The European Union: in or out?

EU: in, out or undecided

  • Total voters
    64
In the case of farmers I don't think I'd use that expression, they don't have one of the highest suicide rates for nothing. The snowball effect of "giving them a fair crack" might be quite scary enough. Can you imagine the plight of the many if food prices reflected fair prices?
 
Count of Undolpho said:
In the case of farmers I don't think I'd use that expression, they don't have one of the highest suicide rates for nothing. The snowball effect of "giving them a fair crack" might be quite scary enough. Can you imagine the plight of the many if food prices reflected fair prices?
Click to expand...

I didn't elucidate overly in my original posts for reasons of brevity, but to respond. The subsidy regime has turned the EU's farmers (with the exception of some poultry which isn't directly subsidised and there may be the odd other minor unsubsidised activity I'm not aware of) into subsidy farmers 1st and farmers of whatever their crop is (be that plant or animal) 2nd. That's a big problem, a situation many farmers aren't happy with to be fair, but they have no choice but to play the system (that's what I was getting at with the snouts in trough expression, it wasn't intended pejoratively). Farming incomes and end prices for consumers are key considerations for the market reform I mention as an essential precursor (or broadly contemporaneous activity) of wholesale CAP reform. Assuming large-scale subsidy removal inevitably means higher prices for end consumers is simplistic. At the moment we pay twice, through our taxes and at the till, well you wouldn't be paying through your taxes anymore. Secondly, sensible market reform would also be designed to dampen inflationary effects on prices at the till. At the moment the market allows the most powerful players, like the supermarkets and Big Food, to take more than their fair share of the profit available between producer and end-customer. Effective market reform would focus on a fairer distribution of that profit along the chain from producer to consumer. That would be supported by farmers. All doable with the necessary political will, and, as with so many things in this crazy world, therein lies the main stumbling block.

Anyway, this has taken us somewhat to the side of the main topic so I'll shut up about it for now.
 
Shevecrat #100 - I agree with what you're saying but there's another element - the inbuilt inefficiency of certain countries farming methods. Taking France as probably the best example, their inheritence laws means that land gets split between siblings rather than kept intact - leading to smaller operations which, inevitably are less efficient. Add to this the cost of subsidising over-production (the infamous wine lake and butter mountain of years ago) and you have a situation where one nation is being susbsidised by the rest. Whether you see this as fair or unfair, depends on your standing regarding the EU as a whole, I suppose.
 
@shavecraft Perfectly explained and duly noted.
I think you might find we would still pay the tax wherever it ended up. The market reform would have to take on the whole system rather than just the food industry and somehow I don't think Laissez Faire Capitalism is the answer.
 
UKRob said:
Shevecrat #100 - I agree with what you're saying but there's another element - the inbuilt inefficiency of certain countries farming methods. Taking France as probably the best example, their inheritence laws means that land gets split between siblings rather than kept intact - leading to smaller operations which, inevitably are less efficient. Add to this the cost of subsidising over-production (the infamous wine lake and butter mountain of years ago) and you have a situation where one nation is being susbsidised by the rest. Whether you see this as fair or unfair, depends on your standing regarding the EU as a whole, I suppose.
Click to expand...

I agree Rob, and don't see it as fair at all. Radical CAP reform would give the EU's farmers no choice but to shape up or ship out, same as any other business person. That's how it should be. Where national policy, like inheritance laws or whatever, is a problem there'll be pressure to change or otherwise put up with the consequences. I believe this aspect of French inheritance laws has its roots in the Revolution so is perhaps trickier for them but the point still stands. Perhaps the solution is a level of devolution over the matter that would allow countries who want to continue subsidising agriculture as they presently do to do so but from their own national budgets rather than the EU pot so that if they want that they have to accept they'll have to pay for it fully.

Certainly the sort of EU we in Britain might prefer is inevitably going to lead to a lot of dust ups and need clever diplomacy in the corridors of power in Brussels. We have to hope whoever is representing us in Brussels is up to the job :huh:

I acknowledge all of these problems with the EU as its presently constructed, but am still for staying in all in all. I hope those who would like us to leave have similarly considered the positives of EU membership in reaching their position.

Count of Undolpho said:
@shavecraft Perfectly explained and duly noted.
I think you might find we would still pay the tax wherever it ended up. The market reform would have to take on the whole system rather than just the food industry and somehow I don't think Laissez Faire Capitalism is the answer.
Click to expand...

You're probably right on the tax, hey that's politician's for you. They'd need to be pressured to hand savings back to the taxpayer, but that's done at a national level and is part of the usual cut and thrust of political debate. Certainly not a reason not to deal with this matter in my book. I'm not talking about being laissez faire, to be clear, I'm talking about reforming the market so that it works better in the broadest sense. No such thing as a free market. Markets are designed, whether deliberately or by omission. What matters is who it's designed to benefit, the few or the many, does it operate fairly or unfairly. The madness of CAP is both a cause and effect of a market that's utterly dysfunctional unless you're 1 of the most powerful players sat in a juicy dominant "rent extracting" position. I think you'd have to deal specifically with the sector for reasons of manageability, but yeh, totally agree the same sort of issues exist across the economy, financial sector being a bit of a biggie! Now, that's really opening out the discussion to WAY off topic!
 
Spent a (little) while trying to get a grip on the whole CAP thing and the best primer I found was BBC News CAP Q&A (2013)
The more I've looked into it the harder it looks to reform it. The pigs in the trough are definitely in there - I now see what you meant shavecraft - specific pigs rather than general ones.

As to an EU that we in Britain would prefer - I think that would probably end up like the United Kingdom London prefers.
 
Count of Undolpho said:
The more I've looked into it the harder it looks to reform it. The pigs in the trough are definitely in there - I now see what you meant shavecraft - specific pigs rather than general ones.
Click to expand...
Not trying to distort your words by deleting the rest of your post - but that's exactly what I was trying to get at when I say the threat of a uk withdrawal is the only way to achieve significant change.
 
Count of Undolpho said:
Spent a (little) while trying to get a grip on the whole CAP thing and the best primer I found was BBC News CAP Q&A (2013)
The more I've looked into it the harder it looks to reform it. The pigs in the trough are definitely in there - I now see what you meant shavecraft - specific pigs rather than general ones.

As to an EU that we in Britain would prefer - I think that would probably end up like the United Kingdom London prefers.
Click to expand...

Hmmm Count, from the look of your comments on this thread I'm surmising that (if you stated it explicitly I missed it), like me, your an Inny rather than out Outy. Given that "it's too difficult to reform the nonsense" is one of the main arguments advanced by Outies it seems to me that if you want to stay In one has to have some optimism that there is some realistic possibility of achieving reforms. This, after all, is the PM's position. If that can't be convincingly argued then there's every chance Innies will find themselves on on the losing side of the argument as and when there's a referendum on continuing membership. Same argument applies to your last point, though obviously whatever reforms HMG might press for will vary depending on which party is in office.
 
@UKRob I think the threat of us leaving to force through reforms might not be enough, they might just say "see you" and watch what happens next.
@shavecraft I am an Inny though more on a better the devil you know front.

Speaking of which I'm of the opinion that we have built the EU up into such a bugbear that we, as a nation, can no longer look at it objectively and so cannot accurately judge its merits and drawbacks. I've mentioned the EU blog a couple of times and quoted it, if you are interested this debate it's worth doing some research there. If there are so many terrible things about the EU to comment on why do people make so many things up? No CAP but jam and flags and such.

Cameron isn't a Eurosceptic, he's a politician, he's just making noise for the defectors to UKIP- it's always been an easy Tory vote winner.
 
@Count. You may have a better the devil you know view, which is all well and good on an individual level. I don't, however, think that's a helpful position as and when it comes to winning a referendum. The status quo has resulted in the present position of a substantial section of the population being disillusioned with or actively hostile to EU membership. This, after all, is the grist to the UKIP, and wider withdrawal, argument. If I were a leader in the In campaign in any such referendum I'd much prefer to fight it on the basis of a clear agenda to reform the rubbish (whatever that is defined to be, the serious stuff not the flimflam) alongside espousing the positives, rather than a position of espousing the positives but having nothing worthwhile to say on reform.
 
The status quo hasn't resulted in the disillusionment - the anti EU propaganda regime has (coupled with the natural isolationism of an island people and resentment at the perceived loss of global significance perhaps). Most peoples' problem with the EU isn't based on facts but on emotive headlines, most of which are based on misinformation. How are we going to fight that in a referendum?

Better the devil I know doesn't imply inaction to me. The EU is already reforming - not always in the directions I want and not quickly enough for me but it's happening. I would rather remain in it and try to bring about change through the 'democratic' process in place than through political grandstanding.
I'm sorry I expressed my views so badly before and hope I have at least slightly cleared up my position.

I actually prefer the idea of a Pan European Empire ruled by a benign dictator but have been unable to work out a practical way of guaranteeing benignity.
 
Put Vinny in charge for ensured benignity! :angel:

I agree the Eurosceptic press has a lot to answer for when it comes to peddling bullshit (and agree it's a big problem when it comes to conducting a fair referendum - I'm not pro referendum btw), stand offishness of an island people and the like. But I'm of the view there's more to it than that, including some wholly justifiable gripes.
 
The poll shows us to be about equally divided. I wonder how many of us will be voting tomorrow. Since the EU will be with us for the foreseeable future, are our UK interests best served by voting for a party that wants us in or out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom