Tästä Kokoomus ja Niinistö vaikenevat

EU-hulapaloota kirjoitti:

Miten EU-jäsenyys tappaa teollisuuden?

Independent Media Digest and Commentary
20 Ramillies Road, London W4 1JN Telephone & fax 020-8995 8657
e-mail [email protected] website
Editor Christina Speight

HOW TO KILL AN INDUSTRY

THE REAL CAUSE OF BRITISH AGRICULTURE'S DECLINE
(For the information in the article which follows we are indebted to a speech delivered by Dr Richard North at the Cardiff Conference for Real Democracy, 9 May 2002 and published in the May 2002 issue of SOVEREIGNTY 268 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR.)

If you want to know why both the Fisheries and Agriculture policies are in such a mess, the answer is that the democratic system has failed. We all know that agriculture is in crisis. Foot and Mouth precipitated an immediate crisis, but long before that, UK agriculture was in serious trouble. It is the common assumption that the problem is the CAP and almost everyone concerned, [except the French .. ED] - including Tony Blair, agrees. However, we've still got it! Yet, despite reforms, spending on the CAP has continued upwards, and British farming has deteriorated to crisis point. The core of the CAP is subsidies. It is easy to attack subsidies, but it is very hard to make a case that subsidies are necessarily wrong. . The simple fact is that in the USA and in almost all countries in the developed world - with the exception of Australia and New Zealand - agriculture is subsidised. And of course, when you come home and look at the EU 15, including the UK, all these countries are subsidised because we are under a Common Agricultural Policy.

ONLY BRITISH FARMING IS IN CRISIS The crucial fact is that, in the EU, it is only the UK which is at crisis point. That crisis point is measured in terms of net income. In the 5 years 1995-2000, agricultural incomes in the EU increased by 14%. The average farming income in the UK is now £4,500 a year. Now that IS a crisis!

Why, if we have a Common Agricultural Policy which applies to all 15 countries which all receive subsidies, should British agriculture be the only one in crisis? Continental agriculture - while not doing very well - is nevertheless not doing badly. Here in Britain there is, in some places, abject poverty. Why? Now clearly logic would say that if you had a Common Policy and only one country was suffering then the problem might not be in the Policy.

Some point at supermarkets and say "If only supermarkets would pay us realistic prices for our products then everything in the garden would be rosy". It is true that the UK has the best developed supermarket system in the EU, if not the world, and it is true that they hold a great deal of power. If farmers will not accept what the supermarkets offer they might say, "we will withdraw our trade." "No problem" say the chains, "sitting in the next room we have a Dutch supplier who can undercut you." That applies across the board to most commodities. Our EU neighbours can undercut the market and still make money and still turn out an overall increase in income over a 5-year period. Why?

HIGHER LEVELS OF SUBSIDY IN THE REST OF THE EU Take the supermarkets. If they can buy cheaper from abroad on products, it will be the EU import price which sets the market price. If our EU competitors get more money from handouts and if they have free access to our markets - without tariffs or quotas - then they will undercut us, and that is precisely what is happening. Although it is a Common Agricultural Policy it is not a common subsidy base. For UK farmers to compete, they must match those lower costs and if their cost base is higher, they must either reduce overheads by increasing 'efficiency' or reduce their incomes, or both, or go out of business.
..........(2).........(October 2002) (.... How to kill an industry)

HOW THE CAP SUBSIDY SYSTEM WORKS There are 2 levels of subsidy. The broad fund (EAGGF) which pays the money is split into two areas: Most of the money goes into, firstly, "non discretionary funds" which are direct support payments to farmers. If farmers comply with the EU rules, they get the funding directly from their government, which reclaims it in full from the EAGGF.

Secondly, included also in the EAGGF are the "discretionary funds", which are rural and environmental payments and other schemes, where it is up to the "discretion" of the central government of each member state to decide how much to take out of the fund. Crucially, this funding has to be co-funded by an equivalent amount from the member state. You would think that if it were a Common Agricultural Policy then all farmers would get the same funding throughout the EU. Not so. Even in this area of expenditure, there are disparities which are difficult to reconcile. Britain appears to do well. It produces 8.4 % of the agricultural goods yet claims 10.1% of the EAGGF budget (1995-1998). However, Ireland, our major EU competitor in beef and milk does much better. Accounting for only 2.1% of total production - but 6.9% of the beef, exactly the same as the UK - it gets 4.5% of the budget. - effectively 70%, pro rata more than Britain.

UK GOVERNMENT NOT SUPPORTING ITS FARMERS The current rural development programme covers the seven years of 2000-06, for which member states have already made commitments. Significantly, the Irish -- with under 4 mn people -- have schemes costing an average of £500 million per year. The Irish government's pays 55 %, with 45% from the EU. Germany is to spend £1.1 bn a year, taking up 16 % of the EU's rural development budget, while France leads the field with £1.2 bn a year, 17.5 % of the budget. The UK government, however, has a record of meanness when it comes to matched funding schemes. This is indicated by its uptake of the scheme for encouraging young farmers, by way of cheap loans and development funding. While the French helped 11,952 young farmers between 1990-97, the Spanish 6,005 and Portugal 2,365 -- between them spending 249 mn ecu (about £159m)-- the British helped a mere 27, with a paltry 152,000 ecu. (£38.000!!) Predictably, Britain will not commit serious money to rural development in the current expenditure round. It has drawn down a mere 3.5 % of the budget - the paltry sum of £230 mn a year. This is a fifth of that devoted by the French and less than half that allocated by the Irish government whose farm industry produces a quarter of British output. Crucially, as Ireland is our main competitor in the livestock field of beef and milk products, then it is with Ireland that equivalency is important.

To maintain competitiveness, the UK would have to match the Irish commitment. On a realistic basis and as we have 4 times the agriculture output, we would be paying £2 bn a year [4 x Ireland's £500m] into the rural development fund instead of £230 million.

AGRIMONEY COMPENSATION NOT COLLECTED There is a third element .. we pay money into the EAGGF in sterling with the subsidies calculated in Euros. So when the Euro depreciates against the pound, the subsidies are paid in the devalued Euros, and the farmers get less. There is a top-up scheme exists called "agri-money", to which the UK has to contribute. But it must be match-funded by the UK. For every 50p paid out, the UK must find the same. But the UK never pays enough. In the four years 1997-2000, the NFU estimates that British farmers have been short-changed by £1.2 billion or £300 million a year, which is more than the annual £230 million amount allocated to the rural development fund. A deficit of £1.2 billion since 1997, is very substantial in an industry which only turns over £13 billion a year.

SO HERE IS THE REAL PICTURE Under the EU's single market regime, British farmers have to compete with unrestricted imports from member states such as Ireland, whose farmers get higher levels of funding. Despite call to reduce imports it would be illegal under EU rules.

In addition, there are national support systems. (Just because there are CAP payments does not stop national governments paying money in addition.) There are hundreds of such schemes. For example, if you are a German farmer you pay income tax, but only on 75% of your income. Very few Germans and Austrian farmers actually pay any tax at all. In Holland where there is a high proportion of tenant farmers -- around 60% -- there is an artificially low level rent cap. There is an EU report which lists all the national systems,- page after page. The UK had the shortest entry of them all .. "None".

Where does that put us? Yes, the CAP is a problem, but the real problem is in the way the UK
..........(3).........(October 2002) (.... How to kill an industry)

administers it, and is able to blame "supermarkets," "CAP", "Brussels", indeed blame anybody else except itself for the collapse in the industry. The real problem, within the context of the immediate crisis in British farming, is not Brussels, it is Whitehall.

So, the problem in a nutshell is that British agriculture is hugely under-funded in relation to our EU competitors to around the tune of £3.5 bn a year;while giving free access to our EU competitors; these competitors can undercut our own farmers because they are better supported, both with CAP funds drawn down by their governments, and by national support systems. In addition to this unlevel playing field, we have a system of government which no longer works, is no longer accountable, cannot support our core basic industries, and is so complex that nobody understands it, the people have lost trust in it, and our politicians get away with it.

.... AND MILK FARMERS TOO
Channel 4 ran a ŒMilk Wars¹ programme early in August but it was all related to 2 years ago. There was no postscript to give the up-to-date resume of what happened to a brave - but alas naive - couple and their dairy farm. The disastrous Mr Brown was still then Minister of Agriculture and Blair's Foot & Mouth had not then struck. As usual the government will not lift a finger to help the farmers and shifts the blame for its own shortcomings onto Brussels.

The depressing thing about the programme was the level of misunderstanding around. The man from the dreaded NFU used the excuse that Brussels set the price of milk. The farmers there did not believe him and howled him down. The Office of Fair Trading was called in support of Brussels too, supposedly preventing the supermarkets from agreeing together a modest price increase. This - they said - would have constituted an illegal bit of market-fixing in restraint of trade.

Meanwhile a study carried out in August by the leading research company Taylor Nelson Sofres found that four out of five shoppers would pay up to 5p more for a pint of milk if the money went directly to farmers. The poll shows that 60% of city dwellers do not realise that most dairy farmers make a loss on each pint of milk sold. Forty per cent of people can't recall how much they pay for a pinta - even though they buy one every other day. But 84% of people would pay 5p more if it went to help farmers. The National Farmers' Union said the survey of 1000 shoppers highlighted the injustice of farm-gate milk prices. NFU deputy president Tim Bennett said: "Farmers will be heartened by this clear show of support for Britain's dairy industry." The news comes after processors forced through a price cut of more than one penny per litre in the price paid to dairy farmers for milk. Some farmers receive 4p per litre less than it costs to produce milk, said Mr Bennett. "Retail price wars and promotions "desensitise" many shoppers to the costs of food production [but consumers] do care and they don't want to see farmers ripped off." A shake-up was needed in the way milk prices were price to prevent further irreparable damage being caused to dairy production in Britain.

In the six years to June, the number of UK dairy herds shrank by one fifth - a reduction of 378,000 animals. In 2000 alone, an estimated 8% of UK dairy farmers quit the industry to escape plummeting returns. British farmers receive just 16p per litre for milk, putting them at the bottom of the EU milk price league. Farmers in Italy receive 22p p/l. If British farmers are to survive, the NFU believes processors must offer at least 20.02p per litre for milk at the next selling round in October. That is the European Union target milk price for the UK when converted into Sterling at a rate of E1=£0.628.

As for the Countryside Alliance ... two years ago remember - they were not helpful over publicity for milk farmers. However, Foot & Mouth seems to have given them more backbone and lets hope the MARCH/DEMO on 22 SEPTEMBER produces the hoped for biggest London demo EVER - target 500,000 people. (For details call and register on 0900 102 0900. More info on {Channel 4 10/8/02; Farmers Weekly 12/8/02}

At the end of these two items the one vital point is that our farmers are being ruined and nobody in government cares a damn for them. The EU contributes to this outrage by a scheme designed to tie Britain inescapably into the web of EU-directed subsidies. This conveniently provides an almost impenetrable smokescreen for Tony Blair and his country-hating ministers to hide behind.

..........(4).........(October 2002)

EURO NOT CHEAPER FOR TOURISTS
Whichever way you turn, the banks seem the only winners in the Euro game Most tourists travelling in the Eurozone have little reason to rejoice over the much proclaimed advantages of the common currency. Banks in the Eurozone continue to charge tourists exorbitant rates when they withdraw cash, and there are signs that German banks have raised domestic charges in order to compensate for the EU regulation of July 1 whereby charges for Euro transactions should be the same abroad as in the cardholder's homeland, according to the Berliner Zeitung. The use of cash dispensers abroad is still relatively costly - a charge of two or three euro is normal.

The advice is to use credit cards because the charge for use within the Eurozone has been abolished. Transfers of payments in Euros within the Eurozone still cost about 20 Euro. {EU Observer 12/8/02}

... AND MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THOSE IN EUROZONE TOO!!
The largest consumer organisation in France, UFC, in one of the largest surveys into the effects of the Euro says prices have been pushed up by 10% to the consumer. The survey covered 55,000 products in 1040 stores. (Shampoo, soap, beauty products up a staggering 40%,!) One of the causes is that in France with the Franc a ten-centime rise was small (just under a penny) whereas a ten-Euro-cent rise is 6.56 times greater or about 6p. The result is that initially the French did not realise what was happening; but they do now! And in Italy the same story is told. A cup of coffee has risen by 30%, petrol by 7%, hotel rooms by 5%, bus tickets by 30% , fruit by 7%. In Austria beer is up 38%, and in Germany the Consumer Affairs Office says it has found post-Euro rises on 10,000 items. Similar reports are coming in from Spain, Greece, Holland and Ireland.
{Telegraph 24/8/02; News of the World 25/8/02}

WOBBLY EURO - TROUBLE AHEAD - Euro Stability Pact in trouble
The Stability and Growth Pact was agreed at the Amsterdam Summit in June 1997 in return for the German acceptance of swapping the stable Deutschmark for the Euro. A number of larger EU states are facing growing difficulties in living up to the demands of the EU Stability and Growth Pact, which entered into force in 1999 to support the strength and the confidence in the new single currency, . Not only a small country like Portugal but also the biggest EU states such as Germany, France and Italy are all facing severe problems in relation to the Pact and pressures to change it might become very strong in the autumn, after the German election on 22. September.

The crisis will come because to maintain the Pact will cause unemployment and continued recession whereas to amend it drastically will undermine the currency¹s stability. There is no easy way out of this dilemma.

In France and Italy, political leaders are facing growing problems in living up to election promises without breaking the Pact. Italy wants the 3 % limit on budget deficits to be raised to 4 %. Instead of shaping up the Italian economy, it seems the Berlusconi government is now just waiting for other Euro-states to call for changes in the Pact. France escaped narrowly a warning in June by promising to be good - later! The Italian minister, Giuliano Urbani says that final decisions rest with governments as national governments are the ones to decide on the big European issues. "We shall be forced to revise the stability pact, because not only our own country but also France and especially Germany are at a risk of being unable to comply with the obligations and to reach the goal of approaching a balanced budget," he said. {EU Observer 14/8/02}

ANOTHER BRITON PERSECUTED - BY EU RULE
Skipper John Turtle and his 3 man crew got back to Newlyn exhausted after 10 days at sea in storm conditions. He wanted the crew (including his 77 year-old father!) to go home and get some rest. But under EU rules he is only allowed to unload between 5.0 am and 9,0 am unless 4 hours notice is given. The boat does not have a satellite phone so he could only give a 1 hour notice of arrival. As the catch had already been logged correctly with officials he decided to unload onto the dockside in full view of the watching officials who were standing on the quay anyway! The crew got some sleep. But he was reported, prosecuted and fined £3000. On an earlier occasion he wanted to land his catch and get back out to sea to recover some gear before a forecast storm arrived but this was not permitted either. [our liberties have vanished as we are in the hands of a bureaucratic and dictatorial monster .. ED]
(Western Morning News 13/8/02}
..........(5).........(October 2002)

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
How do you think Tony Blair, Peter Hain, Denis McShane and other leading New Labour figures would have responded had the last Tory government announced they were planning to introduce the following measures?
- Granting immunity from prosecution to police officers;
- Giving state agencies the right to intercept our emails, phone calls and faxes, and to find out what we
are accessing on the internet;
- Effectively ending Habeas Corpus and ending trial by jury for some citizens;
- Introducing a definition of terrorism so broad that virtually anybody engaging in civil disobedience could be so charged;
- Making it an offence for elected representatives to try and influence economic policy.
It is a fair bet that New Labour would have denounced these proposals as outrageously authoritarian and would have rightly claimed that they were violations of the Convention on Human Rights.

However, the measures above are not, of course, hypothetical. They are supported with enthusiasm by the Blair government, and all either emanate from decisions taken by the European Union or stem from treaty obligations that we have entered into. (The last example would be relevant to the United Kingdom were we to enter the single currency. Article 108 of the new Nice treaty forbids elected governments and MEPs from lobbying members of the European Central Bank.)

What is becoming ever more apparent is that the rhetorical enthusiasm New Labour expresses for the human rights agenda cannot be squared with their enthusiasm for ever greater European political union. The EU represents a major threat to basic civil liberties and democracy. However, as is the case whenever inconvenient contradictions within the Third Way agenda are identified, Blairites tend to go one of two ways. Either they go all passive-aggressive and simply refuse to address the issue being raised, or, alternatively, they go on the attack, and question the sanity of those pointing out inconvenient truths. As Keith Vaz said to a questioner. he had "obviously been watching too many episodes of the X-Files" and was in no doubt the sort of conspiracy theorist who sent anonymous letters in green ink to prominent people !! {Condensed and adapted from an article by Marc Glendening, Democracy Movement, in ŒTribune¹ 26/7/02}

PORTUGAL FEELS THE JACKBOOT - NO LONGER INDEPENDENT
Portugal, suffering from being in the E uro, has run up a large deficit in its finances. Because of being in the single currency it is not allowed to raise interest rates or devalue its currency. So now it has been ordered by Brussels to impose harsh austerity measures. The new Portuguese government found out that the ousted regime had used creative accounting [just like the EU itself in fact! .. ED] to hide the deficit. If Portugal fails to bring the books nearer to a balance the EU can dictate draconian spending cuts or tax increases. Portugal is seen as being on the same sticky wicket as Argentina after it stupidly pegged its currency to a rising dollar . It is now paying a heavy price, as Portugal will too. A perfect example of The Curse of the Euro. {Telegraph 27/7/02}

MORE MADCAP SCHEMES PROPOSED! ... Drunk cyclists charter!
It is one daft scheme after another that the EU dreams up. One of the latest is a proposal that in the event of a traffic accident between a car and a bicycle the car driver must pay, regardless of whose fault it was. So if a drunk cyclist jumps the lights and comes round the corner on the wrong side of the road while on his mobile phone, the motorist would have to pay through his insurance, the premiums for which would be expected to rise by £50 pa. {Sun, Yorkshire Post 5/8/02} [your editor proposes to acquire a zimmer frame to unseat cyclists on the pavement .. ED]

... AND ANOTHER ? ... White Ensign out! ??
Another idea is for a Euro-navy to patrol the EU¹s fishing grounds (formerly British fishing grounds) to ³keep out foreign vessels². Apart from the fact that it is difficult to think what foreign vessels might trespass in these waters the ships would come from Britain, Ireland, Spain and Portugal and in Britain¹s case would consist of 4 patrol boats and 3 mine hunters which would swap the White Ensign for the Gold Stars on Blue of the EU. European politicians, who already have discussed a EU aircraft carrier and a submarine fleet see this fishery protection fleet as a foot in the door of a EU navy.
{Sunday Times 28/7/02}

..........(6).........(October 2002)

UNION MOVES AGAINST EURO ...
The new leader of one of Britain¹s most powerful trade unions is set to thwart Tony Blair over the Euro. Derek Simpson, whose victory over Sir Ken Jackson to run Amicus dismayed Downing Street, is to ballot his 750,000 members on whether to maintain the union¹s support for the Euro, raising fears that other unions will follow suit. From next January when Simpson takes over there will be an immediate audit of financial links with Britain in Europe. And then after the ballot and if members vote against the Euro, Britain in Europe will be told to quit Amicus offices in Manchester and Nottingham and and the union will stop supporting BiE stands at party conferences. Simpson is furious that inaccurate claims were made in BiE leaflets financed by Amicus. The Times estimates total contribution from Amicus to BiE as 'into six figures'.

A quote from Simpson says it all ... "My members have no idea how much financial support we give to Britain in Europe. More to the point, nor do I. " [ Rejoice! .. ED] {Times 22/8/02}

.......... AND MORE SETBACKS FOR THE EURO CAMPAIGN
The Government's network of 12 regional euro forums is being wound down after enquiries from businesses about the Euro dried up (FT, 20 August). Some of the forums have already closed and passed their responsibilities - their Euro "hotlines" etc - on to Business Link organisations. Many others are planning to do the same over the next few months. The closures will be a blow to the euro lobby. Although the forums were officially supposed to help prepare British businesses for the Euro as a foreign currency, many went beyond this to actually promote the Euro. According to the FT, "The Prime Minister is still keen to call a referendum next year, and the 12 units could have been a useful resource for a pro-Euro campaign." Some of the forums were effectively becoming campaigning organisations - the South West and South East forums both sent out Euro "information" to tens of thousands of businesses last year. {ŒNO¹ Bulletin 16-22/8/02}

The British Chambers of Commerce, which represents 130,000 companies, had been planning to poll its members on the Euro in the autumn, but cancelled the poll because of lack of interest. If the result
had showed a majority in favour of joining the single currency, it would have given the Prime Minister a boost and helped him to swing public opinion. However, no company has agreed to provide the £30,000 sponsorship needed and the poll has been shelved. {Telegraph 23/8/02}

OUR AID TO POOR COUNTRIES SQUANDERED BY EU
Clare Short, Blair¹s International Development Secretary, has seen the light! She is furious how the EU uses the funds member states give it for overseas aid is instead diverted to countries in which the EU wishes to exert political leverage. Thus while 66% of the world¹s poorest live in S Asia (Bangladesh etc) and Sub Saharan Africa they only get 38% of the EU¹s aid at 27p a head while Mediterranean countries get aid at £2.41 a head. Clare Short is proposing that Britain repatriates our large contribution and distributes it itself. [Note: The aid programme is NOT part of the EU¹s budget and - for now, at least - we can decide for ourselves! .. ED] {Sun 30/7/02}

HYPOCRISY RAMPANT
The Commission is behind a EU-wide campaign to get the young not to start, or to quit, smoking. At the same time Ministers meeting in the Agriculture Council of Ministers agree to continue EU subsidies to 101,000 producers in 8 member countries (mostly in Greece and Italy). They also agree to a temporary derogation for Poland and Slovakia from applying VAT to cigarettes as this would ³cause negative attitudes to the EU². [OK to kill Poles as long as the EU is not disliked! .. ED]
{European Journal June/July/02}

IT¹S UNBELIEVABLE BUT TRUE
Britain in Europe issue "flawed" report on prices. Britain in Europe's "Shoppers in Europe" group have had to withdraw a recent report comparing prices in Britain and the Eurozone after confusing Euro and sterling prices when making the comparisons. BiE claimed that Dixons charged more for goods in London than in Dublin by focusing on a video recorder and a walkman but the walkman cited is cheaper in London and the video recorder is not even available in Dublin. The Independent on Sunday and the Observer - both pro-Euro papers - fell for this and had to publish apologies!
(ŒNO¹ Bulletin 9-15/8/02}

..........(7).........(October 2002)

COMING SUPERSTATE BACKED BY JACK STRAW (see al

kirjoitti:

Anonyymi

Kirjoita kommentti

5000

Lähetä