Supermarkets slam "food stockpiling" suggestion by government.

[meridian]

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.

This might totally derail the thread....

While I agree with the first half of the paragraph (wealth envy), I’ve always thought of the EU as more socialist than right-wing.

Right-wing to me would be more free-market, less rulesy, whereas one of the key gripes of Brexit was the EU interfering in our lives, which I would have classified as classic Socialist behaviour.

[Bean]

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.

Post #115 starts to illustrate the EU's own objectives for the CAP programme and it isn't to increase the already wealthy....so it isn't really a periphery issue, to me, but obviously is to you.

So yes, you are right about a gripe about wealth concentration - but only because CAP appears to not be means-tested and gives to the already incredibly wealthy - who are already earning 'a reasonable living'.

I'd much prefer 10000 small farmers received the share, currently sent to the Queen.
I certainly don't advocate treason (shooting the monarch)! (and I wouldn't be happy if it were to happen btw)
I don't disagree, that the conservatives (and other prior referenda refusers) got us 'into this mess'.

[Bean]

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.

Why didn't the EU include such a measure, when the directives were produced? Have to agree with Cirrus on this - the EU is embracing inequality by not doing so.
I also fully agree, that since the creators of the directives didn't, that the UK should have done so - but then I'm sure lots of MPs & family, benefit personally from it.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farmi...galfoundations
then follow the links to the individual directives and read.... for instance, payments to farmers;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...3R1307&from=en
There are clear examples of the EU directive telling member states what they can and cannot do with certain portions of the money etc...thus dictating how some, at least of the money is spent.

e.g.
"That payment should not replace the support given under rural development programmes and should not be granted to farmers in areas which were designated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 but have not been designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013."

Quite clearly the EU (directive) has imposed this restriction on CAP spending by member states, to farmers matching specific criteria.....they just didn't bother to add means-testing, or an income ceiling for applicants.

So now it has been shown that the EU do restrict and dictate, at least some of the CAP spending by member states - I believe I have answered you last question
(how are the EU in any way to blame).

[Bean]

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?

You're right - it's not crystal balling, as your links have now shown. I retract that aspect of my comment.

Still a strawman though, as I tried to explain in post #125;

and.... both the UK and the EU are being blamed in this thread, so how is anyone "blaming the EU for it, rather than those in the UK"? (which is your strawman)

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.

Who did that and which post number do they do it in?

[Bean]

This might totally derail the thread....

While I agree with the first half of the paragraph (wealth envy), I’ve always thought of the EU as more socialist than right-wing.

Right-wing to me would be more free-market, less rulesy, whereas one of the key gripes of Brexit was the EU interfering in our lives, which I would have classified as classic Socialist behaviour.

This link has some interesting information, especially the map;
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Europea...g-organization

[WTFH]

Why didn't the EU include such a measure, when the directives were produced? Have to agree with Cirrus on this - the EU is embracing inequality by not doing so.
I also fully agree, that since the creators of the directives didn't, that the UK should have done so - but then I'm sure lots of MPs & family, benefit personally from it.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farmi...galfoundations
then follow the links to the individual directives and read.... for instance, payments to farmers;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...3R1307&from=en
There are clear examples of the EU directive telling member states what they can and cannot do with certain portions of the money etc...thus dictating how some, at least of the money is spent.

e.g.
"That payment should not replace the support given under rural development programmes and should not be granted to farmers in areas which were designated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 but have not been designated in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013."

Quite clearly the EU (directive) has imposed this restriction on CAP spending by member states, to farmers matching specific criteria.....they just didn't bother to add means-testing, or an income ceiling for applicants.

So now it has been shown that the EU do restrict and dictate, at least some of the CAP spending by member states - I believe I have answered you last question
(how are the EU in any way to blame).

Do you know the difference between "should not" and "must not"?

You admit in your first sentences that the UK had (and still have) the option to make changes as to how an EU directive is implemented, which goes back to my point - is the EU responsible for how the UK chooses to implement the directives?

But you also want to know why an arbitrary limit on payments (e.g. income of more than £100,000) is not applied - are you suggesting that it should be applied wholesale across all farms, or should it maybe be done in a more considered way?
Should money that is earmarked for agriculture & the countryside be used in ways that protect hedgerows and native species, or is that a waste of money?

[Mordac]

This might totally derail the thread....

While I agree with the first half of the paragraph (wealth envy), I’ve always thought of the EU as more socialist than right-wing.

Right-wing to me would be more free-market, less rulesy, whereas one of the key gripes of Brexit was the EU interfering in our lives, which I would have classified as classic Socialist behaviour.

You've summed up quite nicely why 17.4 million of us voted to get the fook out of this circus. Socialism never fixed anything which needed to be fixed. The End.

[Mordac]

Do you know the difference between "should not" and "must not"?

You admit in your first sentences that the UK had (and still have) the option to make changes as to how an EU directive is implemented, which goes back to my point - is the EU responsible for how the UK chooses to implement the directives?

But you also want to know why an arbitrary limit on payments (e.g. income of more than £100,000) is not applied - are you suggesting that it should be applied wholesale across all farms, or should it maybe be done in a more considered way?
Should money that is earmarked for agriculture & the countryside be used in ways that protect hedgerows and native species, or is that a waste of money?

£100,000 is a pittance in some cases, and a worldly fortune in others. The fact remains that CAP subsidies were always designed to benefit French farmers, and farmers from many other countries benefited because they just could (you can't really blame them). Don't even think of bringing common sense into this argument, it really doesn't apply...

[Cirrus]

Right-wing to me would be more free-market, less rulesy, whereas one of the key gripes of Brexit was the EU interfering in our lives, which I would have classified as classic Socialist behaviour.

The EU is right wing in the sense it enforces free market policies. It discourages the state intervening to prop up industries. It discourages state ownership. This capitalist bias is why the Labour Party are only too happy to let the Tories get the blame for all the pain of leaving the EU. After the Tories get booted out, Labour can then take over and nationalize everything.

The EU can look more socialist to some observers because they are used to the UK's more extreme right wing position - minimal rights for workers, free reign for tax dodgers, low minimum wage, low taxation leading to poor social provision (eg yesterday I asked for a doctor appointment. The first one they had was over a month away )

[Mordac]

The EU is right wing in the sense it enforces free market policies. It discourages the state intervening to prop up industries. It discourages state ownership. This capitalist bias is why the Labour Party are only too happy to let the Tories get the blame for all the pain of leaving the EU. After the Tories get booted out, Labour can then take over and nationalize everything.

The EU can look more socialist to some observers because they are used to the UK's more extreme right wing position - minimal rights for workers, free reign for tax dodgers, low minimum wage, low taxation leading to poor social provision (eg yesterday I asked for a doctor appointment. The first one they had was over a month away )

Except that rule doesn't apply to Airbus, Renault etc. I wonder why that is...