A health check for the CAP
is about to publish its "health check" on the which some argue is crying out for euthanasia rather than doctoring. But the headline is bound to be their proposal to limit such as the Queen and Prince Charles.
In 2005, the Queen received just over Β£465,000. That would be cut by around Β£140,000. The Prince of Wales received more than Β£100,000 and that would be cut by just over Β£3,000.
This may be the commission playing hard politics. Many British people dislike the CAP, dislike the idea of their money going to rich farmers and expect their government to do something about it.
Gordon Brown is particularly keen on CAP reform. This is the commission's way of asking, if the government is so hot on the idea, why they blocked this reform last time around. Do the government and the British people have more enthusiasm for agri-business and aristocrats than reform, they would ask? But if it's smart politics, is it also good sense?
I've been to to find out. In a cattle shed on this 3,000-acre farm, clouds of straw, glinting golden in the winter sun, hang for a moment before descending in a shower on surprised looking cows. 
It's coming from a brand new bit of kit worth around Β£70,000, held in the jaws of a tractor. It's driven and operated by one person. Andy, the stockman, can do this job in minutes, whereas in the past it would have taken three men an hour's worth of back-breaking labour.
This is one of the farms that would suffer under the commission's proposals. It may not exactly get showered with gold from above - and the company is reluctant to talk figures - but typically a farm of this size would get around quarter of a million pounds of European Union money, and would lose about Β£64,000 under the commission's proposals.
The farm is held in trust for the descendants of a Victorian shipping magnate from Liverpool who wanted a place near London when he became an MP. But is it the descendants of a 19th Century millionaire who benefit from the EU money, or the rest of us?
The driving force behind the farm and its commitment to the environment is Richard Sterling, a genial man who's clearly committed to doing more with the land than simply making a big profit.
This is most definitely mixed farming, the sort the ecologists like: from barley to poppies for morphine, from Aberdeen Angus to free-range giant black pigs. Richard shows me one of those hedgerows that we hear a lot about. It too is mixed, sloe berries and rosehips amid the thorns, and all a statutory two metres from the edge of the crop field.
Again, environmentalists see this as really important because the hedgerows provide homes and food for small mammals and birds. One of the purposes of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was to refocus it from simply encouraging food production to looking after and maintaining a rural environment.
Richard Sterling's fear is that if the subsidies are cut, some farmers would turn away from such environmental protection. He says that farming has been through such a tough time recently, with bad harvests, disease and pressure from supermarkets that the last thing they need is another change, and one that means less money.
He says that farmers will always look after their core business, which is after all making money by producing food; but if the European Union wants people to do "the nice things on the edges" then it shouldn't put the squeeze on the system. He argues that if the subsidies are drastically cut, some farmers will not bother with getting them at all and simply turn all their land over to more profitable cereal production.
wouldn't agree. He was an advisor to Nick Brown, when he was agriculture minister and now runs . We're peering over the big white gate into the Queen's estate at
Jack's not in favour of any subsidies unless they directly help the environment or the poor, and he would means-test EU money. He says, "It's a bit odd the monarch gets income support from Brussels. This proposal from the commission is less ambitious than the one rejected last time by the UK and Germany. It doesn't tackle the core injustice of the CAP, in that it favours industrial over pastoral, big over small, and four countries (France, Spain, Italy and Germany) over others, like Romania and Poland with big and poor rural populations."
What do you think?
I’m Mark Mardell, the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
Manydown Farm might be unwilling to talk to you about money, but thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we know that in the last year for which figures were released, the farm received in EU farm subsidies.
A bit of background might be helpful. The CAP is divided into two 'pillars'. Pillar 1 is the old CAP, essentially income support payments, based on size of farm. The bigger you are the more you get. Pillar 2 is the new CAP, environmental stewardship payments and rural economic development grants, designed to target particularly important landscape features and provide help to the rural communities where need is greates. Currently Pillar 1 has about the budget of Pillar 2. In the UK we spend fifteen times as much on Pillar 1 as we do on Pillar 2.
The Commission's plan for capping the payments to the very largest farms (only 0.3 per cent across the EU would be affected) would recycle the savings into Pillar 2 expenditure. This what Manydown Farm would lose on the swings, they would win on the roundabouts.
The big losers would be the industrialised farms which do nothing for the environment except fill the rivers with agri-chemicals.
The big question at the heart of all this is whether the EU taxpayer ought to be handing out billions every year to many of Europe's richest landowners, with apparently nothing in return.
Re: the EU Commission's Common Agricultural Policy "health check" & the British upper classes: Robert Sterling's 'eco-farm' is not labor-intensive, is it? It's dependent upon large machinery and it does not create jobs for people needing decent work. Sterling's endeavor seems a profit-driven, top-down sort of "eco-friendly." Always nice to have birdies and flowers about, but nothing truly radical; he's still primarily in the meat biz, too, which is a total environmental waste. As to the Queen receiving special funds like these - please. That has as much appeal as George Dubya's financial perks for his "ranch" in Crawford, Texas. What are the YOUNG PEOPLE in the UK going to receive in the way of career development, to truly improve food production and its necessary labors? Not much left over after the Royals and their friends the gentry have taken the 'cream' so to speak. What else is new?! Disgusting.
What this article fails to address is the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy on farmers in developing countries. This is immense; according to Oxfam, trade barriers in developed nations and regions cost developing nations $1billion per year in lost trade, this is twice what they receive in aid; if Africa, East Asia, South Asia and Latin America were able to increase their share of world exports by just one percent 128million people would be lifted out of poverty. Under CAP tariffs are levied on imports from non European farmers, but even without these the subsidies farmers in the EU receive would make it impossible for third world farmers to compete. Developing countries are told by the World Bank and IMF that they must open up their markets, yet the EU gets away with continuing with CAP, there are clear double standards in the world trade system. It is inherently immoral that we continue with a policy that further impoverishes the worlds poorest.
The CAP desperately needs reform but this reform should take into account not just the rural poor of Europe but the poor of the world.
Part of the reason there is so much antipathy in the developing world towards developed countries is the hypocrisy we see - what good is free trade if European farmers are continually subsidised at the expense of their poorer-off competitors in, say, Africa?
Economically these subsidies don't make much sense. If you want to specifically target farmers with environmentally-friendly practices, then do so, but don't give a blanket subsidy to the agricultural industry.
I think that the Queen, or any other big land owner, should not get anything at all if they make profits without the CAP contributions. The cap should be used to help poor farmers in poor countries to become more competitive and eventually give them the choice to abandon this way of life and send their kids to university. It should, however, also be used to encourage healthy foods over industrialized foods. I'd pay a bit more for an egg if its from hens that never took antibiotics and were not confined to small living space. Thats also what the cap should be for.
I don't believe the "give money to the farmer so we can save the environment" story. I believe the money would be much better spent on conversation directly.
I also don't see why we should support farmers - do the rest of the workers in the UK get the same support? I think not...if their farms are not viable...then it might be better to sell - maybe a conservation trust could buy the farm instead with the subsidy money. Society as a whole would be better off...as the tax payer would not longer be paying for a loss making business and the money could actually be spent directly on the environment.
Too much CAP 'reform' has been an exercise in finding new ways to pay farmers which do not fall foul of international trade rules. Paying farmer to look after the landscape has always struck me as absurd; there will always be a landscape whatever farmers do to it. And if we care about habitats and biodiversity then create programmes for these open to all and not just for farmers.
Capping payments is a distraction from the real need which is for the EU to get out of the business of supporting farm incomes. More than 20 years ago the influential Padoa- Schioppa report pointed out that this kind of spending belonged at the national level where it would be aligned with tax and social security systems.
Repatriate farm income support (regulated by competition policy) and then let the British people decide if the queen's farm is a deserving case.
I think the efforts by the Commission to move from price support to income support should be appreciated. Given the long tradition in Europe of price support this is no easy task.
The remarks by Jack Thurston are spot-on, but why are we not getting the change we need?
I never understood why Tony Blair killed the idea of supporting small farmers better. Labour has no real base in the countryside and if they can't help bringing about a system that is more balanced, nobody can (at least the Tories won't). Could it really be that Labour is totally in the pocket of the rich landowners?
Hats off to Mark for pointing out the contradictions in the British position on the CAP. I really wonder how long they will allow him to stay in Brussels. He is just killing off too many cherished British stereotypes about Europe.
The largest land owners have the potential to make the largest difference in landscape terms. Be it providing habitat for wildlife, public access or reducing diffuse pollution. Looking after 1000's acres is no small task, and the agi environmental funding is supposed to be a reflection of income forgone. Hedge planting for example, is often undertaken at a cost to the farmer. The current grants are not keeping abreast of commodity prices and the agri is going out of agri environment as greater emphasis is being put on SSSI's. I thought biodiversity conservation was more enlightened, knowing that manicuring isolated jewels in a sea of inhospitable farmland is futile. Natural England has evidently come to the conclusion that all human activity is natural and therefore everything is ok and nothing need be done. If we want habitats expanded, buffered re connected to enable adaptation to change, then some large pots of money are needed, as there are no other economic drivers. The current economic climate says crop hard. Set aside is gone, we are back in the dark ages of the late 70's and 80's, with little talk of reinvesting in the farmed landscape. The will to care for the environment has been soured by red tape, bureaucratic blunders and failings. Cap the CAP and say goodbye to reversing farmland bird declines. The SSSI targets will not be met either, unless the results are to be fixed.
Typical Frenchies. Attack efficient farmers in order to buy rural French votes.
I hope Gordon Clown tells Johnnie-Foreigner where they can stick the Blair-rebate of Maggies-rebate. Why do we persist with CAP? Why do we have to persist with Europe?
Let's leave them to decline in their socialist hell. And Mark, get a proper job! ;)
The inequities of the CAP are not limited to within the EU. It's impact on poor third world countries is an obscenity.
The UK should certainly pay farmers for the good environmental protection and landscape management they do on behalf of all of us who enjoy the British countryside. But this would cost but a small fraction of what we contribute to the EU - and is another reason why we should reconsider the form of our membership.
New Zealand done away with subsidies years ago and still has an agricultural sysytem that we should emulate. However, due to our ever increasing cost membership of the corrupt club called the EU, we are left to suffer a slow death. Lets ditch subidies, ditch the EU and get on with our lives.
Mark,
It seems to be a bit of a confused article. I don't care that the owners ancestors are rich or poor - it really has no relevance to the situation.
The issue of the CAP has not changed - spending tonnes of money to make the agricultural system much less efficient.
It clearly needs a radical rethink as this money could be spent on new industries where a competitive advantage could be gained from early investment.
To write an article featuring a rich distant land owner and a hero worker who's priorities are not just profit to emphasis issues involving the CAP is making two political statements not one.
Other than that keep up the good work!
ali
It is very strange to hear the queen gets such a large payout like that. What with so many farmers struggling to survive. Its just another case of the rich getting richer...
The Dutch agricuture commissioner (can't remember his name just now), who was himself a farmer, had two aims with his plan: eliminate the EEC's food deficit and and support the family farms. The first target was more than successful but the second ws thwarted by big (agro)business interests and the German mythology about the "bauer" (the farmer) which one might compare to "gentry" in Britain
I think this article is very biased and makes no mention of the fact that small British farmers depend just as much on the subsidies they recieve as do many in the East European countries.farming has been through a terrible time for the last few years.They are foreced to accept prices that are the same as 1983.Who else would do that?This goverment has made no secret of their dislike of the very famrners they should be protecting.When one considers their lifestyles, it is obvious that they,not farmers,who do at least produce something for the money they recieve,are a bigger drain of taxpayers money.
A classic example of the law of un-intended consequences.
For years some people (without any real understanding of the legal framework of taxation in Britain, in that it is all paid to the crown, not the state) clamoured for the Queen and Prince Charles to pay taxes on their income. Now that they do, they are entitled to make the same claims from the system as anyone else, and the same applies to all state benefits including the state pension, free TV licences, free bus passes, free NHS treatment, etc, if they so wish, provided they pass the appropriate assesment or qualifying criteria.
It's crazy, but equal!
I find it astonishing that the Queen receives EU subsidies, if indeed that's true. I would have expected her to be media-savvy enough to understand the value of refusing to accept any such subsidies to which she may be entitled.
If I'd read that the Queen received Β£465,000 of EU subsidies in a newspaper, I would simply have dismissed the story as pure mischief-making and it would never have occurred to me that it might actually be true. I trust the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ enough to think that it could be true if you are reporting it here, but not enough to simply accept such an astonishing statistic as true without seeing some kind of evidence.
Mark, I note that you don't give a source for your figures. Are the figures available from a definitive and publically available source, so that those of us who are not prepared to take such things on trust can check for ourselves?
I am worried about subsidies going to the sugar and corn barons and to very wealthy landowners, but I think that we have to accept that farmers who work towards increasing biodiversity (a commitment that our government signed up to at Rio and since) then we need to subsidise farming to achieve this end and to maintain the type of countryside that we all seem to want. Industrial farming is polluting, wasteful and destructive and we should never give subsidies for these farming practices. These after all are the profitable ones as they supply supermarkets with cheap food.
Why do the Queen and the Prince of Wales always get singled out in stories about CAP subsidies? They both hold land in trust for their successors and are not "rich land owners" in the manner you suggest. Neither could sell off their farms and retire to Spain on the proceeds.
The real issue is about large companies who own many farms, do not necessarily take a lot of care of the landscape and are highly profitable.
If CAP subsidies are to go, then supermarkets (and the consumer) will have to be prepared to pay a fair price for the food farmers produce.
I worked for the Intervention Board, which later changed its name to the Rural Payments Agency, for a number of years when I left college,it was charged with the administering CAP in the UK. Its function in some respects was nothing sort of a scandal. A booklet existed for details of subsidy payments that were payed out to Farmers for growing certain products for which there was no market for at all. It was a complete false economy, and as the author says it always appeared that we payed out taxpayers money to the wealthiest farmers . At the time of working there 1/4 of the EU budget was on administering CAP, a huge some of money. In one of the buildings the Fraud office had a number of successful cases against fraudulent applicants, but as they candidly said, it was dwarfed by the rampant and unchecked fraud that went acoss the rest of Europe from CAP subsidy abuses. France was and continues to be one of the biggest supporters of CAP subsidies, and its Farmers receive a considerable amount on its budget so it its likely to be one of the biggest barriers to long overdue reform. I have nothing against payments to certain individuals, the poor and environmental protection. But when members of the royal family are recieving hundresd of thousands of pounds in subsidy, along with many other wealthy farmers perhaps its time for change.
Funding from Brussels should be for the pastoral and the poor and not for the rich!
This applies to the fishermen around our shores too. Britain has water around it and not land so it stands to reason that we will require greater fishing allowances than countries which are bordered by land.
The idea of CAP is to protect small farmers, to maintain vareity and (more recently) to protect the rural environment. Subsidising large farmers and companies isn't the idea, they already get plenty of money from their food profits. I'm all for this, although I would prefer a grass roots reform of the CAP at some stage, looking at it's current relevance and re-structuring or even replacing it to fit in with today's needs.
The CAP needs to die off soon. Here are some facts:
We spend more money on an EU cow than in aid to a person in Africa.
Each Β£1 that farmers get costs us about Β£1.50 to give to them (due to the inefficiency caused).
The over-production it encourages damage to our environment.
Developing countries can't compete with our subsidised produce, leaving them to become poorer.
But hey, French farmers do pretty well out of it so who cares!
I'm sure this is just going to show that I'm an ignorant pleb, but can't policy be designed to tackle something more specifically? If it's a good thing to reduce subsidy on people who live in a palace, but a bad thing to reduce subsidy on people who are hard up and look after the land, can't we design the CAP to do that?
I think we should make the idea that farmers are custodians of the countryside more explicit in legislation and subsidy. Give them money specifically to make the countryside look nice so that we can all enjoy it. That way, maybe when I'm out on my mountain bike, the farmers who live off my tax money (through the CAP) won't shout at me so much.
Interesting choice of farm! The Manydown Trustees want to build all over the farm and turn it into a housing estate so I suspect they are not too concerned about the EU subsidies.
Won't reserving CAP subsidies for smaller farmers artificially encourage a lot of leasing of land to smaller operatives, or asset-stripping, so you will end up with as much subsidy but destroying some economies of scale?
With the current food shock we shouldn't need these subsidies at all, and stronger incentives for biomass cropping would be much better for mitigation than the biofuel craze, but farming lobbies prefer biofuels for transport as they mean 4x more jobs than biomass, according to Prof. Roland Clift.
The CAP is basically about keeping food prices down. If subsidies are removed altogether - and most farmers would support such a move - the public would have to be prepared to pay a substantial increase in the retail price of food. Domestic politicians have not yet been prepared to take a risk on this.
Surely with the increasing demand for agricultural products by the increasingly affluent Chinese and Indian people there will be such a huge demand for food that there will be no need for subsidies.
Similarly the opportunities existing for organic products that have to be met from non UK sources shows that there is serious malaise in UK farming.
British farmers are used to growing subsidy not food and the sooner this stops the better.
"The CAP is basically about keeping food prices down." says Kate Russell.
Actually CAP makes food more expensive for the European consumer. Some produce has EU export subsidies to make up the difference between the high European price and low world prices. Other products are protected by trade barriers, meaning that European consumers are denied access to cheaper food from the world market. And, as some of that is grown in developing countries, some poor countries are denied the growth that trade would bring.
We pay for the CAP three times: once in taxes, once in high prices and finally in aid to countries whose exports would otherwise aid their development.
Is it possible that one reason for a somewhat bizarre (and unfair) system of regulations and payments (on any EU issue) is the power that national governments have to distort (and exploit) such policies in their own political interests?
If this is true -then it would indeed seem that the more national governments there are involved in governing the EU -the more illogical (and ineffective) the resulting policies will be.
Once again, it seems that those who shout the loudest against "ridiculous" EU policies -are, in fact, those who support the political mechanism that produces the very excesses that they claim to oppose.
Having walked on Manydown land I can appreciate the work Richard Sterling does but, as one of the comments rightly points out, he is bound by the financial interests of the owners of his land.
When the money stops coming in agribusiness will invest else where, whether selling the land for housing or to other larger companies or even let it go fallow as the cost of operations exceeds the return.
The EU and its member states are now in the invidious position which they can't get out of. Too stop subsidies and therefore cost thousands of jobs (and vitally votes) or to carry on and risk the continued ire (and votes) of the vast majority of its citizens who aren't involved in farming. A no win situation.
The Royal family are highly valued in the farming community for their patronage to many charities and organisations which all go towards supporting british agriculture. They are well worth the money for all the support they give.
In terms of subsidies, we need to have a real free market which is not dominated by a few large supermarkets to make operating in a 'non-subsidised' environment a reality.
Without subsidies many farmers will 'pack up' and we will see food inflation as we are seeing at the moment, but even worse.
The only thing that is 'black and white' in farming are cows! Its a very complex issue.
Maybe the EU could save some money by cutting down on red tape. Then we could please all the famers, rich and poor, instead of having to work out cuts and shifting cash from one place to another.
For those who push with "efficient farming" - compare the fruit and veg you eat in UK, with what you'd get in the summer in a local market in Spain (not the supermarket), or even better - in the Balkans.
Which one would you prefer to make up your daily meal? The French know which, and they know that if left to simple market forces "efficient farming" will quickly drive the taste out of their food too.
These can't be national mechanisms because the countries with most traditional outlook are naturally the poorest, they wouldn't be able to find the money to sponsor their farmers. The money has to come from those places with the efficient and mechanised society, with abundance of revenues but divorced from Nature.
CAP should be about protecting and stimulating the traditional rural lifestyle of Europe to stay. It includes not only a landscape we (or some of us, apparently) are attached to, but also certain produce and type of social relations.
It needs as much protection from the pressure for modernising and industrialising, as the European nature reserves do.
CAP shouldn't finance the large owners and the companies with efficient farming. These can earn by themselves. I was quite surprise by this article!
Replacing European farming with Third world produce is not an answer for cheap better food, because the transportation of goods will again be done in bulk by big traders. They will impose the same poor quality of produce we already know in supermarkets. I am happy to buy in Sainsbury's South American peaches instead of Spanish, they will be just as carton-like. So, yes, partial opening of the market could be done. But in Spain I still want to be able to buy the local ones, on a reasonable price. It would be great somebody was exporting those to the North, maybe we need a EU program for that?
Dreams. : )
Firstly, the subsidy should be capped at nothing for all farmers, as they are no more deserving of handouts than other businesses, and the impact of western farm subsidies on Third World peasants is near genocidal. But if that is not a realistic short term option, this proposal is the opposite of what should be done. We should have big efficient farms, not small inefficient farms that are propped up as working rural museums.
I thought this was a well-balanced piece, Mark: and has brought some interesting and helpful responses.
A note from here in France. Before his election, M Sarkozy gave a speech to farmers at one of their most important shows. In it he said he felt that French farmers did not like being seen as "supplicants" but would prefer to stand on their own two feet. Surprisingly this won applause then and farming votes in the election. Sarkozy has shown he does what he says he'll do.
It will take a long time to dismantle the CAP and I'm not so sure the French stance will be against. Some of the newer EU entrants may cause bigger problems, I think.
Some statistics to provide a framework for the discussion.
Agricultural subsidies (source OECD) totalled $281 billion in 2005. These include the cost of higher food prices which result from protectionist policies (a particular bugbear for the UK is it applied a cheap food policy - with deficiency payments to farmers - before joining the EU).
The breakdown for the highest spenders was EU ($138 billion), Japan ($40.7), US ($29.3 billion), South Korea ($25.4 billion), Turkey ($10.1 billion), Canada ($7.5 billion).
Conclusion; the dispute about subsidies is between the rich countries themselves - in relation to widely traded agricultural commodities - not between the rich countries and the developing world. The latter are impacted, of course, by high tariffs but mostly by trade-distorting measures either because of subsidies to totally uneconomic activities (e.g. US cotton subsidies) or worse still, dumping of products which displace local production (e.g. milk powder reconstituted and distributed as milk). The EU has taken very strong action to eliminate "trade-distorting" measures but until all developed countries agree to move together (e.g. cutting of subsidies to rice production in Japan and South Korea), there is little chance of elimintaing them. Hence, the importance of the success or failure of the Doha round.
"Brussels" has no funds of its own. These are supplied by the Member States. Margaret Thatcher negotiated a formula which effectively insulates the UK against the cost of the CAP. (UK formula is: difference between UK %share EU VAT base and UK % share EU expenditure - usually 3 to 4 points lower - applied to total expenditure with 66% of resultant sum being refunded to UK).
Its complicated but the obvious point is that, as the UK share of expenditure goes down, the refund goes up e.g. were the Queen not to receive any funds at all. But this would be to ignore the fact that the CAP is not just a machine for giving subsidies, it is also an enormous market of 500 million people from which UK farmers do not wish to be excluded (despite BSE, foot and mouth etc.) But, in terms of refunds foregone, it is the UK taxpayer that largely funds CAP expenditure in the UK.
Nor are subsidies confined to agriculture. EU national State aids (including agriculture) totalled nearly €64 billion in 2005. The larger Member States were responsible for most of this aid e.g. Germany €20 billion of which €5 billion to agriculture. The UK had the smallest relative share (€4.5 and €1billion).
One last statistic. The mix of EU expenditure is roughly 40% structural spending, 40% agriculture, 15% other and 5% administration. Half of the first 40% is money recycled to wealthier MS. Were this to stop, and Member States to pick up a larger share of the cost of supporting the CAP nationally, say 50%, the overall EU budget could be reduced by 40%.
But would Scotland accept to have structural funds flow from London rather than Brussels and be subject to the vagaries of annual national budgetary procedures? Repeat this question for agriculture (risk of break-up of internal market in agriculture) and for other Member States. Just change the names.
One look at that cap...er...I mean hat and I thought for a second it was Hyacinth Bucket. Hahahahahaha.
The CAP has outstayed its welcome and should be abolished (not reformed) at first opportunity. The CAP was designed to prevent African farmers from competing with French farmers.
Has the EU-crowd still not satisfied its lust for devastating African farmers and fishermen? For the sake of all that is decent, abolish the CAP now, give the Africans a chance you EU-philes!
Daisy (#33) makes a couple of very good points:
Perhaps paraphrasing an ancient jaz classic, It aint what you get -its what you do with it that gets results.....
Secondly, it really is time that people forgot about the myth of the "free-market" and "free market forces". In today's society that's about as realistic as believing in the tooth fairy. There simply aint no "free market" out there folks -its merely a figment of economist's and politician's imagination (or perhaps indoctrination)!
In the real world, there are giant global corporations that use their muscle to beat up anybody who gets in their way -small competitors, customers, suppliers or even governments. To believe that the same "free (village) market" laws as formulated by Adam Smith in a totally other universe are still applicable to Microsoft or Unilever, etc., -is to believe that Hogwart academy is where the British Queen sends her kids to school.
Personally, I always did prefer Jerseys to Fresians..... beautiful eyes, lovely brown hide and sweet creamy milk....
To Kolio, (35)
It's true that the fruit and veg in UK supermarkets (in other countries too) does not taste as good as locally produced food in a market in Spain or the balkans but I don't see how that is an argument in favour of the CAP.
If consumers want to buy tasty local produce that costs a little more then they will do so, the fact that it tastes better means that small niche producers should be able to survive in a free market as they have a distinct advantage over supermarkets who are forced into huge distribution chains with agroindustry due to their size.
The CAP subsidies are paid mostly to the big agro-industrial companies and farmers so it cannot really be said that it helps the small farmers to compete.
What is needed is education of the public as to what constitutes healthy and tasty food not vast subsidies and blocking the ability of third world farmers to make a living.
I don't buy the argument that if there were no subsidies, everybody would just buy the cheapest, worst tasting produce, can you really see many Spaniards giving up their fresh tasting local products to buy cheap cardboard from Peru just because it saves them a few cents or Italians ceasing to use €5 extra virgin olive oil to buy €0.50 corn oil from Malawi instead just because it was available?
@ Jos (30)
The CAP does make some products more expensive but it also probably makes some products cheaper for the consumer. At the moment supermarkets and other big buyers can pay farmers below the cost of production because they know that due to subsidies, farmers can still get by without making a profit, these cheap prices can then be passed to the consumer. In a free market, these farmers would stop producing if they couldn't make a profit and the wholesale price would be forced back up but due to the CAP subsidies this does not happen.
I would like to see public payments for certain uncommercial environmental protection measures taken by farmers such as hedgerow, footpath and habitat maintainance or animal welfare measures made by national governments to their own farmers subject to an EU maximum level per hectare.
Making the CAP an EU level policy just means that the more industrialised countries subsidise those where agriculture is more important (as it was designed to do so that France could get money from Germany). It should be sufficient that the rich countries give some money to the poor countries for development whether they are more agricultural or industrial.
I would also like to see markets opened to developing countries who could supply us cheaply with most basic commodities and products that don't grow in Europe leaving EU farmers free to develop more high value-added and niche products, they already have a comparative advantage in these type of products and could make more money by concentrating on these 'quality' products rather than on cheap, basic foodstuffs that anybody, anywhere can produce.
If EU customers truly value their locally produced, high quality products then they will continue to buy them. If people just want the cheapest available though, then that should also be an option, the individual knows better than the state which of these options he prefers.
The whole of the CAP should go. If we want to spend money on environmental protection and food quality then that's fine, but this should not be confused with a system that subsidises big business and also supports small inefficient family holdings.
The only way the EU is going to survive the global downturn and the competition from India and China is to spend the CAP money on science and infrastructure. We are ploughing our short-lived competitive advantage into the ground at the expense of the consumer, third world producers, and our own future.
Brown should make UK acceptance of the Treaty conditional on total CAP discontinuation in the next 5 years. We could then offer to give up the rebate.
The CAP epitomises all that is worst about the EU - inefficient bureaucracy, national self-interest, poor long-term outcomes and shoddy logic.
If we got rid of the CAP we could credibly develop our own biofuels and other alternative energy programme that wouldn't leave us at the mercy of the Russians and others. Isn't that more important that the maintenance of a few hedges and some antiquated medieval French villages?
If the consumer wants high quality, locally produced food he will pay for it. This is already starting to happen. What CAP does is distort the market mechanism so that the sector develops in a lop-sided and inefficient way. If production falls and food prices rise, more land will be used to grow food because of the incentive of high food prices.
CAP is the worst possible solution. It's absurdly expensive, unfair, corrupt, and totally ineffective.
Scrap the CAP!
The CAP guarantess food security. The last time we had a free market in agriculture under the Brittish Empire millions starved to death as food was exported from the poorer nations to the wealthier ones even when in Inida and in Ireland people were starving. Imagine food is exported form your own nation as people starve. We need food security the CAP gurantees that. Do we want to be dependent on nations thousands of miles away for food like we are with oil. It does not benefit them if they sell all their food to us under the free market. Free market extremism has been tried before.