The change has been so sudden, so dizzying, that
commentators are struggling to keep up. As recently as a a couple of years ago,
British Europhiles used to aver that we shouldn't get too hung up about our
budget contributions. Paying more in, they said, gave us additional leverage in
Brussels; complaining, by contrast, cost us influence.
If there is a single politician making that argument today, I have yet
to hear him. Even Denis MacShane –Denis MacShane, for Heaven's sake – now contends that
the EU, just like its member nations, must learn to get by with less.
The key amendment tomorrow is the one moved by the Rochester and Strood
MP, and former top-rated UK economist, Mark Reckless. It calls for a real terms
cut. In other words, the EU budget should increase more slowly than inflation.
The Reckless amendment is remarkably modest. Almost every one of the 27
member governments, including the United Kingdom, is making far more severe
cuts than it demands. And almost all of them, including the United Kingdom,
must borrow the money they are sending to Brussels. As I argue in a comment
piece in the main newspaper today, Britain's contribution to the EU budget more than wipes out all our domestic spending
cuts put together.
The Reckless amendment, if accepted, would commit the government to
negotiating a small reduction in our budget contribution – far smaller than the
cuts it is having to make elsewhere. Other amendments (my old friend Jacob
Rees-Mogg has put down a splendidly quixotic alternative) lack this clarity.
It's hard to see how any Conservative MP – and this might apply to one
or two Lib Dems – could want to give Brussels more money than Denis MacShane
does. Either way, though, both big parties are now in a position that would
have been unthinkable as recently as 18 months ago. The process of disengagement is beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment