Controversial CAP reform
Don't ever work with children and animals, they say. A view I can appreciate after trying to persuade French sheep to co-operate for a piece to camera for tonight's BBC News at Ten. Having herded them into the corner of a field in Picardy they simply won't bound about behind me in a tele-visually attractive manner however much I walk backwards into the flock trying to provoke them. Of course when they do oblige and bound around full of the joys of spring I fluff my lines. There is no chance of persuading them to regroup for a retake.
I am chasing sheep around Northern France for a report on the reform of one of the European Union's most expensive and most controversial policies.
The Common Agricultural Policy no longer takes up 70% of the EU's budget as it did in the 70s but at 43% and a cost of nearly £40bn a year, it is still the EU's most expensive policy.
Today the European Commission publishes its "health check" on the CAP which is a prelude to much more serious reform.
The sheep are grazing on a beautiful hill side near the village of Clery sur Somme. The farmer Marc Dubiquet handles the grass which brushes around our legs. He says it's only grown so high in the last few weeks. The sheep seem to be enjoying it. He tells me:
"It's very important for us farmers that the CAP's kept and indeed that the subsidies for sheep are increased. There's so much lamb from New Zealand on sale in French shops, so we have to concentrate on quality, traceability, animal health and so on which makes us uncompetitive."
But the commission wants farmers to be more responsive to market forces, and give them subsidies not for growing specific crops or raising particular animals. They want instead to pay them for looking after the environment and by the size of fields. So if Mr Dubiquet wanted to get rid of his sheep and plant tomatoes instead, while keeping his hedgerows in order, they think he should be allowed to do so, without losing his CAP money. This is called "decoupling" in the jargon.
It's a trend that started in 2003. But it's a long haul. And Mr Dubiquet is not impressed.
"If you're telling me we could get subsidies for looking after the land and the money will stay the same, well and good. But I don't believe it: without CAP there would be no more sheep in France so we want to keep subsidies: end of story."
But it is not the end of story. Today's proposals will acknowledge French sheep farmers as a special case and will allow their government to keep paying them a subsidy. Britain is against this. The British government thinks that if Mr Dubiquet can't sell his lamb and make a profit, then that's tough. British sources say it distorts the market to keep unprofitable farmers in business. One commission source puts it more succinctly. "The British are allergic to charity."
So allergic that there is real concern about a proposal in today's health check. It would allow national governments to cream off 10% of farmer's CAP money and spend it on special projects. The commission favours it going towards schemes like insurance or product promotion. But it is clear the French have other plans and Britain is worried that this will lead to "re-coupling", a new link between production and subsidies.
On the hillside, Mr Dubiquet shows us a very rusty mess tin he has just found at the bottom of the field. For this is the Somme, one of the most horrific battles of World War I. Now the sudden explosions that shatter the calm afternoon are just bird-scarers to keep crows off the cornfields. But the legacy of two world wars is clear in the Common Agricultural Policy. Europe starved and Europe went short. CAP was designed by those who want to ensure that could never happen again.
For years now it has seemed a quaint hangover from another era. But some are now saying that today's shortages and rising food prices show it's not so silly after all. The French Agriculture Minister Michael Barnier is a big fan of CAP. He tells me:
"At the end of World War II, Europe had to import its food. That's not the case now. We are able to feed ourselves and we are part of the global market for food. It's important that Europe ensures its own food security. I am not talking about total self-sufficiency but I am saying that we need to produce to feed Europe and meet the challenges of the global food situation."
He argues that there is nothing wrong in using the money of European taxpayers to protect those who might be left vulnerable by the changes suggested in the health check.
"I want to keep animal husbandry strong in France both to produce meat and milk, and to ensure the survival of rural areas. I was president of Savoy in the French Alps. It's a mountainous region so it can only produce milk. It's not economically viable but it keeps communities together."
This French insistence will be fought by the British. Indeed although the commission proposals are broadly along the sort of lines the government likes, they do not go far enough for the Chancellor, Alistair Darling. In a recent letter to his European Union counterparts he urges what amounts to the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy. He writes calling for:
• Phasing out of all elements of the CAP that are designed to keep EU agricultural prices above world market levels (such measures cost EU consumers €43bn in 2006
• An end to direct payments to EU farmers (which cost EU taxpayers €34bn - 32% of the whole EU budget - in 2006)
The attitude in the commission is rather "we've heard it all before." Gordon Brown was particularly famous for demanding the abolition of CAP. The Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boels seems wryly amused:
"It's a really nice statement but it's completely politically impossible. When I saw my Darling, my new Darling's advice on the Common Agricultural Policy it reminded me quite a bit of something I've seen before. I don't know if it is a special gene in finance ministers that they want to cut all payments as low as possible."
When I meet the commissioner, she is just back from a weekend at home in Denmark. She was a farmer, her husband is a farmer and she proudly shows me her worn nails as proof she's being doing some work around the farm. She says the French will come around in the end.
"In all economic textbooks, it says when you have higher prices you get higher production and this is going to happen. Decoupling simply makes it easier for farmers to make their own decision. We are not sitting here in Brussels deciding what a farmer in England is going to produce. He or she has to look at the market and see where the demands are. I want to set farmers free. I think when farmers in France learn the profits they can make from the changes we are proposing, they will love it."
Perhaps they will. But the argument, between the two extremes represented by France and Britain, will go on long after my reluctant props on the Northern French hillside are turned into lamb chops.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
But while Europe subsidises its farmers through the CAP, poorer countries are shut out and not offered the chance of lifting themselves out of poverty through trade.
That's not very 'charitable', is it?
The CAP also removes the incentive for Europe's farmers to compete - for example against that New Zealand lamb mentioned.
Meaning the price of food is held artificially high, and we all pay twice over ... once in subsidies, and secondly in the shops.
The Commissioner's blatant snub of Alistair Darling's letter is a perfect example of the reality of any one country's 'influence' in the EU.
If only we still elected leaders, rather than mere EU lobbyists, whose views can ultimately just be laughed off.
Complain about this comment
I agree with StuartC.
Just one problem, What party has not been joined at the hip with the E.U.
One MP was very quick to praise the E.U. after he asked a question in parliment about E.U. policy.
I watched with interest his discomfort at the patronising answer he recieved.
Reminded me of school, don't speak about things that are too difficult for me to explain.
Complain about this comment
CAP is an example of all that is fundamentally wrong in the EU as it is currently structured.
If CAP is abolished, then the EU will have demonstrated that it is capable of reform and has a future as a modern inter-governmental body, not a collectivist, federalist, nascent super-state.
Complain about this comment
If NZ lamb can be sold competitively in France, what does that tell you about the food miles debate?
Perhaps it is more efficient to produce lamb and ship it half way round the world rather than subsidise local production, given that the subsidies themselves are paid for with increased energy consumption.
Complain about this comment
@ ScepticMax (3): For the record, I'm a collectivist and a federalist and I still think the CAP should be either abolished or reformed to the point where it becomes an environmental protection policy rather than a method of giving farmers free money. I don't have anything against farmers or charitable government spending, but I really think the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
Abolishing a program is not reform, it's called deregulation and the CAP needs reform as it has been hugely successful in reengineering agricultural development after WWII, then insuring Europeans against food crisis ever since.
One very easy and controversial step for reform, would be to ban all direct payments above ?300k as was proposed until recently. That would avoid for the CAP to be mostly spent on the biggest farms or landowners rather than on small and medium-sized farms.
Incidentally, that reform was shot down by UK and germany, both because it didn't go far enough (UK), but also because that's mostly how they get the money back (UK and Germany) : think Queen and Prince of Wales estates ... I like high-minded britons so much ...
Finally, as MTE_05 pointed out, in an age of climate change policies, how can anybody say that the price of products excluding the environmental costs of shipping (carbon miles) is not a form of market distortion or subsidy ?
Do Britain want to be serious about climate change ? then why importing food from the other half of the world, when it could be produced at a cheaper environmental cost at home ?
the dumbest way to get more bang for taxpayer's buck would be to scrap the CAP - it would also be very short-sighted. Too bad the Brits decided to sacrifice their agriculture since the Industrial Revolution, but that doesn't mean the rest of Europe have to do the same.
Plus, EU budget is a mere 2% of member states GDP (so the CAP is around 1%)
Complain about this comment
The EU and the USA (and other developed countries) should end their subsidies for domestic farms. It hinders less-efficient farmers in developing countries and keeps rural people in those nations in a state of poverty, while their populations as a whole are more at risk from an upturn in food prices than people in the developed states, as has been seen in places such as Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Indonesia.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with Starbuck11:
Do Britain want to be serious about climate change ? then why importing food from the other half of the world, when it could be produced at a cheaper environmental cost at home ?
the dumbest way to get more bang for taxpayer's buck would be to scrap the CAP - it would also be very short-sighted. Too bad the Brits decided to sacrifice their agriculture since the Industrial Revolution, but that doesn't mean the rest of Europe have to do the same.
The protection of the quality of rural Europe should be a priority - and reform, not abolition, of farming subsidies has to be the way forward. Like many, I try to buy local food, or at least food from within the EU wherever possible - buying New Zealand lamb or butter is shortsighted foolishness...
Complain about this comment
To those who want to scrap the CAP or at least more radical reform than has been proposed ...
Even *if* there were majority public demand for this, how will it be achieved?
Those governments who propose more radical reform are basically told to go away and stop being so silly.
The power to really push for change is not back in their hands until at least the 2013 Financial Perspectives review (five years away!) when it will need a *majority* of governments to together force a new policy. However, many have significant communities benefitting considerably from the current arrangements.
It's not as if you can vote in another EU Commissioner if she doesn't do as you wish. She has absolutely no reason to listen to public opinion. And MEPs certainly can't bring about this change.
So the sad reality is - you're pretty much powerless. Welcome to our brave new EU world. It's not what I understand by the idea of living in a democracy. And that's something that should *really* worry us.
Complain about this comment
For one time, I agree with most eurosceptics writing here. Eureka!
Subsidising the agriculture is an anachronic romantic idea. Why do farmers deserve more protection than other sectors? It's something hard to justify nowadays.
CAP then should be abolished now, alongside the British rebate, if EU wants to show efficiency and respect for the developping countries. This subsidies could be invested in sustainable projects in Europe, for instance, rural tourism.
Let's open the doors to the producers outside the EU, reducing the environmental costs as much as possible: the imports have not to be from the other side of the world, say NZ or the Southern Cone, but from the EU neighbouring regions: EU, Middle East and Eastern Europe.
It will help also to create an economical welfare cordon along the EU borders, giving people more opportunities to stay in their countries and dissuading illegal immigration.
Complain about this comment
All developed countries should abolish their farming subsidies. Europe's CAP is much to expensive and unfair towards the European costumer and Third World farmers. We, the European costumer, pay to much for our food and Third World farmers are not able to sell their products on the European market. It's a shame the European Union, which advocates free-trade, is actually very protectionist. Our farmers should learn to cooperate much more so that they will be able to compite with Third World farmers. I don't expect the CAP to be abolished soon but the European Union should at least decraese CAP spending. Then we can use the money for much more usefull purposes like investments in science, environment and infrastructure.
Complain about this comment
The food miles argument is not as clear as this. Take a look at the following article/summary in the New Scientist: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13741-food-miles-dont-feed-climate-change--meat-does.html
A FAR more worthwhile argument for maintaining agriculture is FOOD SECURITY. The current food prices crisis is a taste of what may happen in the future... and imagine how things would look if the crisis was much worse. Europe, and every country/region for that matter, needs some basic safety net of guaranteed food production. Keep in mind that once the farmers are gone off the land, and a new really bad food crisis comes along in a decade or few, it is nor possible to just switch food production capacity back on. Where would the farmers come from for example? Where the land? What if the land in Europe ends up being used for other things?
Thus food security and by extension the maintanance of agricultural communities at a level where if trouble happens, Europe can feed itself at some minimal level is necessary.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark
You are both right and wrong.
Few, even those in the countryside, would disagree that reform is necessary. Originally designed to ensure safe supply of foodstuffs in Western Europe without reliance on imports it has been very successful.
However times have changed. The rich farmlands of Central and Eastern Europe are opening up to the industrialized West.
The issue now is somewhat different. The main issue is countryside depopulation which Britian is as reluctant to see as France or any other country.
For the years of the Second World War until joining the E.U. Britian had a cheap food policy involving massive subsidys on everything from Oil to Seeds and fertilizers. I know, I worked in the agricultural supply industry for more than 20 years.
By the way, the figure of costing consummers 43 billion is false. It assume that if these massive quonities of basic foodstuffs were to have been bought on the world market prices would not have gone up. Basic economics of supply and demard tells us that this is impossible. Prices would have gone up massively.
I would also add that the United States supports American agriculture to about the same overall amount and it quite happy to dump the surplusses overseas as Food Aid, directly paid for by the American Taxpayer. And this is not going to stop any time soon.
So reform and redirect as is politically possible but remembering that is a real hot potato.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11 @6 and others: 'Climate Change' has become the all-powerful excuse for all manner of stupid, coercive, backward and anti-productive policies.
I'm sure that these same policies were once pursued using (as chronologically appropriate) the excuse of population bomb, nuclear winter, millennium bug, SARS, avian flu, liittle green men from outer space....
In the case of CAP it's just protectionism dressed up as concern for the environment.
Complain about this comment
The UK should opt out of the CAP and get a 43% rebate on its budget contribution. Indeed we should be able to opt out of any EU spending program not supported by a majority in parliament. This would release funds to compensate British farmers and also for better purposes, such as cutting Council Tax.
It is time to renegotiate the UK-EU membership such that we can elect a parliament free to opt-in or out of EU spending programs on an ongoing basis. This would restore democratic control over EU spending and automatically force the EU to concentrate on activities which actually add perceived value.
Complain about this comment
Good idea Freeborn-John, the UK should really start debatting seriously about their commitment to the EU project.
after all, this is what citizens in a liberal democracy are supposed to do.
So what if the UK doesn't do it ? does it mean it's not such a representative democracy afteer all ?
Or why is it so keen on pandering rather than genuine debates when it comes to EU matters ?
Complain about this comment
CAP should have been abolished decades ago, it worked great in 1950s and 60s but come on we're in the 21st century time to move on and use that money on something more useful.
Complain about this comment
The stated origin of CAP is correct: a means to ensure that Europe would not starve. You have to remember that that was the reality for many continental Europeans during WW II and in the immediate post-war era.
Are there starving masses in Europe today? No. OK, to that extent, CAP worked.
The error was in failing to factor in a natural human weakness: greed. Some farmers found that it didn't matter how much surplus they produced - they had a guaranteed buyer.
What is needed is a delicate balancing act that ensures that farmers get enough income to keep them producing our food without leaving loopholes for them to exploit and over-produce at our expense.
UK agriculture is basically pretty efficient because there has been so much merging of small farms. But is it wrong if other cultures value the small farmer more than the UK does? I know some small farmers on the continent who have to do second jobs such as factory work in order to be able to carry on the family tradition.
Which is best, large-scale industrial farming or small-scale traditional farming?
Simply abolishing the CAP will lead inevitably to the concentration of farming in ever fewer hands until finally there's just one pair - around our throats and able to demand and get any price asked. I really don't want us to put all of our eggs in just one basket.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @ 18 wrote: "Are there starving masses in Europe today? No. OK, to that extent, CAP worked."
Or perhaps we managed not to starve despite the ill-effects CAP?
Possibly more due to the general rise in post-war prosperity.
The truth is: who knows what may have been.
But isn't it a bit rich, at least, to raise the spectre of large scale industrial farming if the CAP is abolished, when the biggest estates and major agri-businesses have in reality been some of the biggest beneficiaries of the system?
Complain about this comment
The CAP is a tragedy imo.
There is no way that poorer countries can compete with European farmers due to the huge subsidies paid to European farmers.
The root of the issue is imo French farmers. No French government has nor will EVER stand up to the French farmers. They just do not have the stomach for that kind of fight.
The French regularly complain about the British rebate however the French take 25% of the CAP which accounts for 43% of the ENTIRE EU BUDGET!! 10 Billion Euros to French farmers alone. If the CAP was scrapped then surely they would scrap the rebate. The French can't "have their cake and eat it" unfortunately.
If they are serious about reducing food miles and creating sustainable farming for developing countries then surely scrapping the CAP is the logical conclusion.
Complain about this comment
#19, the UK didn't join the EEC until the 70' so you might not realize it, but the CAP was instrumental in helping western european countries boost their food production tremendously. There is just no point arguing about that, because that's a historical and statistical proven fact.
The slow phasing of subsidies for boosting production to quotas did indeed beneficiate larger organisations. but that is not out of lack of planning but because of the well-thought assumption that cheap and abundant food would be best served by such large agri-business conglomerates.
Here again, the likes of Nestle (Swiss) or Danone are testamount to it.
But here it ends. There aren't no direct subsidies for production for almost 10-15 years. Since then, they have been progressively doled out on a landsize format with no push for production. Quite the contrary, as the objective was not production intensity (60', 70'), but production quality (90' onward)
Even so, almost 70% of the CAP reach only a fraction of farmers because no cap was authorized on payments (thanks in part to British self-serving interests)
So talking about the CAP, as an outdated production boost mechanism is just non-sense. That's just not true.
Talking about it as part of a protectionist ring of administrative measures on European market is totally right.
But which country in the world is not subsidizing its farmers one way or the other ? either by giving food stamps and extra income to buy "local", lowering production standards or even providing tax reliefs ....
ok, that doesn't exempt from the fight against poverty, but at the same time that doesn't negate from the very beneficial results of the CAP.
That is, insuring western europeans from food crisis, then progressively moving to an environmental-sound farming landscape.
You want to reform the CAP, to make every buck pour in more economically and socially efficient ? Fine, you got me in. who desn't ?
But putting blind faith into the market forces to insure european nations from food crisis, might a good ideological discussion in anglo-saxon forums, but that's definitely not a very well-liked idea in the real-world. Whether it to be in continental europe or third-world countries ...
And scrapping the CAP is just that.
Finally, does "cheap food" is really such a good thing ? affordable food is important, but oversized McDo kids are not necessarily a smart policy objective ...
Complain about this comment
# 19. -StuartC- wrote:
"isn't it a bit rich, at least, to raise the spectre of large scale industrial farming if the CAP is abolished, when the biggest estates and major agri-businesses have in reality been some of the biggest beneficiaries of the system?"
No. That's the point I was making! I for one don't want major agri-businesses grubbing up the hedgerows in order to create prairies big enough to operate their giant machines, damaging subsoils and giving us huge areas of monoculture. And I don't want them creaming off the major part of CAP money while they do so. Big agri-business shouldn't get any CAP money.
Sorry, but hooray for the small farmer! If I pay more for my food but get a diverse countryside in exchange (here or on the continent) I'll go for that.
Complain about this comment
Firstly, thanks to Mark for his well balanced coverage. Unfortunately, the BBC news anchor introduced Mark's report with the usual ignorance.....
Criticism of the CAP coming from England always sounds extremely hollow to me:
Yes, the UK is a net payer to the EU and thus the CAP budget, but it is not the largest contributor, neither in absolute nor in relative terms. So, tone down!
Europe has the best food in the world, the most beautiful cultivated landscapes and still a good deal of small family-owned farms. Obviously, the CAP has been doing some good. Ask all those bloody Brits in the Dordogne!
England, to the contrary, is not known for a quality food culture, the landscape is the result of massive deforestation and early industrialisation and the landed gentry still dominates the scene. The British contribution to the European agri-"culture" has mainly been food scares and avoidable animal diseases. So, tone down!
The europhobes dream of those old days when the Commonwealth was about exporting British manufactured goods and importing agricultural products. Obviously, this is not the experience of the rest of Europe. Today, Britain has no manufactured goods left to export and bringing food stuff from the antipodes while the European countryside is dying doesn't seem such a good idea.
The EU is about all its members. It would be nice if the Brits understood that this is not an extension of their old empire. It would be a good start if such complete failures like Mr Darling would do their homework instead of lecturing others.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Gruenebaum1 would like to take this opportunity to thank the English (no, not the British) taxpayer for all the money sent to subsidise the inefficient in farmers in his/her country?
Complain about this comment
23. Gruenebaum1 wrote:
"The British contribution to the European agri-"culture" has mainly been food scares and avoidable animal diseases. So, tone down!"
Please follow your own advice. Insulting people never did and never will win hearts and minds.
Complain about this comment
Dear British fellows,
I don't think Gruenebaum1 meant to insult anyone. So don't be so sensitive.
It could be irritating though some British eurosceptics blame all their disgraces to the EU, when UK has not been an example of anything except for flexible labour market perhaps, but not for sure for food safety.
According to your persistent "eurocomplaints" one could say UK is a paradise that doesn't want to be lost by the evil eurocrats in Brussels.
But, open your eyes: it's not like this. There's still a lot UK can learn from her neighbours in the EU.
Complain about this comment
As usual, British eurosceptics fall on their old chestnuts: quitting, opting-out, etc.
They are so shortsighted that they don't even see the very obvious drawback of this attitude in this particular case: if you "opt out" of the CAP, your farmers will have to compete, without subsidies, with subsidised Continentals. Do you really want the British countryside to be taken over by French agro-business?
This is all the more true, since these are the same Eurosceptics who usually holler that the EU "should go back to being a free trade area", and that "EU law should no longer have precedence over British law". A free trade area without common rules, and without a central authority to enforce them impartially across all states is a total sham. Just ask your Canadian friends about their "free trade" with their Southern neighbour (and don't forget to mention the words "soft wood").
The British government (having to govern and all) has a slightly more pragmatic approach, and tries to get common EU rules that are in the British interest. However, by making callously self-interested proposals without any compensation to their partners, it deservedly earns the scorn of onlookers like Mariann Fischer Boels. In the EU, you should never forget that there are 26 other people around the table, and that some horse-trading, unsavoury as it may seem to *you*, must be expected and prepared for.
Complain about this comment
I'm a farmer. Yes, subsidies should be abolished. Only trouble is most UK farming doesn't pay without them. If you want us to keep on farming without subsidy you'll have to pay more for your food. It's the public's choice to make.
You can't rely on imports. eg Brazilian beef . Brazilians eat 36kg beef/year and export beef. If that figure rises by just 3kg/year they will have nothing left over to export and living standards are rising there. demand is rising in China, India etc. too.
Fertiliser costs have almost trebled in the last year because of global demand, to mention just one of many increasingly expensive inputs.
We have taken freely available, plentiful and cheap food for granted in recent times and we are in for a harsh reality check soon.
I wonder how many people realise there are NO European food surplus mountains now. World grain stocks are only about 50 days. Remember, food is vital!
Complain about this comment
Having watched the political campaigns in France last year I am convinced there will always be sheep in France.
Complain about this comment
"Europe has the best food in the world" [32]
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
A comment made by someone unfamiliar with Thai and Chinese cusine, not to mention the Indian one.
Reminds me of arrogant claims by French vintners that they produce the best wines in the world, but can't explain why more and more people prefer (and drink) Californian and South African wines. Not to mention Australian and Chilean ones.
Complain about this comment
Some are implying that it is worse for climate change to ship lamb from New Zealand, than to produce it in Europe. This is not backed up by the facts. Studies have concluded that NZ lamb in European shops has less impact on climate change than European lamb. This is to do with more efficient production in New Zealand.
It is also to do with the fact that emmisions from shipping are only a small percentage of the emmisions for producing food. It is worth remembering to draw a distinction between air freighted and ship freighted goods. Ship freighted goods have orders of magnitude fewer emmisions than air freighted goods, given an equal distance travelled.
Also environmental regulations on NZ farmers are arguably just as tough as Europe, with the NZ resource management act.
Complain about this comment
- Gruenebaum1 @ 23 wrote:"Today, Britain has no manufactured goods left to export"
I take a particular interest in Britain's car manufacturing industry, and I can tell you that this rather sweeping statement is not remotely true in that sector alone.
But your contribution as a whole is a useful illustration of the irrationally negative view many EU-fans take of Britain / British people.
And I do wonder whether this evident anger at Britain for whatever reason is probably a much stronger feed of enthusiasm for the EU than the pragmatic realities of the EU activities, justification of which seemingly following emotion.
I would at least suggest that if anyone is enjoying a "dream of those old days" it is surely those who believe 1950s EU policies are appropriate in today's very different 21st century world.
Complain about this comment
RCalvo @ 27 wrote: "A free trade area without common rules, and without a central authority to enforce them impartially across all states is a total sham."
You're right. But then, it's not really the free trade oversight task of the Commission that EU-critics object to.
If the Commission were only about overseeing free trade, then you'd need to explain why EFTA has 9 staff, the WTO has 625 and the EU Commission has 24,000.
So let's not confuse the needs of facilitating trade with the much more political EU 'Single Market' project, which in truth represents the bulk of what EU-critics object to.
That, today, is used to tenuously justify virtually every piece of further EU power centralisation way outside the realm of mere trade ... from environment to tourism and energy to criminal justice.
So as an EU-critic, may I say: by all means, bring on just the EU free trade area, "central authority" and all. But let's drop the outdated rest, which is draining Europe's resources and, worse, our continent's diverse soul.
Complain about this comment
StuartC:
EFTA has 9 staff (really?) because it follows each and every EU regulation. You don't need that many people to operate a photocopier.
WTO has 625 people, but is it a free trade association? Hardly. Not that its members respect its rulings anyway...
The fact is, you can have nominally free trade, and yet plenty of barriers through national regulation: after all, without the Commission and the ECJ, it would still be near-impossible to sell foreign-made beer in Germany, or foreign-made pasta in Italy. In my experience, those who mourn the "loss of our Continent's diverse soul", just like those who complain about globalisation, more often than not actually grieve the loss of cozy national oligopolies and cartels and being exposed to more competition.
Diversity may sound good, but not when it means 27 different rulebooks for anything. You may complain about the Commission's red tape, but it's strongly preferable to red tape in 27 different flavours. And 24,000 may sound like much when compared with the staffs of EFTA or the WTO, but it's much less than the numbers in national ministeries.
Complain about this comment
The CAP certainly needs to be reformed - heavily. But as "farmer" says, they're necessary (in some form or other) in a world where the supermarkets have so much buying power - and force produce prices down regardless of farming costs, it seems.
I thought that New Zealand farmers were no longer subsidised. Am I right? But "supermarkets" in NZ are not as we know them in Europe - and I doubt they have as much buyer clout. NZ lamb in France (don't know about other EU countries) is all frozen - a different market from fresh meat.
The situation in France is interesting. You've reported only French farmers' points of view, Mark. In his pre-election rounds Sarkozy said that the CAP should be changed, and that farmers should be encouraged to become more self-dependent (ie not slavishly following subsidies). However, he has shown himself to be a protectionist....
Given, too, the debate about using crops for bio-fuels, I think we should wait and see, rather than leap to conclusions.
Complain about this comment
30. powermeerkat :
Cuisine (cooking style) is not the same as food (raw products). Sadly, in some parts of the world, the quality of foodstuffs and the hygiene of their handling isn't up to much.
"Best" doesn't mean "most affordable" or "most popular". Quality costs and most of us have to balance price against palatability.
Whether French wine producers are arrogant or not is another matter.
Complain about this comment
Gruenebaum1 @23 wrote:
"Europe has the best food in the world, the most beautiful cultivated landscapes and still a good deal of small family-owned farms..."
"England, to the contrary, is not known for a quality food culture, the landscape is the result of massive deforestation and early industrialisation and the landed gentry still dominates the scene."
Firstly food: There is no such thing as 'European food' (in the sense of cuisine). There is French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, etc. but not 'european'. As a general rule, the closer one is to the Mediterranean Sea, the better the cuisine; the more north one goes, the quality of cuisine diminishes (Belgium being an exception). An example: I like the Netherlands and Dutch very much, but their food is mostly like edam cheese. 'English cuisine' used to be a contradiction in terms. In the past 25 years, however, a gastronomic revolution has taken place (as even Anglophobes would have to concede). 'European food' as a concept is much like 'European music' - typified by the abysmal rubbish one can hear on the 'Eurovision Song Contest'. (Abba excepted, but that was 34 years ago....).
Landscape: Most European countries have some lovely landscapes (and some dire industrial blight). England's landscape has benefitted primarily from not being a battle-field for the past 400 years. Something that is not true for almost any other EU country.
I am fortunate to live near the Cotswolds - an area of outstanding natural and man-made beauty (one would have to be a total chauvinist - or rabid anglophobe - to deny this). England is blessed with many wonderful areas of comparable beauty - all a result of careful and continuous stewardship over centuries.
You know Gruenebaum1, I think that the difference between you and I is that while I detest the EU, I love Europe and it's peoples, countries and cultures. You, on the other hand, seem to have a fanatical love of the EU - and a visceral hatred for England and the English. I wonder why?
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic, if your last comments were to hold any truths, I would say that Grunenbaum were simply reacting to the all-too often heard germanophobe rantings about the EU or Europe in a caustic way ...
Apart from that, I would disagree about english cuisine. There aren't really such thing, but there has been a cosmopolitan blending of tastes in UK cities (most notably London-area). If you get rid of pies and stews, that doesn't leave much room for traditionnal "english cuisine", no offense intended.
From a non-european or non-western point of view, what we (as europeans) describes as national cuisines could very easily be amalgamed as regional western/european cuisines ...
But regarding natural or man-made landscape sceneries, the UK in general, and England in particular, sure got its lot of natural beauties. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck11 @38,
There is more to Modern English (British?) cooking than pies and stews. (or should I say 'There is more to English cooking than curry' ;-)
Good gastro pubs deep in the countryside provide excellent meals made with local ingredients. Last Saturday night we enjoyed a superb meal excellent English beef, duck and pork dishes with seasonal vegetables [asparagus], local breads and brews (the wine though, was Argentinian). I'd be delighted to make some recommendations (they're real modern these rustics - they have good websites too!)
Viewing national/local european cooking in total as a 'regional' cuisine would be as mistaken - and a much a display of ignorance - as western people make when they say 'chinese food' or 'asian' food.
Your comment about Gruenebaum1 reminds me of the immortal words of Basil Fawlty: "You started it!" (the famous episode in which he reminds everyone: "Don't mention the war!"). Personally I doubt whether Gruenebaum1 is German. I get on well with Germans and admire their directness - among other excellent qualities.
Complain about this comment
Oh and Starbuck11 - I should have mentioned that my original comment about Gruenebaum1 is based on observation of many of his previous statements on this blog over the past few weeks/months.
Complain about this comment
Re"you started it"/ "Don't mention the war" (39)
Read and enjoy!
AP-Berlin
German neo-Nazis used a service offered by Deutsche Post to create a 55-cent stamp carrying a portrait of Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess, the company said Wednesday.
[...]
The latest newsletter of the far-right National Democratic Party gloated about being able to slip the stamp past Deutsche Post's quality control personnel.
"The Hess stamp is out there," wrote Hannes Natter in the May edition of Deutsche Stimme, or German Voice.
Complain about this comment
Re"you started it"/ "Don't mention the war" (#39)
Read and enjoy!
AP-Berlin
German neo-Nazis used a service offered by Deutsche Post to create a 55-cent stamp carrying a portrait of Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess, the company said Wednesday.
[...]
The latest newsletter of the far-right National Democratic Party gloated about being able to slip the stamp past Deutsche Post's quality control personnel.
"The Hess stamp is out there," wrote Hannes Natter in the May edition of Deutsche Stimme, or German Voice.
Complain about this comment
oki ScepticMax, I'm not talking about restaurant menus, but about week-end cooked meals (for active households) or traditional dishes.
For having spent 2 years in Cambridge, I know there is good food in England. But I'm talking cuisine.
Going out to restaurants only means you have access to imported cuisine : that's why I'm so hesitant to call all the currys "british", no matter how popular they are, unless they have been made with specific, unique "english", "welch" or "scottish" recipes.
In any case, hearing you talk about how you enjoyed your meal, sure got me salivating :)
Btw, seasoned food is generally the best to make a very succesful dish, no matter how simple it is ...
Complain about this comment
"Best" doesn't mean "most affordable" or "most popular". Quality costs and most of us have to balance price against palatability. [#36]
You're absolutely right. But that leads to a question: why so many foodstufs cost so much more in EU than outside it?
Could it by any chance have something to do not only with CAP but with EU protectionism generally?
As for reactions of French farmers/vintners I have no idea what's going on in France. My written inquires never got there because French postal workers have been on strike; I tried to get there, but I was told it was impossible since French railway workers were on strike; I tried to educate myself about the situation in different ways, but I was told that French teachers have been on strike as well.
Something's very fishy and stinks there even worse than that trash in Naples. Could it be a result of the latest fishermen strike?
Perhaps Mark would dare to stick his investigative nose there and find out?
Complain about this comment
To Gruenebaum1 re #23
1. "England, to the contrary, is not known for a quality food culture"
I don't know where you come from but I've found that what we know as traditional English food is very similar to that in many other EU countries sharing the same line of latitudes as England. The only differences have more to do with the local herbs, spices and vegetables that are available. eg Beef stew, Carbonade de boeuf, Goulash are basically very much the same and all delicious and well cooked. So bear in mind that when you criticise English cooking you are criticising that of other countries as well.
2. "The British contribution to the European agri-"culture" has mainly been food scares and avoidable animal diseases. So, tone down!"
Funny, having lived in Belgium for many years I can recall many scares here, including highly toxic Dioxin in Flemish produced Chickens, miraculously solved in six weeks, and which is still remembered 10 years on causing supermarket chicken to still not be trusted here by many. France has had a succession of Salmonella problems, Germany had anti-freeze in it's wine some years back, foot and mouth everywhere etc etc. The point being that if you think your country does not have these sort of problems as well you are being very naive, the one thing that is noticeable about most EU countries is that the media is very much state controlled and problems get hushed up and buried, luckily for England it has been hard to keep anything quiet and politicians can't bury anything easily which is why you hear of heath scares far more and why the problems are mostly corrected rather than just hushed up.
Complain about this comment
RCalvo @ 34 wrote: "WTO has 625 people, but is it a free trade association?"
Clearly not. But is it not one of those central authorities to enforce common trade rules impartially that you were talking about? And on a global, rather than merely the EU's demi-European, scale.
- wrote : "The fact is, you can have nominally free trade, and yet plenty of barriers through national regulation".
Also true. And far from entirely unknown in the EU either. For example, how possible is it for British energy companies to buy their European counterparts ... still? Or the Royal Mail to take stakes in European postal services markets? Long after we opened our markets.
Some have suggested that the WTO as an authority might well be a better ajudicator to resolve such problems, given the EU's political aspects (the parts EU-critics actually object to the most) can interfere in simple, fair enforcement of trade rules.
- wrote: "actually grieve the loss of cozy national oligopolies and cartels and being exposed to more competition."
But in closing I welcomed free/fair trade. So you're on the wrong track as to my motivations there I'm afraid.
- wrote: "24,000 may sound like much when compared with the staffs of EFTA or the WTO, but it's much less than the numbers in national ministeries."
Talking of "old chestnuts". This is because the 24,000 in the Commission are policy-makers, and it's national ministries who do the day-to-day implementation and administration of those policies. You must know how the EU works, surely?
Their numbers have probably increased precisely *because* of the weight of EU legislation.
Complain about this comment
46. -StuartC- wrote:
"Talking of "old chestnuts". This is because the 24,000 in the Commission are policy-makers"
Um, no, actually. About one third are linguists (translators and interpreters together) and about one-third are support staff (secretaries, filing clerks, messengers, telephonists, etc)
From the remaining 8, 000 you can take out probably a couple of hundred involved in internal administration of salaries, pensions, medical bills (excluded from the local NHS equivalent), leave, etc., IT, building management and publications.
Divide the rest up between external affairs, foreign aid, competition, food safety, consumer protection, agriculture, fisheries, transport, energy, etc., and it's really not so many "policy-makers" per field.
Complain about this comment
to #44, it's a common mistakes to assume France as a land of strikers, except that they know how to grab attentions.
The latest headlines on the BBC website can testify to it.
Yet according to the OIT, the average working hours lost to strikes since 2000 in UK and France, is respectively 14 for 1000 employees and 12 for 1000 employees.
Based on the ONS, UK lost and average 666k hours between 2000 and 2006, while France lost an average 628k (and this despite massive political movements)
Finally, last time I checked Britons were more than willing to come to the continent to do shopping, coz it was cheaper.
And if food products outside the EU cost lost, it might maybe, just maybe, be because the labour wages are ridiculously low, not because of CAP.
by the same token, you might say that UK service industries are way too expensive because Indians can do the same at far less ... are you going to blame the sterling for that ?
Complain about this comment
Mark, Your comment about 'reversing into the sheep' made me, as a Welshman, laugh out loud !! The lengths you go to, to make the vagaries and idiosyncrasies of the EU come to life...
The CAP is a tricky thing - it has helped in the past to ensure that farming isn't just taken over by 'Agribusiness', and the countryside isn't just turned into American style plains, with the possibility that it will mutate into 'dust bowls'.
But there needs to be a better way, and I'm not sure that British 'New Labour' thinking is the way to go - they know little and care less about the countryside and the environment.
We need to start weaning countries off their addiction to subsidy funding - the hike in prices of wheat and fuel mean that cutting costs and making efficiencies is essential.
We simply cannot go on bankrolling French farmers while British farmers are producing crops which sell 'below-cost'. What is really stupid is that we, as citizens, don't have a vote for any of this - do you think if the CAP depended on people voting in favour of it, it wouldn't have been canned years ago ??
Please can someone explain to me how this 'democratic deficit' is in any way justifiable ?
Complain about this comment
#49, the EU has nothing to do if British farmers sell below cost to UK supermarket chains. On the other hand, that's something that the British government should investigate ... in that case, it actually means the CAP is helping British consumers to keep enjoying a "cheap food" policy, by making for the shortfall in the farmer's revenues.
And here again, the problem might come from this expectation in the British public mind that food should be "cheap" and "abundant", even though as a national policy, they clearly decided to get rid of farming.
So why don't you push for your government to act and explain itself on this. Blaming the EU or the CAP for that situation is just shifting responsibilities and an excuse for inaction ...
or is it that the UK is not such a "perfect" democracy that its government will always listen to the people's concerns ?
Complain about this comment
Mark:
CAP is a nice way to make a living....
Complain about this comment
Re post 48 I think the reason why Britons think the French strike more is that whenever they do their first and primary action seems to be to blockade the channel ports. This happens whether it is farmers, fisherman and others. This is contrary to freedom of movement for people, goods and services as well as other offences under French law.
What do they French police do nothing, except to arrest British people trying to get through the piket lines. This is a disgraceful set of afairs which should not be allowed to continue infinitum. Why is it that many French institutions do not want to play by the rules except when it helps them
Why is it contrary to the freedom of movement of people under Article 48, to deport an Italian national to Italy, after serving a sentence of rape in the U.K. But ok and apparently not an infringement under Article 48 to stop hundreds of thousands travelling between the U.K. and France on a regular basis
Complain about this comment
Re #52...
The questions you ask are obviously rethorical ones. ;-)
And now let's all celebrate 40th anniversary of 1968 protests by "progressive, antiimperialist forces of change".
WORKERS OF THE WHOLE WORLD - UNITE!
LONG LIVE MOTHERLAND OF THE WORLD PROLETARIAT!
Complain about this comment
to #52,
I don't know which cases you are refering to, but I can only assume the police wanted to prevent the demonstrations from escalating and asked non-striking people caught in-between to be patient.
the same way, I don't know if you were a lorry driver or a tourist at the time, but a convict cannot be deported to another country unless a judicial process takes place.
It has nothing to do with "freedom of movement". you could still use another road to reach your destination if you hadn't been blocked ...
Complain about this comment
From today's FT edition :
"India will increase spending on a populist debt relief plan for farmers by nearly 20 per cent, adding to growing fiscal pressure as global prices of oil and commodities soar.
Palaniappan Chidambaram, India?s finance minister, on Friday said the government would spend nearly $18bn (?11.4bn, £9,1bn) to write off bad loans by farmers, in a significant rise from the original $15bn package unveiled in February.
Expanding the rural debt waiver is a further strain on the fiscal deficit as India weathers a perfect storm of pressures: rising energy costs and surging inflation."
Who said the EU was the only one to subsidize its farming communities ?
Complain about this comment
Re post 54, this week has seen the latest of a large and frequent number of blockages of the channel ports - see below
"LA ROCHELLE, France (AFP) - French fishermen angry at high fuel costs kept up a week-long blockade of Atlantic ports Saturday, as striking workers paralysed two other major ports in protest at privatisation plans.
As the fishermen's protest spread to several new harbours on the west coast, a two-day strike by maintenance staff ground the Channel port of Le Havre and Nantes-Saint-Nazaire on the Atlantic to a halt."
You say people should be patient, I can understand it would take a few hours to sort out sufficient resources to break the blockade, but a week would stretch the patience of any one. What they are doing is illegal, both in maritime law and E.U.
Can't help thinking if British truckers blockaded the Parliament in Strasbourg it would take a little less than a week to stop it.
If this was a one off, we could perhap be more understanding, but it happens regularly and regularly the French Police stand back and let it happen.
Re using another road to get to your destination it may have escaped your notice that you can't get between England and France by road.
Complain about this comment
Hi jordanbasset, there are several ferries routes in addition to the Channel Tunnel.
Striking is a constitutional right in France and you won't see anybody there condemning it.
However, "préfets" have the authority to force strikers to stop it, if they deem it unduly disruptive of public life or national security (hence refusal to allow blockades of oil depots for example)
If the préfet for the region of Normandy did leave the fishermen keep their blockade of the port, then it was after discussion with both the mayor of Cherbourg and representatives of the fishermen, and made the estimation that the disruption were not severe enough to warrant a worsening of the striker's attitude.
The same way British law is no law in France, neither is French law in the UK.
If British truckers had notified the préfet of Lorraine and the mayor of Strasbourg that they would be planning a strike/demonstration in front the European Parliament, once accepted, the strike would have been both legal and protected by the authorities.
no matter how much disgruntled passer-by would be ...
And for the record, it might "strike" British sensibility, but this is neither frequent nor large.
I wouldn't be surprised to find the staff striking in Le Havre to do so at the behest of a Union, in "support" of a general syndicalist movement : last week saw demonstrations throughout France as part of muscle-flexing between Unions and the government.
Complain about this comment
Where can you flag errors in BBC articles, so it can be corrected ?
here is this one found on an article about the future of the EU farming policy
"It is part of the long-term fluctuation in CAP policy. The CAP was invented before the War in response to concerns that the growing world population might go hungry."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7409273.stm
which War is meant ? the CAP was created following the ratification of the treaty of Rome (1957) and it never was in response to world population growth.
Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome set out the objectives of the CAP for its 6 founding members as follows:
- to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilization of the factors of production, in particular labour
- thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;
- to stabilize markets
- to assure the availability of supplies
- to ensure supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices
Complain about this comment
Re post 57, see below
Britons rammed in harbour seige: Terror of sailors as they try to flee blockade
By Peter Allen
Last updated at 1:05 AM on 26th May 2008
A British yacht was rammed and its crew threatened as they tried to break out of an illegal blockade organised by militant French fishermen.
Around 30 boats carrying 60 holidaymakers, many of them elderly, have been imprisoned in Cherbourg marina for a week as part of a nationwide protest against fuel prices.
But at 7pm last night, as the fishermen allowed a French craft into the harbour, one yacht, the Sabriel, attempted to make a dash for freedom.
British yacht was rammed and its crew threatened as they tried to break out of an illegal blockade organised by militant French fishermen.
Around 30 boats carrying 60 holidaymakers, many of them elderly, have been imprisoned in Cherbourg marina for a week as part of a nationwide protest against fuel prices.
But at 7pm last night, as the fishermen allowed a French craft into the harbour, one yacht, the Sabriel, attempted to make a dash for freedom.
Hugh Duncan, a 48-year-old yachtsman from Lyme Regis in Dorset, said: ?The yacht crew did their best to get out but two fishing boats went straight for them.
?They rammed into the yacht and then dragged a line under-neath its propeller - an incredibly dangerous thing to do.
?In the end the harbour master came out to intervene and the Sabriel was forced back into the marina.?
Another witness, Michael Case, 59, said: ?The way things are going it?s going to turn into the Battle of Trafalgar. We are desperate to get out and will stop at nothing to do so.
?I can see a mass breakout being organised very soon.?
Despite reassurances by Cherbourg?s harbour master that the attack was ?being investigated thoroughly?, other sailors claimed they had been threatened with flares and bottles during two escape attempts.
The first, by a diving boat skippered by Steve Johnson, was successful, despite the vessel being chased and bombarded with glass bottles.
?The Dunkirk spirit just caught on and we went for it,? said 43-year-old Mr Johnson.
A second attempt was thwarted after a boat caught fire when flares were thrown at it.
The fire was quickly extinguished, and no-one was injured.
But for those still trapped, grim weather conditions over the past few days, including steady rain and winds, have made their ordeal even worse.
Many holidaymakers claim the French authorities have done little to lift the blockade, which has been in place since last Monday.
?The situation is extremely intimidating, and most of us are too scared to try and leave,? said Nick Stevens, 48, from Southampton.
?Some have had enough and are taking extremely long and expensive rail journeys back to Britain. But some of us have to look after the yachts.
?The French authorities don?t seem to care this industrial action is being carried out illegally - this is the worst part of it all.?
Lawrence Crapper, a member of the Christchurch Yacht Club, near Bournemouth, said: ?We?ve been here for days.
?The French are showing no sign of letting us out, so we just have to try and cope as best we can.?
Starbuck please do not try and justify this action, it is wrong and illegal under E.U. law which does have precedence over member state law(rightly or wrongly)and does happen frequently, targetting British people in particular.
Complain about this comment
I'm not trying to justify whether the fishermen are right or wrong, only to explain why the authorities seemingly have not taken any actions against.
Sadly, french unions believe they need to make a show of force before negotiations can start. That's not something you would see in Britain due to another history of industrial actions. But that's how it is there ...
And farmers/fishermen/hunters are usually a rather desperate bunch of people (they are drowning under industrial debts) when they come to striking, often resulting in violence.
btw, I don't know which activist newspaper you took your info from, but words like "dunkirk", "trafalgar", "harbour siege", "terror of sailor", "rammed", "blockade", "dash for freedom" sure are meant to be as lively as possible ... and antagonist.
Next time a frenchman hits the face of an englishman somewhere in the world, it would be the beginning of a 100-Year war I guess.
As per whether this an illegal action or not, only the courts can decide. Anyone can bring it under French Law ... until then, you can't prejudge under its legality.
Complain about this comment
Starbuck, hi, the activist newsapaper you referred to was the Daily Mail, not my first choice of newspaper but one that does have a major circulation.
Re the legality, members of the E.U. have a duty under article 48 to allow free movement of goods, people and services across the the European Union. This is not something which is discretionary but a positive duty for countries to ensure. There have been many cases in British courts where the supremacy of E.U. law in this area was upheld. One of the most well known cases was "Factortame", which involved the British Government trying to restrict the right of spanish fishermen to fish in U.K. waters. It was found that E.U. law had supremacy and compensation was paid to the Spanish and restrictions removed.
You can argue it is for individual to take member countries to court to enforce this right. However as a good and constructive member of the E.U. I would have hoped France would take the lead in this and demonstrate it's European credentials.
It does appear that the U.K. is constantly castigated for slowing down the E.U. and generally being a spoiler. But time and time again it is the French who ignore E.U. treaties and directives. The French who voted no to the constitution. The French who would not allow citizens from the newly admiited Eastern European countries into their country. It is the French who block reform of the riddiculous C.A.P. The French who will not stop the farce of two parliaments and the travelling between them, despite the cost to the E.U. and the environment
I am not anti French, as people I like them. I suppose I also have a grudging respect for their Government who will always put their people first, second and third before the good of the E.U. My point is do not throw stones at the British for trying to do similar things, but unfortunately in a far less succesful way
Complain about this comment
Can't argue with you that France is very often foot-dragging when implementing EU directives that they deem "socially disruptive" (aka taking on corporatist interests) ...
about your other points :
- France is not the only country to limit labor movement from Eastern Europe countries, basically that's all northern and western europe. Even the UK has restricted romanians and bulgarians.
- France took the position of defending the CAP. Except for the UK (and it has more to do for political rather than budgetary reasons), no other EU countries want to get rid of it.
- There is only one EU parliament and it is in Strasbourg. However MEP also have offices in Brussel and so is the Commission, therefore the commuting. It is certainly a waste of energy and ressources on EU taxpayers, but it's still a small sum (btw, the city of Strasbourg sure has a lot to learn from it).
You would also have huge sums being spent on translators and official documents to accomodate every languages spoken in the EU. that might look like a waste, but it consider it as necessary as well.
it's one of the administrative costs implied by sharing sovereignty.
- I don't think you are anti-french or whatever, and I certainly don't like wastes either. Quite the opposite, my job is about costs management and work efficiency.
I guess that when it comes to the EU, I'm just more interested in the additional benefits resulting from political compromises rather than headlong ideological confrontation.
After all, it's wrong to assume it being run like a corporation or democratic like a government. It's an organization sharing a bit of all in order to make progress on shared community
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
Hi Starbuck, think we will have to agree to disagree but good talking to you as you do give considered and thoughtful responses- best wishes
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax: "CAP is an example of all that is fundamentally wrong in the EU as it is currently structured."
"If CAP is abolished, then the EU will have demonstrated that it is capable of reform and has a future as a modern inter-governmental body, not a collectivist, federalist, nascent super-state"
And your post (ScepticMax) is an example of an utterly illogical approach to the entire "European" issue.
The CAP persists precisely because the EU remains an essentially intergovernmental construct. Democratise the EU's institutions along pan-European lines and inherently archaic and anachronistic policy features, such as the CAP, will eventually disappear.
To demostrate your illogical approach, no doubt you have berated the EU's unwarranted interference in the postal market - i.e. market liberalisation, but in the same breath you now encourage attempts to liberalise markets for agricultural products
You cannot have it both ways?
Complain about this comment
Re #59
I'm pleased that Italian, Spanish and Portugues fishermen have decided to join their French buddies.
It means a badly needed respite for overfished seas and more frutti di mare for the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
Even more pleased to see Belgian fishermen demonstrating solidarity with their
Italian, Spanish and Portuguese collegues.
There's only one thing I don't understand:
If all countries pay the same price for a barrel of oil (currently @ ca $130 p/b) how come that petrol and diesel fuel in EU costs twice as much as in the US?
Complain about this comment
#66,
Easy one that powermeerkat, it's a nice little earner for all the useless Finance Ministers that abound in the EU. If they weren't so incompetent or self centered then maybe we would have the similar price. When that's compounded with the VAT/TVA which is EU destined, they're both stitching the peasants for as much as they can and ignoring the misery they create, but do I see a glimmer of the sun below the horizon with these strikes.
Complain about this comment
Now, 'bout a solidarity of milk producers in EU... :-)
Complain about this comment
Not happy though about solidarity amonf of EU trackers.
Spaniards slicing hydrolic systems in their Portuguese collegues' lorries?
Don't they all feel 'Europeans' first and foremost?
Complain about this comment
Mark:
the cap could be reformed without much
trouble if people are willing to make concessions...
^Dennis Junior^
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS