Comments for Time to scrap the CAP at http://www.adamsmith.org , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://www.adamsmith.org Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:45:20 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/globalization/time-to-scrap-the-cap-200805111351/#comment-273 While I agree , Tom, I really don't see what's new or different. We've lall been writing and talking about this for years. Of course your nuclear option does hold out the hope of achieving a different ASI objective, which is withdrawal (or expulsion) from the EU, but it's not going to happen - the Tories are too afraid of touching that rail and the other two parties are pro-Europe. BTW: Does the £55bn a year include the food-tax that consumers pay in the form of artificially elevated prices? And is it spread evenly across European taxpayers (the UK gets a rebate, after all)? It would help if somebody produced figures for the REAL cost to consumers of the CAP, in each and every country of the EU. - Tom Papworth Thu, 22 May 2008 10:52:04 +0100 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/globalization/time-to-scrap-the-cap-200805111351/#comment-268 The reforms of the CAP over the last ten years are a bit of a joke. About the same amount is still being spent by the EU, but the headings have been changed, conveniently "showing a decline" in CAP spending as a percentage of total EU spending. Tariffs and export subsidies continue to exist. Government subsidies as a percentage of farm income is still much higher in the EU than in the USA. Direct farm subsidies are being reduced - which is good - but the money is now being spent on "rural development and environmental projects" : politicians out on a spending spree with taxpayers money. The 2008 / 2009 EU budget review, which will determine spening in the EU after 2013, will unfortunately be negotiated by the Brown government. Grab your pens, computers and microphones right now... - JP Floru Thu, 22 May 2008 06:51:04 +0100 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/globalization/time-to-scrap-the-cap-200805111351/#comment-199 "But now prices are high, the same farm lobbies say they need subsidies to ensure 'food security'. Which is nonsense. The point of rising prices is to encourage higher production, so that supply catches up with demand." Sir, I wonder if you have seen the latest rationale tried out by the subsidy supporters with the latest US farm bill. "The rising prices will encourage higher production, so we need higher subsidies to protect against the inevitable crash in a few years when that extra supply causes prices to decline dramatically." Apparently prices which are higher, lower, or staying the same are all reasons for more subsidy. - John Thacker Sun, 11 May 2008 18:58:21 +0100