Do you believe this is right?

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

farmers are paid to let land be unproductive

That rather depends on your definition of productive. If you would, for example, see cutting down the new forest for timber as productive then yes I suppose paying farmers to maintain wild flower line to help with biodiversity could be seen as unproductive.

CAP is a bad policy but there are good reasons to fund farmers to use a proportion of land for things other than producing crops.

BillJones

Bantex wrote: »

I am aware of it, just cannot understand why we signed up to such a one sided arrangement.

Because the whole package was better than not joining. It'd have been nicer to get even more out, but the whole idea was that everyone ended up better. Some ended up doing even more betterer than others, of course, but all did well.

CLAPTON

BillJones wrote: »

Because the whole package was better than not joining. It'd have been nicer to get even more out, but the whole idea was that everyone ended up better. Some ended up doing even more betterer than others, of course, but all did well.

impossible to say whether individually or collectively we would be better off if there had been no EU or if there were no CAP or any different path were taken


currently I don't really see that southern Europe are really benefitting from EU (Germany) policies.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

That rather depends on your definition of productive. If you would, for example, see cutting down the new forest for timber as productive then yes I suppose paying farmers to maintain wild flower line to help with biodiversity could be seen as unproductive.

CAP is a bad policy but there are good reasons to fund farmers to use a proportion of land for things other than producing crops.

I value biodiversity too but have no view on whether EU policy encourages such an ecosystem


EU certainly encourage (demands) use of biofuel which I consider a disaster

BillJones

CLAPTON wrote: »

impossible to say whether individually or collectively we would be better off if there had been no EU or if there were no CAP or any different path were taken.

I agree, but have to assume that at the time we believed that we were getting a good deal. It may not have been the best imaginable deal (as the subsequent rebate suggests is the case), but there's not any real proof that it's been a negative overall.

CLAPTON

BillJones wrote: »

I agree, but have to assume that at the time we believed that we were getting a good deal. It may not have been the best imaginable deal (as the subsequent rebate suggests is the case), but there's not any real proof that it's been a negative overall.

as said; impossible to 'proof' what might have been

anyway the past is the past and what matters is the future:
for me at least I don't think the handling of the continuing problems in the Euro zone is anything less than a disaster
and I'm totally against political and legal union