Common Agriculture Policy (not such a bad thing afterall)

J

joe sod

Registered User
Messages
2,364
For years the CAP has been heavily criticised by all sides as subsidising inefficiency and over producing food, now it seems the tables have turned and the primary and most important reason it was set up was to guarantee food security for europe in the light of the devastation and inability to import food during the second world war. Because of it europes agricultural production is alot higher than it would be without it, also world food prices are alot lower than they would be without it because of subsidised production, it looks like mandelson will have to backtrack on opening up europe to free trade on food, because it is much too important and is not the same as cheap imported toys, ellectronics or cloths, what was true after the second world war is still as true today
 

It's hard to know where to begin refuting such a rubbish statement. I'll try nevertheless.

If EU protectionism results in lower world food prices, then why do third world countries so bitterly oppose them? If free trade is likely to increase food prices, then why are EU farmers lobbying against its introduction?
 

As I understand it, it's because the farmers won't be able to sell their produce, and will be driven out of business.

At the moment, the subsidies allow them to continue farming, producing food that is affordable. When they go, the cost of food production in Europe will make farming unviable. The European farmer will be competing with one who doesn't have to factor in a cost for enviornmental, animal welfare, employment, and health & safety regulations.

Anyway it looks like nobody will be producing food in the future. Land that previously grew crops for food is now growing crops for bio-fuels as this is more profitable, and has led to a world shortage of grain. Apparently this is one reason for the increase in food prices.

Europe was on the brink of famine after WW2, we may be on the brink of another. If all the farmers start growing crops for fuel, methinks they will need some incentive to go back to producing food. Subsidies maybe?????
 
CAP is a disgrace. It keeps the third world poor and has driven up food prices for EU consumers. There are millions of farmers in the third world who would love the opportunity to increase their food production capabilities and sell to the EU. Instead we have a bunch of charity case farmers who receive 85% of their income from the State. There needs to be globalisation of food markets.

The argument that food from third world countries wouldnt be as safe as EU food is a red herring. Any non-EU farmers who want to sell food to the EU will quickly impliment any EU standards as to do so would be very lucrative for them in the long run. We saw this recently with the Brazil beef fiasco. EU banned the beef because the farmers didnt meet EU requirements. Within weeks, these very same farmers put in place whatever was necessary to meet the requirements - much to the dissappointment of Irish farmers who were using this as an excuse to get them banned.
 

This is totally incorrect. The EU ban on Brazilian beef was suspended for a short period pending some legal wrangling between Brazil and the EU, but the ban was reimposed some time ago by the EU. It remains in place, and appears likely to do so for the foreseeable future, as the Brazilians could not comply with EU food safety and animal welfare requirements.
 


[broken link removed]

I think you're out of date - see linked article. The ban was impossed on February 1st this year, but by the end of the month 106 Brazilian farms had began exporting to EU again after complying with EU standards.
 
This means nothing.

The partial lifting of the import ban applies to only 106 Brazilian farms. Even allowing for the industrialised nature of Brazilian farming, this can only represent a tiny drop in the ocean when considered in the context of the overall beef consumption in the EU population of 490 million people - proportionately the same as 1 Brazilian farm being allowed to export to Ireland's 5 million-odd people.
 
106 farms complying less than 1 month after they were told they have to comply. Expect this number to rise exponentially as other Brazilian farmers want to get in on the act. The important thing is that the precedent has been set - farmers outside the EU who comply with EU requirements can sell to the EU.
 
csirl said:
106 farms complying less than 1 month after they were told they have to comply. Expect this number to rise exponentially as other Brazilian farmers want to get in on the act.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. It will still take a long, long time for the levels of Brazilian beef imports to Ireland to return to the levels they were at a year or two ago. The Irish agricultural sector isn't too worried at the moment about this prospect as their business is booming.

csirl said:
The important thing is that the precedent has been set - farmers outside the EU who comply with EU requirements can sell to the EU.
Click to expand...

...but subject to the normal international trade & tariff agreements.
 
ubiquitous said:
...but subject to the normal international trade & tariff agreements.
Click to expand...

I think this is partly the problem. Thanks to CAP and the general power of the European farming lobby, international trade/tariff agreements in which the EU participates are heavily skewed in favour of the European food-production sector. However, we are not alone in this - the US also heavily subsidises agriculture.

At least with thinks like REPS the EU recognises that farmers can play a role in protecting/enhancing the environment, rather than simply subsidising food mega-factories as in the US.
 
Bluebells said:
As I understand it, it's because the farmers won't be able to sell their produce, and will be driven out of business.
Click to expand...

If they cannot produce and sell food profitably at a price the consumer is willing to pay then they shouldn't be in business.


Affordable with subsidies is something of an oxymoron. The subsidies simply mean consumers are not given a choice about paying for a portion of the farmer's costs as it is paid from the consumer's taxes. If the issue is environmental/animal welfare/safety concerns then the EU can simply ban any produce (EU or non-EU) that does not comply with regulations. That one of the main beneficies of the CAP regime is the British royal family should tell you everything about how nonsensical it is.


Funnily enough it is only because of generous US taxpayer subsidies that corn-based biofuel is considered more profitable than corn-based food production.

Bluebells said:
Europe was on the brink of famine after WW2, we may be on the brink of another. If all the farmers start growing crops for fuel, methinks they will need some incentive to go back to producing food. Subsidies maybe?????
Click to expand...

Do the people of Ireland look like they are suffering from a "famine"? If the EU is worried about a shortage of food supply they should remove import tariffs not increase them. There are plenty of countries out there looking to sell us their produce. Let the farmers sell their corn to whoever they want and let the US taxpayer kowtow to the Archer Daniels Midland agri-conglomerate if they wish. There is no need for us to compound the folly by engaging in some kind of subsidy bidding war.
 
The CAP should be abolished. It has killed millions of people over the last 30 years and keeps millions more in poverty.
It is far worse than any single war (or war on terror) and shows the utter hypocrisy of those who bleat about American foreign policy and spout BS about globalisation while ignoring hoe EU policy causes far more suffering and anguish.

The CAP basically stops farmers in developing countries from selling their goods to the EU while we flood their economies with subsidised food and trap then in a cycle of poverty. The Americans have tried to get us to level the playing flied for years but we have refused. Even during famines in Africa in the 80's we refused to give them are mountains of surplus food, preferring to burn it or sell it to closed economies like the Soviet Union. Little has changes.

Up until the grants ran out it was cheaper to buy Irish sugar (produced at great expense from beets) in South Africa than it was to buy locally produced sugar. If anyone can put the case for how that is fair I'd love to hear it.

The phrase has been around for years, and the much maligned Bono has also been banging on about it but, "It's about trade, not aid". The next time some vacuous prattler starts going on about how much aid we give to the developing world please remind them that we are like cigarette companies giving tissues to smokers who are dying of lung cancer.
Ask the same fool about globalisation and they will tell you it's a bad thing ('cause look what it's done for Southeast Asia).
 

To be honest, that is outrageous and offensive. Subsidies exist because we cannot afford to, or choose not to spend any more than a small proportion of income on food. Likewise, farmers cannot produce food for free. It is ludicrous to assert that Europe, by protecting it's own food supply, is partaking in genocide. Africa has been destroyed by years of inept colonialisation, followed swiftly by corrupt leadership, civil war, and now and for the forseeable future - global warming. And because of that, you could also, I suppose, accuse anyone who leaves their computer on standby overnight of genocide, and demand that all computers be removed and scrapped. But that would be stupid.
 
Subsidies exist because we cannot afford to, or choose not to spend any more than a small proportion of income on food.
Click to expand...

That's not the whole picture though is it? There's cheap unsubsidised food out there, but we're precluded from buying it because of tariffs.

Likewise, farmers cannot produce food for free.
Click to expand...

Let them go out of business then and direct their efforts towards something that will make them money. Both countries would benefit in the long run. All protectionism does is get a politician votes.
 
Purple said:
It has killed millions of people over the last 30 years and keeps millions more in poverty.
Click to expand...
That's a ridiculous statement. While I agree CAP should be abolished making claims like that is just not help the cause. The EU population via their democratically elected government have decided (unwisely IMHO) that they want to subsidize their farmers with their tax euro. The fact that 3rd world countries are losing business as a result of that does not make the same EU electorate guilty of killing millions. (Are you guilty of killing 100's by not send all your disposable income to Africa? )
 
shanegl said:
(Likewise, farmers cannot produce food for free.)

Let them go out of business then and direct their efforts towards something that will make them money. Both countries would benefit in the long run. All protectionism does is get a politician votes.
Click to expand...

Another ridiculous statement. You would be one of the first to complain if fresh milk for example was no longer available and could only be purchased as a luxury by the very rich at a high multiple of the average price today, while the rest of us had to use frozen or powdered crap from the third world. Would you be happy feeding that stuff to your kids?

As argued on another thread...
 
We not only subsidise our farmers, we put up barriers to stop 3rd world countries exporting food to Europe. At the same time we use our muscle at the WTO to force developing countries to open their economy to out subsidised goods. It's a double whammy. Over the last 30 years, and certainly over the last 15, trade restrictions have had a much bigger impact than war on the developing world, and Africa in particular. To suggest that our trade practices do not cause massive suffering and death is outrageous and offensive to those people who campaign for change in the EU and those who feel the brunt in the developing world.
 
Look up the Oxfam site or Google “EU farm subsidies + dumping”. You could also have a look at some of the studies carried out in TCD on the subject. So, our policy of subsidies and trade barriers perpetuate a cycle of poverty and destroy local agrarian economies but it's not our fault? Is that what you are saying? Or do you think that protectionism coupled with below cost dumping of produce onto world markets has no effect on price (and the obvious knock-on impact on poor agrarian economies)?
Who's being ridiculous?
 
That's right because it's either leave it exactly the way it is or powdered milk
 

I have read some rediculous comments in my time on this and other forums but that has got to take the biscuit.
Headline "the Irish farmer has killed more in African than landmines, civil wars, etc"
Maybe Mugabe can blame the Irish farmer and CAP for the fact that his people are starving.
Hell it has nothing to do with fact he confiscated some of the most productive farmland in the world from real farmers to give to his non-farming supporters.

Oh and while you are bleating about US trying to get Europe to scrap CAP and level the playing field, they actually have offered incentives to their own farmers as well of course as having no problem with farmers feeding their livestock growth promoters.

shanegl said:
Let them go out of business then and direct their efforts towards something that will make them money. Both countries would benefit in the long run. All protectionism does is get a politician votes.
Click to expand...

Ah yes let them go out of business, but you and the others will be on here complaining when, as stated earlier, you cannot get fresh milk, beef is stopped because of outbreak of food in mouth in Argentina and the prices increase due to shipping costs increasing over oil shortage.

Let the farmers go out of business, let the CO-OPs lay off half their workers, let the meat factory half it's staff, but will you then be complaining that you have to pay more income tax becuase of all the extra seeking umemployment benefit?
Or may be they can all get jobs in the great mythical service knowledge economy.

If anything we should be promoting and supporting local agriculture or maybe you don't see a problem with importing beef from South America, lamb or butter from New Zealand ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register