The EU in crisis

[The PIT]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4102228.stm

Bit more background

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4096334.stm

Whats is the problem with the Budget QA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4078796.stm

As the EU gets bigger I can see these problems getting worse as each country has it's own agenda to work too. I still reckon the EU will eventually collaspe probably in my lifetime.

[Kurt]

I don't think the EU will collapse. I can see UK's point in not willing to spend more than all the other ones. They should review the way they calculate each country's share.

[Umfriend]

Yeah well, France may be getting more in Agirculture aid then the UK does, but the UK gets more per farmer, so what gives? I say this is just a tactic by the UK, who have never been a huge fan of EU.

I say the UK hands in 1 bln per annum and the EU gives us the 1.5 bln annual discount we should get and we're all done.

[Brian Ellis]

Don't think it will collapse. What it needs to do is:
a) be less dictatorial
b) force simultaneous referenda in all member states on major issues (including constitutional changes)
c) restrict ratification on non-referendum issues to parliament and NOT government, with no party lines
d) eliminate ALL subsidies to member states and to forbid member states to set up internal subsidies (subsidies are the plague of modern economics)
e) refuse the purchase, either by the EU or member states, of surplus farm produce. If farmers cannot sell what they produce, they are bad managers and deserve to fall by the wayside. Governments may be permitted to set quotas, but over- or under-production beyond a working tolerance of ±10% for individual farmers and ±5% for states should be sanctioned.
f) revise the constitution to be essentially stronger on free trade and weaker on politics and directive making.
g) halve the number of functionaries on the gravy-train
h) impose the euro on all member states, no exceptions
i) impose the same electrical and telephone sockets in all member states

[Kurt]

lol

i) not in MY lifetime!

[The PIT]

Yeah well, France may be getting more in Agirculture aid then the UK does, but the UK gets more per farmer, so what gives? I say this is just a tactic by the UK, who have never been a huge fan of EU.

Pretty sure France gets more per Farmer which is what our Farmers don't like. Britain will discuss the rebate if France discuss the Agriculture policy which they won't. So neither are talking.

However it seems unfair that some countries pay more than others. Some countries recieve more but payless. If you throw in the relative wealth it's get even more complex.

[Kurt]

It's because they way they calculate particiâtions is wrong. With the actual system Britain would end up paying way too much, hence they have that big rebate. They don't need to reopen the agricultural file IMO, but they should change the way they calculate things (anyway there's this agreement that they shouldnt' touch it before 2013).

[Brian Ellis]

They should most certainly reopen the agricultural file, scrap ALL agricultural subsidies, which are causing poverty, death and starvation in many parts of the world; scrap ALL payments for over-production, so that farmers produce ONLY what they know they can sell in a free market; scrap ALL imports of subsidised foreign food. Only THEN should the file be closed.

I used to be an industrialist. If I produced more gizmos than the market needed, would the government pay me for the surplus? Of course not! Then why should they pay the agricultural industrialist in subsidies to plant more grapes, tomatoes, butter, beef, sugar beet or corn than he can sell and then pay him a second time when the government/EU purchases what he cannot sell. This leads to deliberate overproduction because he often receives MORE than the free market price. Why should he be treated any different from any other industrialist? You may say that this will increase the cost-of-living. Not so! If no subsidies were paid, EU contributions would be halved and taxation of the ordinary man-in-the-street could be drastically reduced and tens of thousands of parasitic functionaries in Brussels and the member-states would not need to be paid, either. Also, in a free market agricultural economy, the laws of competition would apply, reducing overall prices. If one peasant was not able to compete in quality or price, then let him go out of business and his land taken over by someone who could use it more competitively or let him join a co-operative that would guide him into improving his produce. This interference, euphemistically called an agricultural policy, in market economy is what is killing Europe.

As for contributions, there should be a uniform per-capita GDP-weighted contribution throughout the EU. Overall payments out should be pro-rata to the difference between the member-states per capita GDP and the average, so the rich nations, down to the average ones, would not receive a penny back and only the poorer ones would receive benefits. Of course, foreign aid would need to be disbursed and I would suggest that a percentage of the revenue be placed in a disaster fund to help relieve damage caused by floods, earthquakes, forest fires etc. in the EU. This will be increasingly necessary as climate change kicks in.

[Nowhere]

lol

i) not in MY lifetime!

?

What's wrong with them in Belgium?

[Kurt]

Too many Poles in Belgium

@Brian: if they simply scrap the CAP, the EU will lose (at least) sugar, wheat and beef production. I'm not sure they're seen litterally as strategic, but the EU doesn't want to depend on imports.

[Nowhere]

No, no, I had the impressions that you're reffering directly to "i)" point of Brian. You weren't?

[Brian Ellis]

Too many Poles in Belgium

@Brian: if they simply scrap the CAP, the EU will lose (at least) sugar, wheat and beef production. I'm not sure they're seen litterally as strategic, but the EU doesn't want to depend on imports.

I did say scrap all subsidised imported food. These commodities are cheaper elsewhere only because of subsidies. The cost of US wheat production is very high, for example, because the soil is poor, requiring enormous quantities of chemical fertilisers and the yield/hectare of American wheat is less than ½ that of European wheat. There is also the problem of monoculture wheat production. Without subsidies, US wheat would be over twice the current price and would not be competitive. Add to that the cost of transport.

In any case, if any class of produce can be bought from elsewhere at a lower overall cost, then so be it. There are two solutions: use the land for more profitable crops or play the quality at any price trump card, as the Italians do with their excellent rice which sells for 2-3 times the cost of Thai rice.

I'm sorry, I have zero sympathy for agriculturists who have been on the gravy train for FAR too long, while other workers' lives are governed by real market pressures.

Do you know the difference between a European peasant and the CEO of a multinational industrial empire? The peasant washes his Mercedes himself.

[Umfriend]

I've been a criticaster of the CAP for quite a few years now (actually, as of when I learned about it), so I agree with Brian on this one mostly.

I'm not even sure we should not import subsidised food. That subsidy is just a wealth transfer within in exporters exonomy and a dead-weight loss to that economy that accrues to the buyers, we get it even cheaper, no? I can't imagine it would be to hard to have a small agricultural industry that could increase production mutlifold within 2 years, shorter even, so the strategic point here is not as important, if at all, as it was in 1958.

[Umfriend]

Pretty sure France gets more per Farmer which is what our Farmers don't like. Britain will discuss the rebate if France discuss the Agriculture policy which they won't. So neither are talking.

I'll try and look it up if I find the time. Ass I understand it, France gets far more in agricultural subsidies then the UK does, but the UK has few farmers. On a per farmer basis the UK get more. They would dislike the subsidies to disappear. The thing is, with the few farmers the UK has, the industry is not a strong voice withing the UK and the non-agri taxpayers won't care about them and wil want to retain the rebate. In France it is the other way around.

[UtwigMU]

To Brits: You are with us or you are with Americans. Tow Britain across the Pond and leave Ireland behind. (joke)

One problem with subsidies and farming is that farming is seen as part of tradition and means of preserving cultural landscape which adds greater value to the rest of society. I don't think we should simply let our farming disappear. There are also many specifics such as mountain farms in Alps (Austria, Slovenia, Germany, France), particular products, etc... So getting rid of subsidies is not entirely justified. Also if you look at aircraft industry (another sector where subsidies are discussed) - USA aircraft companies get huge military orders which help them offset costs of civilian RND (double application, cashflow...).

You can also look at UK where Thatcherism and cutting subsidies and market is the norm looking at things got them to the point that a lot of their industry is bankrupt or foreign owned. An ex rector here said well: "When farmer sells his last plot he becomes a servant. It doesn't matter if you use euphemisms such as new level of cooperation, etc..." When you loose ownership, control of your industry or loose industry entirely it's hard to get back.

Otherwise UK problem is specific historic problem. They always had aversion of some continental power being able to threaten or compete with them. At first it was France, then in 19th century it became Germany. Right now they see EU as sort of threat to their "empire". Problem is that due to mistakes their empire is a long gone past and they should rethink their position and interests. Churchill discussing the future with other two of the big three was the last time UK meant any power on the world stage, so they should quit playing out special card and tout particular interests just to heal their imperial aspirations.


Kurt: As for Poles, etc... How manny Poles are there in Belgium? How manny compared to illegal immigrants from Africa and Middle East, asylum seekers and legal immigrants from before mentioned locations? Europe won't become a melting pot, you will only have brief emmigrations of specific professions and of course highly qualified employees. Also the new members are facing equal problems as the old members in terms of birth rate and immigration for less deserved jobs.