Pros and Cons of EU membership

[GoodSarmatian]

Thats strange because the UK is a net contributor to the EU.

I wasn't referring to diect payments but to profits from exports to mainland Europe. The UK would lose a lot more than they pay right now if they left and every free trade agreement would come with strings attached. See the 'threat' in Winner's post.

It is still more than a 1'3rd of the EU budget, so that is not something that is small. Getting rid of it totally and removing corn subsidies will work wonders for food production around the world.

Sounds like a lot, doesn't it ?
At least until you notice that most developed nations have expenditures of 35-45% of their GDP.
The current EU budget is about 1% of the EU's combined GDP.

I think one euro spent on the CAP is one euro too much, but it's actually quite irrelevant in the in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Farm Boy]

I see you and CH and vaguely feeding off each other. Has anyone done any digging at all into why industries are subsidized and why food, in particular, has unique properties that may encourage and discourage subsidization? I've tried to spur discussion on this a couple times and the disinterest beyond vague dislike is deafening.

 

[Oruc]

I see you and CH and vaguely feeding off each other. Has anyone done any digging at all into why industries are subsidized and why food, in particular, has unique properties that may encourage and discourage subsidization? I've tried to spur discussion on this a couple times and the disinterest beyond vague dislike is deafening.

You're not part of the elite!

 

[Leoreth]

It's because the topic is a dead horse in Europe. I've rattled off a list of common criticisms of European agricultural subsidies, if you've responded to that, I've missed it. The central aspect is that output is subsidized and Europe outproduces its demand (you need to take into account that the whole system was engineered shortly after WW2 where the then-members couldn't feed themselves).

 

[del62]

I wasn't referring to diect payments but to profits from exports to mainland Europe. The UK would lose a lot more than they pay right now if they left and every free trade agreement would come with strings attached. See the 'threat' in Winner's post.

Firstly I have already stated that I don't hink it is in the UK's interests to leave the EU, but if the UK did leave / were pushed out of the EU, it would aslo be to the EU's loss (about 6billion euros per annum), so those who want to kick the UK need to understand this.

The UK does a lot of trade with Europe yes, as does countries like Germany and France with the UK, how this would be effected by a Norway or Swiss type position I don't know (would it drop by the UK's net contribution) I have no idea, nor do I suspect do you, our markets in the EU are currently being effected by the eurozone crisis anyway.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's because the topic is a dead horse in Europe. I've rattled off a list of common criticisms of European agricultural subsidies, if you've responded to that, I've missed it. The central aspect is that output is subsidized and Europe outproduces its demand (you need to take into account that the whole system was engineered shortly after WW2 where the then-members couldn't feed themselves).

Those concerns are great and I did attempt to respond to that by saying that they are generous, so scale is perhaps a very valid concern to have. A program can conceivably be wrong-sized but still an activity worth being engaged in. I suppose my last comment wasn't directed at you directly - you actually provide details!

More it was directed at "even one euro/dollar is too much(to paraphrase)" and CH's repeated calls for the end of food subsidization without elaborating at all or responding to replies in his own thread. This confuses me.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

We'll reap the benefits of all EU penalties on Google and Microsoft

 

[GoodSarmatian]

More it was directed at "even one euro/dollar is too much(to paraphrase)" and CH's repeated calls for the end of food subsidization without elaborating at all or responding to replies in his own thread. This confuses me.

As Leoreth said, we produce much more than we need and prices are still kept artificially high. We wouldn't lose anything if we impoerted more of out food.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

The big argument against food subsidies is that any shortfall in our own production will be made up by producers in the 3rd world, especially in Africa. So by subsidising our own farmers we're cutting off the potential demand and potential investment that would otherwise be directed to these poor countries and which would allow their largely agricultural economies to become far more wealthy.

Of course, this is all theoretical since the all-pervasive nature of these subsidies has prevented us from actually finding out what would happen in their absence.

 

[Farm Boy]

The big argument against food subsidies is that any shortfall in our own production will be made up by producers in the 3rd world, especially in Africa. So by subsidising our own farmers we're cutting off the potential demand and potential investment that would otherwise be directed to these poor countries and which would allow their largely agricultural economies to become far more wealthy.

Of course, this is all theoretical since the all-pervasive nature of these subsidies has prevented us from actually finding out what would happen in their absence.

Yet people complain simultaneously about the rapaciousness of the 1st world leaning on the developing for resource extraction. Agriculture poorly done, especially by the poor when attempting to maximize yield is terribly hard on the land. I'm not sure that direct aid<shudders> isn't more effective at building sustainable agricultural industry where it's still developing. The US did fairly well at helping to build some transportation infrastructure in South America with this as a goal. They seem to be doing pretty well at exporting some agricultural goods now.

Oil is pretty volatile recently due to the are of the world that tends to export this product. I think we would encounter some well deserved rage if global prices were to eat it hard due to primary global exporters of food experiencing violent unrest. Then again, the cynic in me would be more than happy were Europe to decide it needs to import more of its food. American farmers certainly wouldn't mind selling. I just think it's probably in everybody's own best interest to maintain some subsidization of food crops in order to ensure some greater or lesser measure of local production. The details of which of course would always be up for debate.

 

[Leoreth]

Those concerns are great and I did attempt to respond to that by saying that they are generous, so scale is perhaps a very valid concern to have. A program can conceivably be wrong-sized but still an activity worth being engaged in. I suppose my last comment wasn't directed at you directly - you actually provide details!

More it was directed at "even one euro/dollar is too much(to paraphrase)" and CH's repeated calls for the end of food subsidization without elaborating at all or responding to replies in his own thread. This confuses me.

Sure, complete subsidy cuts would be equally wrong, but currently the balance tilts more to the other side. I'd be interested in what you would consider worthwhile goals of agricultural subsidies, because you were rather vague so far. I could see some worthwhile goals in the production of quality local food, but as it is currently implemented it is mainly helping large agricultural industries who produce surplusses that are either exported or destroyed (the EU buys products that can't be sold at world market prices to allow farmers to reliably sell a set amount of products, even though nobody actually consumes them!).

Yet people complain simultaneously about the rapaciousness of the 1st world leaning on the developing for resource extraction. Agriculture poorly done, especially by the poor when attempting to maximize yield is terribly hard on the land.

Well, before we are talking about importing African food (how that is extracting resources I don't really understand, assuming fair prices are paid), we should stop flooding African markets with cheap subsidized food which keeps all native farmers out of business.

 

[Virote_Considon]

To what end? The only reason you can give is power and influence, why seek power unless you seek to use it and what do you intend to use it for?

Politics is power. International relations is the balance of power. I'd like the balance to be weighted more towards Britain than away from it. That is only achieveable under the EU.

Besides, we don't have our Empire anymore, and most of the remnants in the Commonwealth hate us and would sooner do us harm than help integrate with us if we left the EU.

We've been here before, British blood spent across the world to make those at the top rich.

Yep, and we fought all our rivals down to the last Prussian to get there

 

[Farm Boy]

Sure, complete subsidy cuts would be equally wrong, but currently the balance tilts more to the other side. I'd be interested in what you would consider worthwhile goals of agricultural subsidies, because you were rather vague so far. I could see some worthwhile goals in the production of quality local food, but as it is currently implemented it is mainly helping large agricultural industries who produce surplusses that are either exported or destroyed (the EU buys products that can't be sold at world market prices to allow farmers to reliably sell a set amount of products, even though nobody actually consumes them!).

I would consider production stability to be the goal of agricultural subsidies. If the industry is food we have a vested interest in suppressing significant spikes in price to the end consumer. Granted, a very expensive in total subsidy might only appear as a 2 or 3 cent benefit to a consumer when they buy a box of corn flakes, but the consistency of price is more the goal than the raw cost. We also have a vested interest in maintaining in large part local food independence when possible. We don't really want an OPEC-like cartel of food exporting nations to be able to hold significant swaths of the globe at their mercy. If you think Americans are violent in protecting their oil lifeblood I don't really want to see how developed countries use their force projection if they feel their food itself is threatened. That's the sort of crap existential wars of expansion are fought over.

To some extent I would argue this almost requires a degree of waste in the industry. Until we grow everything hydroponically in climate-controlled environments you have to plant more than you expect to need to make up for weather variations. How much "float" is encouraged is up for debate - I'm not an expert, I don't have a specific number. What you do with the overproduction is also up for debate. Do you store it as an emergency buffer until you let it rot? Export it on the global market? Give it away for free as aid? Dump it into ethanol production or similar less-vital markets where it would be useful even if not a fully efficient means of production(which may itself require some subsidization)? It would seem you may favor the latter, I would tend to as well on the face of things. If we want to directly attempt to influence things so that the size of the average producer is shrunk to prevent massive scale of food power in the hands of the relatively few, I could see that as a pretty decent goal as well. Local food production is great.

Well, before we are talking about importing African food (how that is extracting resources I don't really understand, assuming fair prices are paid), we should stop flooding African markets with cheap subsidized food which keeps all native farmers out of business.

Food production is definitely a form of natural resource extraction. Putting new acreage into tillage to expand production is a form of natural resource depletion(be it destruction of native habitat or something else). Tilling itself or producing "harder" from existing operations costs the resource of soil fertility in the form of compaction and erosion, possibly widespread chemical pollution and a host of other issues depending on crops and locale. These losses can be ameliorated with wise and careful fertilization and conservation, but those efforts require significant economic inputs. A developing economy suddenly realizing significant export profits from agriculture is going to be susceptible to all the same evils that developing economies are susceptible to with mining, oil drilling, or the like. The product itself may have some unique attributes, but the human evils of unethical profits and abuses of power will remain the same.

 

[Leoreth]

I would consider production stability to be the goal of agricultural subsidies. If the industry is food we have a vested interest in suppressing significant spikes in price to the end consumer. Granted, a very expensive in total subsidy might only appear as a 2 or 3 cent benefit to a consumer when they buy a box of corn flakes, but the consistency of price is more the goal than the raw cost. We also have a vested interest in maintaining in large part local food independence when possible. We don't really want an OPEC-like cartel of food exporting nations to be able to hold significant swaths of the globe at their mercy. If you think Americans are violent in protecting their oil lifeblood I don't really want to see how developed countries use their force projection if they feel their food itself is threatened. That's the sort of crap existential wars of expansion are fought over.

Okay, but in the EU that takes the form of heavily subsidizing milk, for example, just so you can actually live off producing milk while consumers have become accustomed to ridiculously low prices that have been reduced to that point by large agricultural companies.

To some extent I would argue this almost requires a degree of waste in the industry. Until we grow everything hydroponically in climate-controlled environments you have to plant more than you expect to need to make up for weather variations. How much "float" is encouraged is up for debate - I'm not an expert, I don't have a specific number. What you do with the overproduction is also up for debate. Do you store it as an emergency buffer until you let it rot? Export it on the global market? Give it away for free as aid? Dump it into ethanol production or similar less-vital markets where it would be useful even if not a fully efficient means of production(which may itself require some subsidization)? It would seem you may favor the latter, I would tend to as well on the face of things.

Yeah, but the overproduction is still systemic, not just on account of balancing yearly fluctuations. And the options to put the overproduction to use are limited; butter can't be converted to ethanol after all.

If we want to directly attempt to influence things so that the size of the average producer is shrunk to prevent massive scale of food power in the hands of the relatively few, I could see that as a pretty decent goal as well. Local food production is great.

Definitely. While it is true that the CAP helps there to some degree (preventing small farmers to go out of business because they can't compete), it still inherently favors mass over quality, which is the opposite of what we want.

Food production is definitely a form of natural resource extraction. Putting new acreage into tillage to expand production is a form of natural resource depletion(be it destruction of native habitat or something else). Tilling itself or producing "harder" from existing operations costs the resource of soil fertility in the form of compaction and erosion, possibly widespread chemical pollution and a host of other issues depending on crops and locale. These losses can be ameliorated with wise and careful fertilization and conservation, but those efforts require significant economic inputs. A developing economy suddenly realizing significant export profits from agriculture is going to be susceptible to all the same evils that developing economies are susceptible to with mining, oil drilling, or the like. The product itself may have some unique attributes, but the human evils of unethical profits and abuses of power will remain the same.

Okay, fair point, but I still can't see how forcing local producers out of business can be preferable to letting them produce in the way they choose, with the drawbacks that come from it.

 

[Racsoviale]

GB should be kicked out, and towed across the Atlantic to America where they can masturbate happily ever after in joy over them being unique snowflakes. Switzerland should be carved up between Germany, France, Austria and Italy and Denmark annexed by Germany for being even worse than Great Britain.
By then we have gotten rid of the worst anti-EU countries and made the map a whole lot nicer to look at.

 

[Virote_Considon]

What about Norway? And Hungary, come to think of it.

 

[dutchfire]

It would be hard to tow Hungary away though.

 

[Leoreth]

Norway isn't in the EU. But Hungary and its current nationalist government definitely is an embarrassment.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Neither is Switzerland, Leoreth.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

GB should be kicked out, and towed across the Atlantic to America where they can masturbate happily ever after in joy over them being unique snowflakes. Switzerland should be carved up between Germany, France, Austria and Italy and Denmark annexed by Germany for being even worse than Great Britain.
By then we have gotten rid of the worst anti-EU countries and made the map a whole lot nicer to look at.

Britain should leave the EU. Pre-Eu Britian had incredibly strong trading links with her Dominions and the U.S., however when they joined the EU they naturally became more continent based and the, shall we say former colonial contacts, began to fall lower and lower in the spectrum. NAFTA should be enlarged into a North Atlantic Trading Agreement by adding Britain and Iceland. Iceland because they and Canada have two of the most interconnected economies that nobody ever talks about, for obvious reasons (Its Canada!). I'm sure that NAFTA easily encompass all the things that Britain wants out of the EU and leave out all the EU centralization and federalization crap. Britain only wanted a "place at the table", but is a table that is dominated by Germany and France throwing food at each other, Greece stuffing food in their pockets, Spain Italy and Ireland's credit cards bouncing, and Benalux countries whining over paying the tab for the eastern states a table they really want a seat at?