Battle lines drawn over farming budget
Nov 19 2009 by Iain Laing, The Journal
BY giving members of the European Parliament an equal say with the European Commission on agricultural matters, the Lisbon Treaty will increase the scope for protracted battles.
There is presently a wrangle in prospect over the EU budget, on which the Parliament already has an equal say.
The Parliament has recommended that the budget should rise from £106bn to more than £116bn in 2010, claiming that it was ‘absolutely necessary’ to finance the EU economic recovery plan. The Commission, and the European Council of member states, disagree, so, to quote the Hungarian MEP whose report led to the recommendation, ‘tough negotiations’ lie ahead.
Though the Commission does not want an immediate increase, it proposes a ‘root and branch’ reform of the budget which, if adopted, would see spending on agriculture significantly reduced from 2013 and allocated more to environmental and climate change objectives and less to payments to farmers.
It also suggests member states should provide some of the funds from national budgets.
These proposals will lead to more ‘tough negotiations’ between the Commission and the Parliament on two levels, first as regards agricultural spending and second as to the share of the budget allocated to agriculture. Compromise will be difficult because of the elephant in the room, ie the wider ambitions of the European ‘project’ to which the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will add impetus.
The President of the Council will have to be paid for, and the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, the External Action Service (ie diplomats, many of whom are already in post) and the European Army, which will be well stocked with generals however few soldiers they have to command.
All of this bodes ill for UK farmers, especially now that academic research has shown that further liberalisation of trade and the phasing out of single payments, which the UK Government called for in 2005 and continues to advocate, would lead to falls of 12% in prices and 15% in production in the beef and sheep sectors by 2018.
It is not surprising that the NFU says the Commission’s proposal ‘fills us with dread.’ Equally concerned is the Scottish Government, but for different reasons. Despite devolution, the UK Government, ie DEFRA, carries out all negotiations with the EU on behalf of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Government of Northern Ireland.
Scottish Ministers complain that their policies are not being put forward, alleging that their opposition to GM crops, their support for a supermarket ombudsman and their wish to see fuel duty reduced in rural areas were not reflected in the UK’s negotiating stance.
What will happen if the CAP is partially re-nationalised? Will Whitehall be expected to provide all the national funds? If the devolved administrations wish to pursue their own policies, should they not fund them? But they may ask why, if their views are not represented at the negotiating table – another subject for ‘tough negotiations’ no doubt.
Hume Hargreave retired this year as a partner at Newcastle law firm Dickinson Dees
