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
Show Hide image

The Manchester attack will define this election: Broadcasters have a careful line to tread

It's right that the government should be given a chance to respond, but they must not be allowed to use it to campaign.

Every election campaign has its story, its place in the political history of this country. 2017 will forever be known for Manchester and the horror of the attack on Britain's young; and fighting terrorism will be a theme, overt or underlying, of what we see and hear between now and polling day.

The broadcasters have covered the events comprehensively yet sensitively. But they are aware that we're in an election campaign too; and when other news drives aside the carefully-balanced campaign formats, ministerial appearances give them a dilemma.

The fact is that what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are doing in response to Manchester is newsworthy. It was Theresa May's duty to implement the recommendations of her security advisers on the elevation of the terror alert, and it would have been unthinkable for the news channels not to broadcast her various statements.

But it is also true that, if the bomb hadn't been detonated, Tuesday would have been a day in which the PM would have been under relentless damaging scrutiny for her u-turn on social care. All the opposition parties would have been in full cry across the airwaves. Yet in the tragic circumstances we found ourselves, nobody could argue that Downing Street appearances on the terror attack should prompt equal airtime for everyone from Labour to Plaid Cymru.

There are precedents for ministers needing to step out of their party roles during a campaign, and not be counted against the stopwatch balance of coverage. Irish terrorism was a factor in previous elections and the PM or Northern Ireland secretary were able to speak on behalf of the UK government. It applied to the foot and mouth epidemic that was occupying ministers' time in 2001. Prime ministers have gone to foreign meetings before, too. Mrs Thatcher went to an economic summit in photogenic Venice with her soulmate Ronald Reagan three days before the 1987 election, to the irritation of Neil Kinnock.

There are plenty of critics who will be vigilant about any quest for party advantage in the way that Theresa May and Amber Rudd now make their TV and radio appearances; and it’s inevitable that a party arguing that it offers strength and stability will not object to being judged against these criteria in extreme and distressing times.

So it's necessary for both broadcasters and politicians to be careful, and there are some fine judgements to be made. For instance, it was completely justifiable to interview Amber Rudd about the latest information from Manchester and her annoyance with American intelligence leaks. I was less comfortable with her being asked in the same interview about the Prevent strategy, and with her response that actions would follow "after June", which edges into party territory and would be a legitimate area to seek an opposition response.

When the campaigning resumes, these challenges become even greater. Deciding when the Prime Minister is speaking for the government and nation, or when she is leader of the Conservative Party, will never be black and white. But I would expect to see the broadcast bulletins trying to draw clearer lines about what is a political report and what is the latest from Manchester or from G7. They must also resist any efforts to time ministerial pronouncements with what's convenient for the party strategists' campaign grid.

There might also usefully be more effort to report straight what the parties are saying in the final days, with less spin and tactical analysis from the correspondents. The narrative of this election has been changed by tragedy, and the best response is to let the politicians and the public engage as directly as possible in deciding what direction the nation should now take.

Roger Mosey is the Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was formerly editorial director and the director of London 2012 at the BBC.

0800 7318496