As highlighted by Edward at A Fistful of Euros, French reaction to the recent EU budget débâcle has been much more nuanced than the hysteria in the British press. Reform of the CAP is seen as necessary in France itself, especially given that such a high percentage of subsidies goes to 5% of recipients - which rather undermines the argument that the purpose of the arrangement is to maintain a living countryside which is something more than a theme park.
What the British press have failed to point out is that France's receipts from the EU budget are roughly proportional to France's share of EU agricultural production. As Chirac says, "Why should only the United States have a subsidised agriculture"? The new members have had a rather rough introduction to this particular question.
that's a great point.
i don't disagree that CAP needs reforming, but that's far from abolishing it or moving "beyond" agriculture as if it's a luxury.
I think people have not learned the lessons from BSE, foot-and-mouth, salmonella and e.coli.
As for the argument that EU subsidies are destroying the "third" world, I'm sorry but that's just bollocks. If African countries had the structures necessary I'm sure there are plenty of potential (starving) consumers in Africa - they don't need to fly mangos or rice to Europe. The solution is not to increase trade between Africa and Europe (with all the side-effects from increased air-transport), but to use Africa's produce to feed the starving populations in a sustainable way. But, hey, that's not exactly WTO free trade stylee is it!
There an interesting article with a rather different take on the same subject in the FT today.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/
e706d94...20abe49a01.html
Mostly, I agree with it, although I have my doubts about Blair’s suitability for the role into which Dominique Moisi casts him. But the need to replace the unpopular, ineffective, opportunistic and above all weak current leaders of France, Italy and Germany seems indisputable, even if it means Sarkozy and Merkel. Europe's progress so far has to some extent been based on the prestige engendered by its economic successes, which were achieved , at times, as in the early eighties, by socialist Finance Ministers such as Delors and Wim Kok imposing unpopular deregulation.
However I did have a problem with a detail in one passage of the article.
'This petty nationalism reveals a weakness in the European project, one that is largely due to great European leaders of the past such as Jacques Delors, the former European Commission president. In his opposition to a European kind of nationalism based on emotion, Mr Delors left Europe vulnerable to the assaults of emotional irrationality. In the French and Dutch referendums, the Yes camp left the weapons of emotion for the sole use of the No camp. Today, no sense of European patriotism can be mobilised to restrain national jingoism. '
Wasn’t it in fact European Commission President Delors who said, in a 1993 speech to European church leaders:
“We won't succeed with Europe solely on the basis of legal expertise or economic know-how. If in the next ten years we haven't managed to give a soul to Europe, to give it spirituality and meaning, the game will be up”.
Commenting by HaloScan
