In the language of Euro-speak, "stabilisation" is IN and both "co-financing" and "modulation" almost certainly OUT. Compensation for "guarantee price" cuts will certainly be "partial", while "degressivity" on "direct aids" is definitely the plat du jour, whether "sectoral" or "across-the-board".
To you, gentle reader, that means the Germans are certain to force through a budget freeze in real terms ("stabilisation"), while the veto-wielding French and Irish will succeed in resisting attempts to force national governments to pay part of the cost of the farmers' cheques-in-the-post ("co-financing").
The big ranchers with their two Range Rovers will be able to replace them because the talks are now unlikely to put a ceiling on the amount individual farmers will be able to receive from CAP ("modulation").
The Commission will probably succeed in getting backing for its proposed dramatic reductions in the safety net prices guaranteed to farmers by the EU for their produce which are used to support the market ("guarantee prices").
And ministers are unlikely to be able to extract more than 80 per cent of the cost of those cuts in compensation ("direct aids") for farmers.
To make matters worse for farmers, a French proposal ("degressivity") to extract savings from the budget by cutting that level of compensation in succeeding years, supposedly in line with increases in productivity, appears to enjoy growing, though conditional, support. The rough, probable scenario sketched out above for the course of the farm talks is, of course, not the whole story. The devil will be in the detail.
There is a general agreement that the CAP budget for 2006, the last year of the Agenda 2000 programme, should not exceed current CAP spending of some £32 billion, but the Commission insists it can get there only by exceeding it in the interim. With the exception of the dairy sector, where the deep disagreements are likely be resolved only by heads of government, there is broad acceptance of the need for Commission-proposed cuts in guarantee prices to roughly world market levels.
Irish proposals for smaller cuts in prices and curbs on production to balance the internal market are not regarded as a serious runner, not least because they appear to write off the possibility of world exports.
The Commission insistence that actual prices in the EU will not in reality fall to the guarantee level, and that full compensation is not therefore needed is bitterly contested. The IFA puts the annual potential loss to Irish farmers at £260 million.
But full compensation in the two markets of concern to Ireland, beef and milk, would each cost an additional £800 million a year. That is a prospect the budget-conscious ministers simply cannot contemplate. And an argument is still likely about how much of the compensation payments, though paid by Brussels, can be distributed at the discretion of national governments ("national envelopes").
Degressivity is also controversial. Ireland and France insist that any such cuts in direct aid payments should be linked to improvements in the productivity of individual sectors ("sectoral") and that small farmers should not be affected. Britain and Germany want to see across-the-board cuts, irrespective of productivity increases, and no exclusions.
The French suggest annual 3 per cent cuts in cereals payments, and cuts of 1 per cent in beef and milk, where the productivity potential is lower. They also suggest excluding from the degressivity cuts all farmers who receive less than £3,900 in direct aid payments ("franchise"). According to the Commission, such a franchise, applied across all market sectors, would exclude half of Ireland's 150,000 farm holdings, and, levied on this basis, degressivity could save the overall budget some £3.2 billion over six years while putting an additional £1 billion into rural development.
But the Department of Agriculture says it would exclude only some 35-40 per cent of Irish beef producers, as dairy producers receive relatively little by way of direct aids. The higher the exclusion limit, however, the less the saving to the budget.
The annual report of the Court of Auditors points out that 40 per cent of the EU's £12.5 billion annual cereals subsidies goes to only 4 per cent of producers. Less than a third of all the cash goes to 90 per cent of farmers, while in the UK some 4,000 cereals producers receive over £100,000 each a year.