Cameron's EU budget deal is bad for Britain and for the eurozone recovery

Spending on the bloated Common Agricultural Policy has been increased, while spending on infrastructure and other growth projects has been cut.

David Cameron was right to call for an EU budget cut. Agricultural payments and regional funds have been bloated and badly spent for years. But the deal he looks to have secured is bad for Britain and bad for the eurozone recovery.

Last year, IPPR called for a 25 per cent cut in the EU budget with reductions to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the repatriation of regional funds for rich countries. We suggested that Cameron put the UK rebate on the table in order to deliver this 'grand bargain'. Our calculations showed that the UK would be better off as a result, with a lower net contribution than at present. But in order to secure a headline cut in the overall size of the budget, to assuage eurosceptic demands, the Prime Minister appears to have taken a backward step on the road to European recovery.

The British rebate has been preserved in its entirety but reports suggest that the UK (along with all rich countries aside from Italy) will end up making a bigger net contribution. This is partly legitimate because cohesion funds for poorer EU countries will increase. But it is also because €27bn of cuts have come, not from the inefficient and distortive CAP budget, which has increased by €9bn, but from the funds for competitiveness and growth.

This budget includes funding for research and development, transport and energy infrastructure, which create jobs in the short-term as construction takes place and growth in the long-term as they improve the productive capacity of the economy. For example, the Connecting Europe Facility, which is intended to increase the efficiency of energy transmission and therefore bring down bills, has been cut from €9.1bn to €5.1bn. 

By seeking a favourable headline from the already sceptical British press, the PM is selling Britain a lemon.

David Cameron and his entourage arrive back at the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Photograph: Getty Images.

Will Straw was Director of Britain Stronger In Europe, the cross-party campaign to keep Britain in the European Union. 

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken truth: Britain needs immigrants.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.