So he has done it again. Given away £7 billion in exchange for nothing. Did not even consult his Chancellor. Not that that would have made much difference.

What was the point of the giveaway. Had Chirac said no Xmas Pressie for you unless you cough up some dough.

Is he planning on emigrating (please) ?.

Len

Is he planning on emigrating (please) ?.

Len
To France I would imagine, they're laughing all the way - they only agreed to a "review" of the CAP over the next few years.

I'll bet the French couldn't believe their luck - the British losing £7 billion and they have to do nothing and still get massive subsidies:rolleyes:

What a tosser Blair really is

Col

I saw an interview with a few French people on this subject - they think food and the way it is produced in France is vitally important , its a French tradition and way of life, and is something which deserves to be protected - presumably by the British paying?

CAP was designed by the French, for the French and to stuff everybody else. Why is it that something so glaringly obvious is not addressed.

And it is said that Brits are not "Europeans". More European that the French

L

I presume Blair has given up some of this cash to keep the new EU boys on side, who are opposed to the federalist thing anyway, thus limiting the power of the French. Hopefully thats the case anyhow.

or maybe Blair is just a c**t!

or maybe Blair is just a c**t!

Think I would agree here

Len

The postive side of me says that he did what he did to bring the new EU members on side with the UK and that when this cash runs out they'll target the French and support us against a Franco-German federal Europe.

The negative side of me says any meeting between Blair and Chirac where Chirac comes out smiling means we've been shafted.

or maybe Blair is just a c**t!
always has been, I'm suprised it took you so long:confused:

What is the issue here? You guys are subsidizing the French or something? I tried surfing but it's kind of hard to pc it all together...

Bliar has a cunning plan

He is ballsing up the country so he can hand it over to Brown and that thug/moron (select your preference) Prescott. They won't be able to do anything to stop the rot as it's gone so far under his direction, so from a historical point of view Bliar won't look so bad after all.

Fiendishly simple.

always has been, I'm suprised it took you so long

I remember waiting outside a pub, roughly two o'clock in the morning to see Tyson v Bruno having a rather drunken conversation with someone about what a twat the soon to be elected Blair was.

Perhaps Bruno v Blair or Tyson v Blair - would be a popular pay per view!

What is the issue here? You guys are subsidizing the French or something? I tried surfing but it's kind of hard to pc it all together...

Basically the EU spends ~45% of it's budget on subsidising farming under the commom agricultral policy [CAP] ~49billion Euros this year. France recieves a lot more of the CAP money than anyone else 22% compared to the UK's 9% so Margaret Thatcher negotiated a rebate on our annual contribution to the EU to make up for this descrepancy. As the EU is expanding there are a number of "poor" countries who want a share of the EU budget. Blair suggested that France should give up some of it's subsidies to help these countries whilst the rest of the richer nations put more money in to the pot. This would avoid a situation in which we put more money in only for France to get more out. France said it would not negotiate unless we gave up our rebate. It would appear that we have given up some of the rebate and in return France has agreed to "discuss" the matter of it's subsidies. Italy Germany and the UK have also agreed to increase their input into the EU budget to help these new nations so we've been hit twice. The only benfit i can see of this is France is now more likely to come under pressure from the EU as a whole to reform CAP and we have made some friends in the old Eastern European bloc. Quite frankly France is plenty rich enough to do without subsidies imho as are the rest of the richer nations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4407792.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4407792.stm)

TS gave you the background nicely there.

Basically Maggie did some handbag negotiating with the French particularly. Personally I doubt if our new "friends" in the EU will be able to exhibit any really effective pressure on the French to change the CAP.

So Blair sells the country out to make friends who will be unlikely to effective change of the CAP.

L

Wow. Sounds pretty screwed up. Your farmers work to pay taxes to pay some other country to compete against them. I'm guessing these poorer countries don't have the layers of regulations such as pesticides etc, to contend with that the UK farmers do...

How do you decide how much each country puts into CAP? Is it a straight per capita or is there some other formula

TS gave you the background nicely there.

Basically Maggie did some handbag negotiating with the French particularly. Personally I doubt if our new "friends" in the EU will be able to exhibit any really effective pressure on the French to change the CAP.

So Blair sells the country out to make friends who will be unlikely to effective change of the CAP.

L

I think Germany is the place to look at in the future. The new PM there seems a canny negotiator and i think that the old alliance between France and Germany will weaken if the French are seen to prevaricate on the EU bugdet and their position on EU reform to the detriment of an expanded EU. The new PM of Germany is an ex-communist and i'd be surprised if she didn't have a soft spot for the old Eastern bloc countries who have joined coupled with her East German roots. I'd look to them to be pushing for change in the background. Changes to the EU voting structure could also see an alliance develop against the French with the new members allied to the UK.

Your getting close.

Basically all the countries in the EU have the same rules and controils about pesticides etc

BUT

UK obeys the rules even when it is not in their interest.

France and a few others (Most actually) implement those that benefit them and forget about the others.

Len

Just curious, wouldn't it seem fit to get the existing EU working smoothly before other countries are allowed to join?

The US has been reducing subsidies to farmers for years and now for the first time US imports of agricultural products equaled our exports. 56 billion dollars.

The US has been reducing subsidies to farmers for years

That is totally against the French philosophy.

L

Wow. Sounds pretty screwed up. Your farmers work to pay taxes to pay some other country to compete against them. I'm guessing these poorer countries don't have the layers of regulations such as pesticides etc, to contend with that the UK farmers do...

How do you decide how much each country puts into CAP? Is it a straight per capita or is there some other formula

If you accept the premise that the EU is a good thing - and many people in the UK don't - then the idea of helping the poorer nations is not a difficult pill to swallow. They can produce food cheaply enough -which will be subject to the same regulations as everywhere else in the EU - but it has to compete against inefficiently produced subsidised products from the likes of France. The new members are more likely to want to spend money on improvements to infra-structure and living conditions as Spain did after they joined.

This was the position in 1999 but the EU has expanded since then and countries like Spain will get much less. The CAP rules are complex but in general the more ineffiecient you are the more money you get. That is why it's so stupid

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/europe/2001/inside_europe/budget/bar_chart1.gif

Just a thing on enlargement - I have just had a Polish food store open up by me, and this morning saw my first sign translated into Polish also.

Those 99 (was it 99) plumbers are getting about a bit!

I have taken advatage this year of visa free travel to Poland - and for the few days I was in tourism Poland, thought it was a fantastic place and the locals where great.

I am a particular fan of the pole dancers, which to me says enlargement everytime.

I have taken advatage this year of visa free travel to Poland - and for the few days I was in tourism Poland, thought it was a fantastic place and the locals were great.

Where in Poland did you go? I spent four months (on and off) in Gdynia in the north. I'm guessing you went to Warsaw or Krakow?

Just curious, wouldn't it seem fit to get the existing EU working smoothly before other countries are allowed to join?

The problem is that the EU is like a Seesaw - i think you call then Teeter totters - it's only stable in one state. Add anything or take anything away and the balance shifts and you then need a new equilibrium to form. What's smooth for one configuration will not be smooth for another.

I can see the reason a poor / small country would want to join; the subsidies. Would the reason the current members want them to join is because it increases their political clout in world affairs?

I can see the reason a poor / small country would want to join; the subsidies. Would the reason the current members want them to join is because it increases their political clout in world affairs?

And also for a duty free zone.

I can see the reason a poor / small country would want to join; the subsidies. Would the reason the current members want them to join is because it increases their political clout in world affairs?

I don't think the poor countries want subsidies they want cash to help rebuild their infrastructure - many of them are ex-eastern bloc. I think they also would like a say in events including subsidies that are currently available to the exisiting members - i.e. why should you have them? and they want the economic protection of the EU and the military protection of NATO - i still think they worry about Russia - and we'd rather they were on the inside pissing out than the outside pissing in. If they are tied in to the EU it means they are less likely to start wars with each other viz the Balkans.

I was in Krakow for a week - just liked the feel of the place.

If I had the time and cash would explore places properly - Gdansk and Warsaw? Wheres the place to visit in Poland?

So the money thing is just a pc of the puzzle. How in the world does the EU ever agree on global politcal issues such as the war. When the UK did the Iraq thing, didn't they have to consult with some EU board? And it seems the UK did the Iraq thing in spite of most other major EO members - didn't that undermine the union?

Gdansk and Warsaw? Wheres the place to visit in Poland?

Well, having only really been to Gdynia I wouldn't know although I want to try all the main cities across the nation. I was up by Gdansk, the city next to Gdynia. There's another one there called Sopot. Collectively they are referred to as the tri-city area; effectively a small conurbation. There's a promontory of land there with a beach, called Hel. The best thing is the mix of old versus new and the Baltic wind whipping in on a January morning. I would liken Sopot to Blackpool.

I was in Krakow in Jan - thank God there was no Baltic wind. Brrrrrr

I'll avoid Sopot!

So the money thing is just a pc of the puzzle. How in the world does the EU ever agree on global politcal issues such as the war. When the UK did the Iraq thing, didn't they have to consult with some EU board? And it seems the UK did the Iraq thing in spite of most other major EO members - didn't that undermine the union?

Ah at last. That's the point we've being making. The EU is not the US we don't agree and we have no system for forcing agreement or censuring those who don't agree. We are individual countries that come together on some matters of economics and law. The EU is not a country it's more like a club. For example there is no EU foreign policy. The EU doesn't raise taxes. There is no EU army. Some countries such as France and Germany want a Federal Europe. They call it a United states of Europe. Others such as the UK have always been opposed. Even a pro-european uk Government knows it would never win a vote on the issue. We -the people - wouldn't even want the Euro as it would bring us into too much economic reliance and remove too much control over our finances to the EU. Our main opposition party at the moment is always split about our involvement with Europe. If we had a vote tomorrow on leaving the EU i think it would be a very close run thing and unlike a state in the US we could secede from the union so to speak without causing a civil war :D

In the end then, it would seem to me to be an insurmountable task to separate fiscal matters from other politics and government concerns in general...

In the end then, it would seem to me to be an insurmountable task to separate fiscal matters from other politics and government concerns in general...

Our suspicion has been that the certain EU members are trying to bring about a federal Europe through greater economic ties. The problem is that we may be better off with closer economic ties but we don't want the political ones that go with them. As you say it's very difficult to seperate fiscal matters from political ones and so we'd rather forego the potential benefits of a fiscal union if it means we keep our sovereignty and national identity intact. What Chirac seems to fail to see is that when he tries to shaft the UK over something like the rebate we think why the F*** should we want to be more closely involved with them. We can't imagine a situation where the French would want to be involved in something that meant they'd have to compromise or lose out and that by default leaves us think we would be the losers.

From my point of view there is something futuristic in the EU.

Namely that the world cannot go on with unabated trade. The idea that the EU can help stay the tide of cheep eastern goods will prove to be a huge advantage for the EU. When more and more living wage jobs leave America for India and China; the EU will be well on their way to preserving European jobs.
After all there is nothing more important for a government to do; then make it conducive for job growth.

From my point of view there is something futuristic in the EU.

Namely that the world cannot go on with unabated trade. The idea that the EU can help stay the tide of cheep eastern goods will prove to be a huge advantage for the EU. When more and more living wage jobs leave America for India and China; the EU will be well on their way to preserving European jobs.
After all there is nothing more important for a government to do; then make it conducive for job growth.

But can you see the irony in that statement. The US has been the main proponent of free trade and now it's coming to bite the US people on their butts. Business has applied the free market principles to their logical conclusion. Is not profit king? And not only that it is now damaging other economies, no-one is immune from this. The EU does set import quotas but if businesses see a profit to be made then they'll leave - and they are doing - and in the end we will have to let the goods in as they will only be available from the outside. There are checks and balances in a normal economy but China is different it can keep capital out of workers hands, keep them poor and so they don't demand high wages which would eventually balance out the cycle. I can't understand why the US helps them so much? I suspect that what the US government wanted was a silent economic revolution to undermine the Communist one. I think they've badly misjudged the strength of the Chinese governments control. Eventually if we have no money then we can't by Chinese goods no matter how cheap so they'll go bust as the Tiger economies did and the cycle will balance eventually but it will be bl**dy painful.

It all sounds a bit suspicious to me. Every time there is a cloudy issue, the politicians mouths must water...

Our suspicion has been that the certain EU members are trying to bring about a federal Europe through greater economic ties. The problem is that we may be better off with closer economic ties but we don't want the political ones that go with them. As you say it's very difficult to seperate fiscal matters from political ones and so we'd rather forego the potential benefits of a fiscal union if it means we keep our sovereignty and national identity intact. What Chirac seems to fail to see is that when he tries to shaft the UK over something like the rebate we think why the F*** should we want to be more closely involved with them. We can't imagine a situation where the French would want to be involved in something that meant they'd have to compromise or lose out and that by default leaves us think we would be the losers.

pretty spot on thestoat - the main problem as i see it is trying to get 13 or 20 or 25 sovereign countries to let unelected (mostly) bureaucrats control the levers of power in a way not conducive to the needs or wants of the individual countries. each country has its own view on what works or what is right in their minds.

for example, the uk is outside of the Euro at the moment for two main reasons:

1) the political significance of ending sterling and adopting the euro - a sure sign that the uk would be more in europe than out of it.
2) the fiscal cycles of the uk and euroland are not aligned - euroland interest rates are now at 2.25% while the uk is at 4.5%. imagine what inflation would be like if we had joined the euro and had european interest rates???

the european union does have its problems (inefficiency, unaccountability, fraud, disparities) but i do believe it is the right way to go, although at our pace and on acceptable terms. I think Blair did all he could to get an acceptable budget - it was right to increase uk contributions to help pay for the new joiners and hopefully the political pressure will now fall on france to wean itself of the CAP.

So in a sense, the EU is buying up countries?

The US has been reducing subsidies to farmers for years and now for the first time US imports of agricultural products equaled our exports. 56 billion dollars.
Your cotton farmers still receive appr. $4 billion a year in government subsidies, doesn't seem much to me like free trade:rolleyes:

Your cotton farmers still receive appr. $4 billion a year in government subsidies, doesn't seem much to me like free trade:rolleyes:


I said it being reduced; please read my post with the same accuracy with which they are written.

I said it being reduced; please read my post with the same accuracy with which they are written.

Like your version of history, you really should research the subject more thoroughly:rolleyes:

U.S. cotton production has increased by a third during the past five years, and this year’s harvest is expected to equal last year’s record of 11 billion pounds. That means a bumper crop of subsidies as well. From 2001 through 2004, farmers got nearly $10 billion in direct payments from the U.S. government

So in a sense, the EU is buying up countries?

That is an interesting statement. In one sense yes it is. If the long term goal is total political and financial integration then the more countries who join the better. But that is very long term. The new members have some of the poorest countries in the northern hemisphere amongst their number. It will be a long time before they are able to join the Euro and be net contributors to the EU. It is possible, Spain is a good example. However the EU is split along many lines about just how much political and financial union there should be. It tends to be the politicos who want more union and the people less. Even the French and the Dutch people rejected the proposed EU constitution [a design for a new system to allow the greater number of countries to work together]against the wishes of their politicians and they are amongst the most pro EU countries.

That is an interesting statement. In one sense yes it is. If the long term goal is total political and financial integration then the more countries who join the better. But that is very long term. The new members have some of the poorest countries in the northern hemisphere amongst their number. It will be a long time before they are able to join the Euro and be net contributors to the EU. It is possible, Spain is a good example. However the EU is split along many lines about just how much political and financial union there should be. It tends to be the politicos who want more union and the people less. Even the French and the Dutch people rejected the proposed EU constitution [a design for a new system to allow the greater number of countries to work together]against the wishes of their politicians and they are amongst the most pro EU countries.

Hum... Sorry if that came across as insolent - I didn't mean it that way.

So are there any reporting mechanisms available to the general public to see if thing are / will balance in time so they can see if the efforts are worth while? I would think that in time, with a successful program, no CAP would be required at all...

Hum... Sorry if that came across as insolent - I didn't mean it that way.

So are there any reporting mechanisms available to the general public to see if thing are / will balance in time so they can see if the efforts are worth while? I would think that in time, with a successful program, no CAP would be required at all...

Didn't sound like that at all :) sorry if my reply sounded like it was a reply to an insolent question :D

The EU does produce reports but i doubt anyone bothers to read them - well not anyone who wants to stay awake :D - Generally people go with their gut instinct. It is perhaps one of the few times when national sterotypes are applicable as we do tend to react to the EU along the lines of long held beliefs and resentments. The EU is actually a bureaucratic mess - or paradise if your a Bureaucrat - and would imho not be a good model for closer ties between countries. It stands by principles that are no longer valid in the 21st Century such as CAP but the system is too corrupt and unwieldy to change. Personally i'd love to see the UK -or England at least- leave and watch the whole sorry mess fall apart from a safe distance. I love Europe it has some great cultures, people and places, Italy is a personal favourite, i love it for it's differences I don't want us to be the US of Europe.

Would someone please tell me what the hell IMHO means?

In my honest opinion, IMHO means something I couldn't possibly impart.

In my honest opinion, IMHO means something I couldn't possibly impart.

Well that's interesting.

Cute, SJ.

In my honest/humble opinion.

In my honest opinion, IMHO means something I couldn't possibly impart.


Here we go with that communication problem again. I thought you meant you didn’t have the capacity to explain it properly.

My bad.

IMHO it's often written by someone who is neither honest or humble. But I try my best. :D