Your point is bunk, Maniac. The only figures that matter are what we would have paid under the status quo, and what we actually paid after Cameron and his European allies made an unprecedented effort to change things. The latter figure is significantly smaller than the former. It is a cut, and a hard fought cut, that has been achieved whilst keeping the UK at the centre of Europe.

I think you are pretending to be deliberately dense in this argument. The Tories are free to attempt to renegotiate whatever they wish in Europe, or they are free to ask the people if we should leave Europe. They can't just renege on agreements made by governments of a different colour.

"Subsidizes industries just because they would go under if they don't is exactly what is suppose to happen in a free market. If your farm isn't profitable, your just wasting land and other resources by farming."

Except that the food supply is considered a matter of national security. Preventing famine in modern Europe and guaranteeing that foreign countries can't threaten our food security, is considered one of the biggest policies of the EU, and has been since the 50s or 60s, when many had lived through famine conditions.

This is slow to change. partly because the farmers who's livelhoods depend on these subsidies still hold significant political power (in terms of farmers unions, protests, strikes - and they can protest by bringing their tractors onto major transport routes and slowly driving to their capital city... perfectly legal form of protest, but if the entire farming union decides to do it a country is brought to a standstill)

This at least is the justification - one way the current subsidy is being reformed is to change it from paying for production to paying (a little bit less) for land managment. So if you produce and sell your product for a profit, then that's great for you, but if you manage the land so it is available to be used to grow food you get your subsidy (and hence you can own farm land in europe and make a living from doing nothing with it... well not nothing, but not producing - and hence using up resources - which may then go to waste...)

" if they really wanted to cut the UKs contributions they could, and if they did I for one would give them all the credit they deserve."

Yes, but they don't want to - they get too much from being in the EU and the population has not given them a mandate to leave - cutting the contribution requires negotiating a deal with all the other European nations, and while they could just veto any deal it is clear that other European nations would go ahead without the UK if needed - they would sign a separate deal to fund EU organisation and cut the UK out of decision-making for that spending... As happened last time Cameron refused to make a deal.

Or he could unilaterally leave the EU, which is the simpler cleaner solution.

Practically he can't force other countries to a reduction in the UK's contribution, because they can veto any deal which they feel is unfair.

Octavious - how did thatcher gain the rebate? She didn't just accept that former agreements were sacrosanct. She believed Britain was paying too much and made her argument at home and abroad. Thatcher could've continued to pay more and blame previous admins, but she took responsibility. I'm tired of governments always blaming prior governments when they can do something to change things, but choose not to because going along with status quo and blaming someone else is easier.

@orathaic - I agree with your analysis as to why UK contribution has gone up. All I want is for Cameran to say, we are increasing our contribution because it is in our national interest. I have no probs with him believing that, and he may be right. What I object to is spinning that we have negotiated a cut when we're paying more and that its all labour's fault.

@ Maniac

You seriously believe Cameron could convince the French to agree to the UK getting back the full rebate? Seriously? Have you started taking the same drugs as Thucy or something, because you seem to have made a brief departure from reality.

Thatcher was in a very different time and used the opportunity she had then to gain the best possible deal. Cameron did not have that opportunity but an alternative, which many said was impossible, was avaliable and he used that to get a great deal.

Octavious, I'll ignore the personal attack as we both know such things only happen when people are losing the argument. Your argument was governments are committed to their predecessor's.decisions. My point about thatcher was that they're not. I'm happy to move on but it's difficult to discuss things with people who only see problems with others argument rather than acknowledging a simple fact. Cameron was not bound by Blair's decision to reduce the rebate. Blair wasn't bound by thatcher's decision to gain the rebate, and thatcher wasn't bound by previous governments agreement to the original payment formula. Do we at least agree on that issue?

@maniac, I think you made your point very well in your response to me.

You are annoyed by the fact that politicians are not being honest to their convictions.

If Cameron is convinced that being part of the EU and paying a contribution (to improve the economies of developing nations, so they become stabilizing forces of their own, and provide growth for the UK because they have increasing demand for goods - and to guarantee food security of Europe - and i know only too well how much Ireland has gained as a net recipient of EU funding) is a good thing, then he should say so.

This is a fair point about political rhetoric.

But look at what questions are being put to Cameron, it seems a fairly simple, "how much are we paying? Is it more or less?"

Direct comparison to the previous payments (and increase) looks bad, and is a result of an agreement which labour made. He's not even lying when he blames labour. Total budget is smaller (and hence the UKs contribution is smaller) because all EU nations are decreasing their budgets and have agreed to make cuts to ever contribution.

Cameron thinks this is a good thing to cut. He is not being bound by previous agreements, but it's a complex negotiation, and you can't get everything. Maybe he agreed that the UKs rebate needs to be reformed along with the common agricultural policy (CAP), and only by sticking to Labour's agreement on the rebate will he have any say in how the CAP is reformed... again in the nation's interest. But not the kind of question he is being asked.

And he has to be careful what he says, lest UKIP takes a simplified version which would amount to - 'Cameron thinks it is in our nations interest to pay more to the EU (and get nothing in return' - this is about the level of political conversation/debate happening in the media. More than anything else, this is the game politicians are currently playing.

@ Maniac

What personal attack? It was more compliament than attack as I was stating my disbelief that someone who normally argues so well is so far removed from what seems an obvious reality. I reserve my personal attacks for those few who consitantly pollute the forum with meaningless dribble like Tettleton's Chew and Nigee.

No, your point is totally wrong. All governments are bound to some extent by the decisions of previous governments. We cannot simply tell the rest of Europe we'll be taking the full rebate after all, in the same way we can't nuke Paris using the excuse that peace was signed under Robert Jenkinson's government after Napolean's defeat and doesn't bind the current coalition...

...as much as we may secretly rather like the idea...

"...as much as we may secretly rather like the idea..." +1

@octavious, if you genuinely believe any UK government is always bound by its predecessor then we can't carry on a sensible discussion. Why has Cameron said he will hold on in/out referendum IF they win next election. If, as you claim, one parliament can bind another, surely the thing to do is just set a date of the referendum regardless of who wins.

I accept that negotiating with Europe is sometimes tough for a host of reasons, but if we didn't retain right to say, 'no the UK isn't paying x' then there would be no point negoticiating at all.

I'm surprised you don't concede this point.

If in a thousand years time the UK needs to nuke Paris I'm sure it will despite one of your descendants arguing that such I thing might be tricky legally speaking.

As an aside, you are aware Cameron wants to renegotiate the terms of the UK's relationship with the EU before hold the referendum? If he was bound by previous admins agreements how could he renegotiatie anything?

@Maniac

Because whether or not we have a referendum depends solely on the British government. Whether or not we have our rebate back depends on the 27 states of the EU. With the EU we don't retain the right to just change our minds on agreements. We can attempt to negotiate a change (and on the issue of the rebate this has zero chance of success), or we can leave the EU, or we can accept what previous governments have agreed to. That is it. Cameron chose the only one of those three that makes sense.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=973592#973592

So what Cameron said, I giving an assurance he would use veto made sense at the time. But when UK bills don't come down its not his fault but labours.

My problem is next time budget talks come up, labour if they are in power will say, the UK contributions went up under the Tories at a time when everything else was being cut to justify any rise they agree to. They will also bang on about need to reform CAP etc, etc.

Also re you really saying we have to put up with moving parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg because some idiot a while ago thought it might be a good idea?

No, we have to put up with moving the european parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg because some idiots a while ago thought it might be a good idea and French idiots today continue to believe it. The French waste a huge amount of diplomatic capital keeping this piece of pointless waste going.

If, however, a sensible French government came to power one day (I know, I know... it'll never happen) and said they care less about Strasbourg getting prestiege than the plight of European taxpayers then the parliament will move to Brussels. The important point there is that if the French then elected a bunch of nutters again who wanted the Strasbourg parliament back the rest of Europe would laugh in their faces and there'd be sod all they could do about it.

...Sorry... not sure what your first two paragrapghs were on about... what was that a link to?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/eu-budget-beware-the-european-parliaments-veto-power/

Yes, it's going to be an interesting fight. Until not so long ago it would have been a simple case of self serving euro loving lefties lining their own nests while the people looked on in either deluded support or despair. Now, if this first round is anything to go by, there's going to be a real battle for the direction of Europe.

Bring it on!

indeed, those national governments acting for their own self-interest, while MEPs vote on what they think will get them re-elected.. different career politicians fighting for different constituencies - each trying to make themselves look good, and maybe do the right thing...

i think the one thing the Parliament will not do is shoot themselves in the foot by vetoing a budget which funds them... the national governments don't have such a big problem with that one as they fund themselves...

"Except that the food supply is considered a matter of national security. Preventing famine in modern Europe and guaranteeing that foreign countries can't threaten our food security, is considered one of the biggest policies of the EU, and has been since the 50s or 60s, when many had lived through famine conditions."
But cutting subsidies doesn't causes shortages, its a complete myth which people with no economic understand think.

I'm surprised you would bring up this argument.

i never claimed it woudl cause shortages.

are you thick? IT is not about keeping the food supply up and going, it is about keeping the ability to produce enough food from european soil.

It is about keeping an entire profession of farmers sitting at home ready t grow enough food should the international markets not be able or willing to supply us.

It is about security of supply. National security.

Why do we need food from Europe if food from elsewhere is cheaper? That is what I am saying.

Security.

have i not repeated that enough times? That is policy, just like the US follows a policy of supporting Israel. It is possible that not everyone agrees with it, but it's what we have.

I don't think the argument for keeping farm subsidies in Europe has much to do with making sure the continent has food. America will always be able and willing to feed Europe, should the need arise. The subsides exist to protect the cultural heritage of countries' foods. Without government support, weird little cheeses and other ethnic foods would disappear. So would the wine industry in whole countries, like Austria. Europeans are very protective of things like that, and that's a big part of why subsidies endure despite making almost no economic sense.

This argument started because I said I was against this policy and your response was saying that the reason why we have this policy is because its a matter of national security, my response is that doesn't justify subsidies and your response is that its a policy.

I don't agree with the US policy on Israel either, but were not talking about that right now, we are talking about agriculture in Europe, and I am talking about what needs to be changed about agriculture in Europe, so of course I am going to bring up that subsides create deadweight loss and misallocate resources.

The US have a food supply issue aswell, food is grown using fertilizer (mostly produced by the Haber process, which requires natural gas) So oil is not that big of an issue for US food production, but it is a big issue for other US industries, and the US has gone to great measures to ensure it doesn't use up all of it's own oil (there are still many US oil fields producing, but i don't think they're making enough to supply US demand... )

The EU is in a different position, and the UK does not have the same amount of farming, they get a rebate to account for the fact that they don't farm and thus that huge amount of the EU budget isn't going to their industry... i wonder what they spend the rebate on, it would be interesting to see it injected into some particular industry (though perhaps contrary to EU competition laws... individual nation states are not allowed favour some industries at the expense of those same industries in other nation states, iirc)

Invictus is right, but I don't give a shit about cultural heritage, and I wouldn't care if Austria stopped producing wine and produce stuff that there land was better suited to produce.

"The US have a food supply issue aswell, food is grown using fertilizer (mostly produced by the Haber process, which requires natural gas) So oil is not that big of an issue for US food production, but it is a big issue for other US industries, and the US has gone to great measures to ensure it doesn't use up all of it's own oil (there are still many US oil fields producing, but i don't think they're making enough to supply US demand... ) "
As of May 2012 America has more proven oil reserves then any other country in the world:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852

And our estimated oil reserves are enough to last thousands of years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

I don't buy your argument mainly because its wrong

You seem to have fallen under the assumption that Malthusian economics is correct, but economists disproved it over one hundred years ago.

@invictus, that may be an effect of the subsidy, but i suspect it is relatively minor. I think most european farming is still done on a massive scale, perhaps not as large as the US...

(And i'm all for local decision making by small farms) However, i think that the consequences of the policy are separate from the original justification for the policy...

of course i may be wrong; i haven't read that much about european agricultural policy...