Supermarkets slam "food stockpiling" suggestion by government.

[Bean]

It's good to know that brexiters are upset that the sovereign of our country is still going to get the full amount she currently receives as and when Brexit finally happens, and that they will continue to blame the EU for it, rather than blaming those in the UK for how the UK chooses to redistribute the CAP.

What a lovely looking strawman, with a false dichotomy included to boot!

[WTFH]

What a lovely looking strawman, with a false dichotomy included to boot!

You like to call things out when people read your posts and reply to them but you don't like the replies.

What is the straw man argument?
After all, it was you who said:

Taxpayers money going to the Queen of England, via the EU CAP programme - is a 'reasonable re-distributive 'tax'' is it?

Are you serious?

What is the false dichotomy? (I could add to this, but will wait to find out what you think it is, before trying to explain any further)

[Bean]

Couple of points:

1) I don't think Queenie is every morning ensconced in her palace pawing through a copy of the Racing Post and dobbing huge chunks of CAP grants on likely looking gee-gees. It actually goes to her estates and all the (farming type) people who look after her vast swathes of our green and pleasant land.

2) We already redistribute huge amounts of tax in the direction of Her Royal Highness, so any contributions from Brussels are only too welcome.

She does read the RP everyday, (according to some BBC article anyway).
She already receives an income from the public purse, to aid maintenance, etc, etc.
I wonder if any of the estate money goes towards hunts
Some of that money will be from the UK, not just Brussels

You may be happy to pay higher than necessary taxes, which then get passed onto an incredibly rich sovereign (and others), via multiple mechanisms - but I advocate for a change to the rules, both the EU CAP and how the UK distributes it for a start. (Perhaps a means-tested aspect to it, would stop the needless transfers of money)

Ps. Your two points are irrelevant to republicans.

[Bean]

I wouldn't bother. Mr. Bean is a strange mixture of OCD, low IQ and selective interpretaion of the facts. You should leave him to stew in his mire.

Another valuable contribution to the thread....

[Bean]

You like to call things out when people read your posts and reply to them but you don't like the replies.
What is the straw man argument?

It's good to know that brexiters are upset that the sovereign of our country is still going to get the full amount she currently receives as and when Brexit finally happens, and that they will continue to blame the EU for it,

Crystal balling and strawman, as my argument was to label the transfer of money to the Queen as 'reasonable' is incorrect - nothing to do with blaming who gives the money, everything to do with a label a poster used. I did say it was a crap system when you have these examples, but I don't think I 'blamed' anyone, in the sense that you're trying to portray...

What is the false dichotomy? (I could add to this, but will wait to find out what you think it is, before trying to explain any further)

and when Brexit finally happens, and that they will continue to blame the EU for it, rather than blaming those in the UK for how the UK chooses to redistribute the CAP.

Other options are available and include; blaming both, blaming neither - thus you posited a false dichotomy
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/false_dichotomy
HTH

[Bean]

This one?:


Well, let's have a look at your examples of facts:

Firstly, this one:



You're interpreting this as the SFS only being for payments of less than £1250. That is incorrect. It's the threshold for reporting beneficiaries, not a determination of whether a farm is small.

Your other facts:

The RSPB is, obviously, a charity with a large landholding. If you check your own link you will see that the CAP payments received by them are for Rural Development - the same class of payments as the National Trust, Rural Payments Agency, Natural England, etc. This isn't farmer aid, but rural development aid to protect rural areas.

Arla is a plc owned co-operatively by dairy farmers. Any lands held directly by the plc are indirectly owned by farmers, and directly managed and run by sharefarmers. CAP payments for Arla are spread across multiple separate farms.

Your other fact, possibly more relevant:


142409 results, but sort by total descending and list 100 to a page and it's only page 35 before you get to under £100,000. In other words, over 150,000 farmers receive a payment of up to £100,000.

There are, of course, lies, damn lies, and statistics, and it is quite possible for both of us to be correct:
- 80% of payments go to 20% of recipients (actually, this is wrong - it might be closer to say that 80% of total payment value across all categories goes to 20% of recipients, including government departments and charitable trusts, but I haven't totaled the payments to see if the Pareto numbers are correct)
- For every "Rich List" recipient there are hundreds of farmers that rely on CAP payments to survive.

Now, I can't be bothered and don't have the time, but I'm sure you could explore more about the difference between Rural Development, Direct Aid, and Market Schemes, the difference between land owners, farmers, and fruit & vegetables, the difference between private and public sector recipients, etc, to come to a closer thesis on whether CAP payments make good value to the UK.

Fair enough, I must have misinterpreted it. Although I still think it's fairly reasonable to surmise, that since the CAP are at least partially due to size of land, that the smaller the payment, the more likely it is they are a 'small farmer'.

Again, fair enough and yes, we most probably are both correct, now that my incorrect assertion of <£1251 = small farmer is removed.

Thank you, genuinely, for taking the time to reply back in a detailed and meaningful way.

I can't be bothered and don't have the time either for that analyses, but based upon total values alone - CAP, overall appears to benefit the UK - it's just the outlier examples which smart a bit.

[darmstadt]

She does read the RP everyday, (according to some BBC article anyway).
She already receives an income from the public purse, to aid maintenance, etc, etc.
I wonder if any of the estate money goes towards hunts
Some of that money will be from the UK, not just Brussels

You may be happy to pay higher than necessary taxes, which then get passed onto an incredibly rich sovereign (and others), via multiple mechanisms - but I advocate for a change to the rules, both the EU CAP and how the UK distributes it for a start. (Perhaps a means-tested aspect to it, would stop the needless transfers of money)

Ps. Your two points are irrelevant to republicans.

Your second paragraph will shortly be irrelevant as due to Brexit, UK farmers won't be eligible for CAP. Instead I would concentrate on:

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/...y-CBP-8218.pdf

https://www.ft.com/content/b2178b12-...8-07c3086a2625

[Cirrus]

(Perhaps a means-tested aspect to it, would stop the needless transfers of money)

I think you're getting hung up on peripheral issues.

If the Queen's estates were split up and given to 10000 small holders and they all got 1/10000th of what she gets (and they took her out and shot her) you'd be happy. But that's nothing to do with CAP, whether it's right, or whether it affects African farmers. Your gripe is about wealth concentration. The EU is a right wing faction and happily embraces incredible inequality. But not of course as much as your beloved Conservative Party who got us all into this mess and are trying to make matters worse by pursuing free trade ideology.

[WTFH]

Crystal balling and strawman,

Nope, it's what the Brexit leaders have promised:
Before the vote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-36523764

After the vote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42559845

How is that crystal balling and straw man?

[WTFH]

Other options are available and include; blaming both, blaming neither - thus you posited a false dichotomy

It is only a false dichotomy in the minds of those who refuse to accept responsibility, or understand where responsibility lies.

The EU (including the UK) has the CAP. The EU (including the UK) agreed it and the member states signed up to it. It has changed a lot over the years since it was first thought up.

Vote Leave convinced some people that Brexit would mean "Taking BACK control" of money, borders, laws, etc. This "control" that we are "taking back" was already ours.
How the UK chose to maintain its borders - that wasn't the EU dictating it or controlling it etc.

How the UK chose to spend the CAP - not dictated by the EU. The UK government chooses how the CAP is used in the UK. Not the EU. The UK government could have said that anyone with an income of more than £100,000 would get none of the CAP funding, no matter what. Did the UK government choose to do so? Did the EU force the UK to do so? By leaving the EU, has the UK taken back control or it?

So, please explain how the EU (excluding the UK) are in any way to blame for how the UK chooses to use the CAP funding that goes to the UK.