a concerted effort? Or are they?

[AJS-]

s2art said:

Maybe, but I suspect they would fold and give in before losing the UK contribution.

I actually just looked it up on Wikipedia (faf to link from my phone) and our contribution is way smaller than France or Italy in absolute terms and further down the list still per capita.

Not that that alters the point that it's too much, and it ends up being wasted.

[s2art]

AJS- said:

s2art said:

Maybe, but I suspect they would fold and give in before losing the UK contribution.

I actually just looked it up on Wikipedia (faf to link from my phone) and our contribution is way smaller than France or Italy in absolute terms and further down the list still per capita.

Not that that alters the point that it's too much, and it ends up being wasted.

Check out net contribution, not gross. The UK is the third highest contributor, just after France in 2011. Normally we would be second highest, after Germany, and will be again shortly after France gets its austerity programs started.

[Zod]

s2art said:

AJS- said:

s2art said:

Maybe, but I suspect they would fold and give in before losing the UK contribution.

I actually just looked it up on Wikipedia (faf to link from my phone) and our contribution is way smaller than France or Italy in absolute terms and further down the list still per capita.

Not that that alters the point that it's too much, and it ends up being wasted.

Check out net contribution, not gross. The UK is the third highest contributor, just after France in 2011. Normally we would be second highest, after Germany, and will be again shortly after France gets its austerity programs started.

Exactly, France gets enormous receipts in the form of agricultural subsidies.

[AJS-]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_Europ...

That is net for 2009 according to this. Way behind France and Italy, and per capita behind Netherlands and a couple of others.

Of course that could have changed since 2009?