EU "Subsidys"

#1
I am confused on this subject, on the news they keep blarting on about EU subsidy's being carried on by taxpayers, when we do get away from the unelected clusterf*ck that is based in Brussels, Are we or are we not NETT CONTRIBUTORS?, if we are then surely the payments would go direct to recipients, instead of out to EU & back again?
 

kieran222

Well-Known Member
#5
I think that what is being proposed is that farm and research grants that currently come from the EU will be paid after Britain leave the EU but will be paid instead directly from Britain (rather than Britain contributing to the EU and then getting some back in grants).
Kieran
 

243ack

Well-Known Member
#6
This media reporting really grips my s**t. Where the hell do they imagine the money comes from in the first place that goes to the EU to pay Grants, Research Budgets, et al.....

Sure as hell it's not out of Angelas (Angulars) pocket.

When we EVENTUALLY get out of the EU mire, at least we 'should' have the discretion to decide where 100% of our ex contributions go. (I did say 'should').

Sceptical? - moi?
 
#7
When we EVENTUALLY get out of the EU mire, at least we 'should' have the discretion to decide where 100% of our ex contributions go. (I did say 'should').
Oh no! Not if that affects the Tory Party's "special interest" supporters it won't!

Basically, as anyone but a optimist might have hoped, the Tories have now seen to it that their "constituency" of wealthy farmers (as against struggling farmers) will continue to receive the millions in taxâyer money that they received under the Common Agricultural Policy handout scheme.

So of this XX billions pounds we sent to Brussels and of which YY billion pounds (2.4 billion pounds I read) was then given to farming the UK taxpayer will now pay that directly instead of via Brussels.

So maybe a bit of honesty by the "Leave" people should have said that the UK taxpayer would save XX billion leaving the EU less, of the course, the 2.4 billion, and other billions, that they'll still be expected to pay to keep landed Tory supporting farmers, and Labour/Liberal university lecturers in subsidies.

But, we've taken back control, folks....not it appears of where our money is STILL going to go to subsidise farmers and universities...but by cutting out the special interests that now will have only ONE group of politcos to lobby (in Westminster) instead of two...
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
#8
I'm not at all sure why any commercial concern needs to be underpinned by the taxpayer, nobody is compelled to go into business in the first place, nor carry on with it when it becomes uneconomic
 

Chasey

Well-Known Member
#9
I am confused on this subject, on the news they keep blarting on about EU subsidy's being carried on by taxpayers, when we do get away from the unelected clusterf*ck that is based in Brussels, Are we or are we not NETT CONTRIBUTORS?, if we are then surely the payments would go direct to recipients, instead of out to EU & back again?
The problem will be the cost to the tax payer of re writing so many laws + the contribution to the EU we will need to pay to stay in the free market + the cost of administration of the subsidies (previously managed by the eu) + the cost of re negotiation of all current trade agreements.

The negotiations for the TTIP trade agreement with the USA have taken 3 years to date and I am sure most would be horrified at the cost to the tax payer of those negotiations. We will now have to do this across the globe and it will no doubt take decades and cost billions
 

Chasey

Well-Known Member
#11
I'm not at all sure why any commercial concern needs to be underpinned by the taxpayer, nobody is compelled to go into business in the first place, nor carry on with it when it becomes uneconomic
There’s several reasons

1: To maintain viable self-sufficiency and avoid dependency on foreign farm imports in the event of a war or embargo

2: To provide economic stability to a region by supporting a significant employer who’s shut down would impact on the local economy and infrastructure. Lessons were learnt after the shutting down of coal mines which left whole villages as ghost towns

3: To limit economic regional migration

4: Conservation (IE the support of otherwise non-viable sheep farmers managing areas of significant interest to the ecology)

5: Economic expediency where its calculated that the cost of the work force becoming unemployed far outweighs the cost of the subsidy

I am sure there are others not least of which is managing the voting popularity of the government of the day but the above are all pretty relevant
 

243ack

Well-Known Member
#12
There’s several reasons

1: To maintain viable self-sufficiency and avoid dependency on foreign farm imports in the event of a war or embargo

2: To provide economic stability to a region by supporting a significant employer who’s shut down would impact on the local economy and infrastructure. Lessons were learnt after the shutting down of coal mines which left whole villages as ghost towns

3: To limit economic regional migration

4: Conservation (IE the support of otherwise non-viable sheep farmers managing areas of significant interest to the ecology)

5: Economic expediency where its calculated that the cost of the work force becoming unemployed far outweighs the cost of the subsidy

I am sure there are others not least of which is managing the voting popularity of the government of the day but the above are all pretty relevant

Problem with the system is that large landowners get paid purely for owning the land. They don't necessarily have to do anything productive with it to get the payment.
Support those struggling by all means - but why subsidise the already wealthy?.
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
#13
1. No war or embargo so irrelevant
2. Unsustainable - if this was viable all businesses could be subsidised
3. Costly and ineffective - net migration towards the South East anyway
4. Too many large herbivores in the uplands preventing mixed forest, forest edge and moorland environments, rewilding would work better and cost the taxpayer nothing
5. Economic expedient- not really, money better spent retraining for other skilled jobs
6. Subsidies reward wealthy city investors and other well off non-farmers - in what way does land at £ 10k an acre make food cheap or encourage young new entrants into farming?
 

Blakey

Well-Known Member
#15
I'm not at all sure why any commercial concern needs to be underpinned by the taxpayer, nobody is compelled to go into business in the first place, nor carry on with it when it becomes uneconomic
That is all very fine if you want to hunt or shoot over areas that resemble the American prairies. Where each field is 100s of acres with no hedgerows. Where each square foot of arable land is precious and nothing less than 100% efficiency will survive. Without the subsidies the initial cut throat competition will lower food prices but once real commercial reality hits home farm produce inevitably will have to become much much more expensive for the consumer or farming will die and supplies from countries with cheaper production will take over. I for one would be much happier to know the provenance of the food I eat and eat local produce.
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
#16
That is all very fine if you want to hunt or shoot over areas that resemble the American prairies. Where each field is 100s of acres with no hedgerows. Where each square foot of arable land is precious and nothing less than 100% efficiency will survive. Without the subsidies the initial cut throat competition will lower food prices but once real commercial reality hits home farm produce inevitably will have to become much much more expensive for the consumer or farming will die and supplies from countries with cheaper production will take over. I for one would be much happier to know the provenance of the food I eat and eat local produce.
Not really , food prices are determined on world commodity markets, not at the farm gate. Much of our land is only viable to farm with subsidies, without which there might be a better balance between wildlife and agriculture, there is a farm in Sussex already doing this http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/rewilding/rewilding-projects/knepp-estate . This could well represent the future of UK farming.
 
#17
Without the subsidies the initial cut throat competition will lower food prices but once real commercial reality hits home farm produce inevitably will have to become much much more expensive for the consumer or farming will die and supplies from countries with cheaper production will take over. I for one would be much happier to know the provenance of the food I eat and eat local produce.
I agree, but the provenance of the food you eat and local produce are very suspect. When you consider the amount of chemicals sprayed on our crops (at least six sprayings on wheat for our bread) it is all rather scary. I grow a lot of my own food and generally shoot the rest but the only bread I buy is organic. We live in a strange world and it gets stranger by the minute.
 

Blakey

Well-Known Member
#18
I agree, but the provenance of the food you eat and local produce are very suspect. When you consider the amount of chemicals sprayed on our crops (at least six sprayings on wheat for our bread) it is all rather scary. I grow a lot of my own food and generally shoot the rest but the only bread I buy is organic. We live in a strange world and it gets stranger by the minute.
At least you will know how your local food is produced and might be able to take steps to change undesirable practices. But heaven knows what controls are on imported foods. The production controls of Asian chicken and South American beef for example are nowhere near as stringent as those in the UK or EU
 

Chasey

Well-Known Member
#19
1. No war or embargo so irrelevant
2. Unsustainable - if this was viable all businesses could be subsidised
3. Costly and ineffective - net migration towards the South East anyway
4. Too many large herbivores in the uplands preventing mixed forest, forest edge and moorland environments, rewilding would work better and cost the taxpayer nothing
5. Economic expedient- not really, money better spent retraining for other skilled jobs
6. Subsidies reward wealthy city investors and other well off non-farmers - in what way does land at £ 10k an acre make food cheap or encourage young new entrants into farming?
I like your confidance on the no war thing.

You asked why I told you why.

You may personaly disagree with the reasions but somone somewhere did the maths and came up with it right along with cash crops and butter mountains :(

On the employment thing.

Its going to cost arround 25K per person per year to maintain them unemployed and thats ignoring the tax revenue loss which would add another 30%
SO 1000 workers loosing their jobs will cost us arround 30,000,000 per year

Suddenly a 10,000,000 subsady doesnt sound like a bad deal does it

Sadly like disabuility benifits thers many many people screwing the system but it doesnet make the concept wrong, only the management
 
#20
Presumably without subsidies the land loses its inflated value? So becomes affordable to new entrants to farming...who will directly be more labour intensive. Thus more will be employed/make a living per acre than now?

Additionally removal of subsidies will encourage diversification and other revenue streams including letting out shooting rights previously kept "in hand" or not exploited at all.

And when, ever, did these huge subsidies EVER find their way into the farmworkers' pockets in terms of increased wages? If you think different you're having a laugh.

Sunbsidies go in profits to large non-farming owners, individual or corporate, they don't go into increased wages for the people employed as herdsmen, fieldhands, shepherds and the like.
 

Top