text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Seek Real Terms Cut in the European Union Budget
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  
  @ MP voted aye to call on the UK Government to seek a real terms cut in the European Union budget
  @ MP voted no against calling on the UK Government to seek a real terms cut in the European Union budget
  
  The majority of MPs voted to call on the UK Government to seek a real terms cut in the European Union budget. 
  
  MPs were debating a motion on the UK contribution to the European Union budget.  Under discussion was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiannual_Financial_Framework Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)] which is the budget framework for the European Union agreed every seven years.  
  
  MP Mark Reckless proposed ammending the motion[1] which originally called on the Government to seek:
  
  "significant savings to the Commissionâs seven year framework" and stated "payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives"
  
  by replacing this, and other text, with calling on the Government to
  
  "strengthen its stance so that the next MFF is reduced in real terms"
  
  The full motion, as amended as a result of this vote, reads:
  
  :That this House 
  :''takes note'' of European Union Documents No. 16844/11, No. 16845/11, No. 16846/11, No. 16847/11, No. 16848/11, No. 6708/12 and Addenda 1â3, No. 9007/12, No. 12356/12, and No. 13620/12, relating to the Commissionâs proposal on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), 2014â2020; 
  :''agrees'' with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commissionâs proposal for substantial spending increases compared with current spend is unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK and in countries across Europe to bring deficits under control;
  :''so calls on the Government'' to strengthen its stance so that the next MFF is reduced in real terms. 
  
  
  
  Explaining his amendment Mr Reckless said[2]:
  :We simply cannot afford to agree an inflationary increase to the EU. This country has 13% less income than it had just five years ago, and we are seeing 20% reductions to domestic spending. According to the House of Commons Library, if an inflationary increase is agreed, next year it will amount to Â£290 million, every penny of which we will have to borrow. Hon. Members will have spoken to constituents on different issues, and police officers have been to my surgery. They understand that their pay is frozen, although they are less happy about changes to their pay and conditions and about not getting their increments, but they do not understand why other elements of the budget, particularly the EU, should be guaranteed inflationary increases, let alone inflationary increases all the way through to 2020.
  
  The [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-10-31c.295.0#g295.2 original motion text] and [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-10-31c.295.0#g340.2 the text of the amendment] are also present in Hansard. 
  
  * [1] [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmagenda/ob121031.htm House of Commons  Order of Business Wednesday 31 October 2012] - Includes text of motion and amendments. (No line numbers are present making interpretation tricky) 
  * [2] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-10-31c.295.0#g307.2 Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood, Conservative) House of Commons 31 October 2012]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  