[The Immortal Goon]

LONDON When Britain's new freedom of information law took effect on Jan. 1, a small group of activists, from groups like Oxfam, Friends of the Earth and a couple of newspapers submitted a question they had long wanted to ask: Who gets what subsidies from the European Union's common agricultural policy?
.
At first, the government in London refused to say, swayed in part by the throaty opposition of the Country Land and Business Association. But on March 22, it capitulated and mailed out a nondescript CD-ROM containing a list of 100,000 names.
.
The list showed it was not small farmers who necessarily benefited most from Brussels' largess but big agribusiness companies and - since this was England - the landed aristocracy and royals, including Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, and a castleful of dukes and earls.

Full article here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/11/news/farm.html

Isn't it time to get rid of the royal family? Now it's not just England and the Commonwealth that are flipping the bill for English aristocracy, but everyone in the EU is now paying for them - probably including me, indirectly.

This irritates me. If the English still find a charm in this feudal relic and want to keep paying for it, that's one thing, but the fact that the EU is now paying for it seems like too much to ask to me.

-TIG :Rockon:

[N^G]

i agree that the EU should not be funding the royal family, but i also feel that spanish fishermen should not be allowed to fish scottish waters while our fishermen are prevented from doing so

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The problem here is the Common Agricultural Policy - which is probably the one EU thing that all British political parties agree ought to go. It's the French that keep it going. Blame them for the money paid to the royals. It does far worse - distorts international trade, impoverishes farmers in developing countries.

[Ombrageux]

Gradient speaks the truth.

[Mac]

The Common Agricultural Policy simply fuels the misconceptions of the EU in Britain and, as already stated, inhibits multilateral trade. This most recent revelation is just one more reason why it should be abandoned.

[Zel]

I agree the problem is the CAP. I dont think it should be canned completely but it has to be reformed substantially. The problem with the CAP is that it was designed to counter a situation of too low production and now is still applied while we have surplus production.

What people shouldnt forget is that the US has similar funding for their agriculture, and both the US and EU farmers would not be competitive on a free, subsidy free market. CAP is a very delicate system, which if reformed the wrong way can seriously hurt the whole continent in the long run.

[Ombrageux]

At most the CAP should encourage farmers to make enough food for Europe to be quasi-autonomous and not dependent on others for essential foodstuffs.

Anything beyond that is ridiculous.

[Zel]

Thats the big problem, with free trade agreements on a global base the EU farmers can only compete if their products are heavily subsidised. There is no way a British or German cattle farmer could compete with an Argentinian cattle farmer. Agriculture is at the end dependent on size and workcost, and EU farmers (actually all western farmers) will be on the losing end if competing with their 3rd world counterparts (or a US farmer that gets his subsidies)

[Ombrageux]

That's true, but the CAP does more than just encourage self-sufficiency, it floods the market. It should be rolled back, even if it should perhaps remain on strategic grounds (perhaps)

[Zel]

I liked the proposal of the last commissioner for agriculture, that was unfortunatly turned down in the council, that proposed a shift from quantity subsidising to the subsidising of quality, ecological production and land preservation etc..

[Clann]

In response to the goon's initial statement. Get rid of them preferably hang them from the nearest lamp post every last one of the parasites.

[Karna]

Hi

How about this for a concept?
The Royal family get no subsidies or public money but are given a tax free status as a result of their position. Many of their inherited treasures, and historic buildings would be classified as being kept by the monarchy but owned by the people. As a result of this they would be responsible for the upkeep, and to make some efforts to display these items. They could charge, as a museum, to cover costs. If they feel that they are unable to properly look after a part of 'heritage' it would be transfered to a museum or an organization like the national trust which could.

Personally I think that they would probably make more money this way than the civil list.

As for the CAP, it sucks big time amd the sooner it goes the better for me. I do take Zel's point about the American subsidies, and this is probably one of the larger practical difficulties. Personally I can't see much wrong with devolving much of our agriculture to the third world. At least it's something they can do well there. There potentially should be some level of sufficiency, although that could be achieved reasonably with stockpiling. While the CAP is in place however, I see nothing wrong with the royalty, as some of Britain's big landowners, from taking advantage of it. In fact I can't see any country where people are refusing CAP subsidies because they are already rich enough.

Karna