Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Should the European taxpayer really be burdened keeping some farms alive. Lets allow the most profitable and efficient farms to take over the weak ones.

    I certainly can't agree with that notion. Infact, i believe this sums up your attitude in this post..

    I understand for most businesses but I believe that all agriculture needs stimulus which it wouldn't get without CAP.

    The risk of a monopoly of larger farms is not just a danger to food prices but places a greater dependency on said business.

    The CAP doesn't fully support the farms - if they really are failing they will close, but CAP subsidies allow for growth, ensuring that a farm can buy that needed equipment without falling in debt as they would before.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If a business is not competitive without substantial and growing continuing subsidies, note that our CAP payments represent over a 30% subsidy to farmers, then they should not be in business. CAP just drives up both taxes and food prices anyway. And Rakas beat me to the Reagan quote.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    CAP allows for growth, not hinders it. Most farms that take CAP subsidies are larger farms.

    While it does contribute to slightly higher food prices the alternative would just make the prices even higher. Many businesses would lose out which would have a sudden and damaging effect on the UK agriculture industry.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    I understand for most businesses but I believe that all agriculture needs stimulus which it wouldn't get without CAP.

    The risk of a monopoly of larger farms is not just a danger to food prices but places a greater dependency on said business.

    The CAP doesn't fully support the farms - if they really are failing they will close, but CAP subsidies allow for growth, ensuring that a farm can buy that needed equipment without falling in debt as they would before.

    CAP allows for growth, not hinders it. Most farms that take CAP subsidies are larger farms.

    While it does contribute to slightly higher food prices the alternative would just make the prices even higher. Many businesses would lose out which would have a sudden and damaging effect on the UK agriculture industry.
    If monopoly is your fear here then please present a bill strengthening the hand of the competition commission, i will gladly support it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    Nay.

    Many farms depends on CAP subsidies. Even with new incentives money still isn't a sure thing which could provide more disincentives and hardships.

    A significant amount of policy relating to CAP is formulated in the UK and with the NFU who represent around 70% of UK farms - from this I think CAP should try to reformed from within to help benifit fisheries.
    A valid point and i thank the Honourable Member for his knowledge of the CAP. What this Bill does nothing about is the nature of our food retailing sector and the unhealthy concentration of it in a few hands, which has a direct impact on farmers' livelihoods.

    The competition commission has done little in this regard because of their narrow remit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    I understand for most businesses but I believe that all agriculture needs stimulus which it wouldn't get without CAP.

    The risk of a monopoly of larger farms is not just a danger to food prices but places a greater dependency on said business.

    The CAP doesn't fully support the farms - if they really are failing they will close, but CAP subsidies allow for growth, ensuring that a farm can buy that needed equipment without falling in debt as they would before.



    CAP allows for growth, not hinders it. Most farms that take CAP subsidies are larger farms.

    While it does contribute to slightly higher food prices the alternative would just make the prices even higher. Many businesses would lose out which would have a sudden and damaging effect on the UK agriculture industry.
    The point of cap is not to stop Oligopolies forming, the point of CAP is to keep the European farms open despite being noncompetitive, damn the cost to the taxpayer in taxes and damn the cost to the consumer, the alternative is not to drive prices up further, the alternative is to import the food from where it is actually cheaply and effectively produced, and this actually helps the third world to boot through business, not hand outs.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If monopoly is your fear here then please present a bill strengthening the hand of the competition commission, i will gladly support it.
    As would I.

    I'll do some more in-depth research, it's peaked my interest now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    As would I.

    I'll do some more in-depth research, it's peaked my interest now.
    It's pique not peak #themoreyouknow
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The point of cap is not to stop Oligopolies forming, the point of CAP is to keep the European farms open despite being noncompetitive, damn the cost to the taxpayer in taxes and damn the cost to the consumer, the alternative is not to drive prices up further, the alternative is to import the food from where it is actually cheaply and effectively produced, and this actually helps the third world to boot through business, not hand outs.
    That's may of what you've interpreted the point to be but it's not to keep farms open, it's to keep farms productive. No one is saying keep open nonproductive farms - CAP cannot do that, the money will only streach so far.

    Some food you can't get from third-world countries. Whilst in theory it is a great idea, the biggest problem with agriculture is how you are very much stuck in certain areas.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's pique not peak #themoreyouknow
    Ooops.

    Thank you.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    That's may of what you've interpreted the point to be but it's not to keep farms open, it's to keep farms productive. No one is saying keep open nonproductive farms - CAP cannot do that, the money will only streach so far.

    Some food you can't get from third-world countries. Whilst in theory it is a great idea, the biggest problem with agriculture is how you are very much stuck in certain areas.
    Except practically by the definition of how subsidies are used the point is to keep open farms that cannot keep themselves open, if they could keep themselves open they would not need suibsidies and getting on for half of the economic contribution farming gives this country comes from CAP. The entirety of the policy surrounding CAP is protectionist and inflationary, it says "this is the price of this" and gives money to European farmers to be able to sell for that whilst placing tariffs on any overseas source that is cheaper, forcing people to pay more to keep farms that cannot keep themselves open open. On top of this the demand mandated by CAP is in many cases above the demand according to the free market and then the EU goes and buys all the extra produce that they made the farmers unnecessarily farm so they can keep the prices up. In response to a written question in 2007 the UK government revealed this stockpile to be 13,476,812 tonnes of cereal, rice, sugar and milk products with a further 3,529,002 hectolitres of alcoholic goods, mostly wine. The average dairy cow in 2000 was receiving $913 of EU subsidy annually.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Read the notes.
    I've read the notes. What I'm saying is that I just don't think they provide a good enough reason for me to vote aye. However, I am considering to abstain.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. First, I'm opposed to the policy of sections 1 and 2 in particular.

    Secondly, canon indicates that MHoC CAN legislate contrary to EU law, but it does not indicate that we are free to ignore political implications of EU law. Thus, we should consider the implications this has for our EU membership, and the likelihood of pissing off powerful economies within the EU.
    I'd point out that the government has ignored political implications by placing nuke plants in Scotland as part of their energy policy (seriously? The SNP agreeing with anything nuclear?). They used the canon amendment as their justification then and if that is acceptable, I don't see why this isn't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The leader of the Green Party is undecided on what is the most environmentally progressive act for UK waters in Mhoc history?
    Because we had a vote and voted to remain in the EU; which means we can't just stick two fingers up at them and change some things to go against their terms, without negotiating with the rest of the EU. Like barnetlad said, a detailed motion or SOI to negotiate with the EU would receive my support without a doubt - I love the bill, it just goes against the terms of the EU.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Because we had a vote and voted to remain in the EU; which means we can't just stick two fingers up at them and change some things to go against their terms, without negotiating with the rest of the EU. Like barnetlad said, a detailed motion or SOI to negotiate with the EU would receive my support without a doubt - I love the bill, it just goes against the terms of the EU.
    Would you like to tell us how exactly we go about that? And does this mean I can count you as a seconder to get rid of the EU bit of a canon amendment?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Would you like to tell us how exactly we go about that? And does this mean I can count you as a seconder to get rid of the EU bit of a canon amendment?
    Let a few members of the government have a holiday to Brussels, duh Although MHoC terms, a motion requesting the negotiations, then I suppose Mr Speaker could announce whether these imaginary negotiations have been successful (or something similar).

    As for the seconding, I'd have to see the end product before deciding for definite but I might
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Let a few members of the government have a holiday to Brussels, duh Although MHoC terms, a motion requesting the negotiations, then I suppose Mr Speaker could announce whether these imaginary negotiations have been successful (or something similar).

    As for the seconding, I'd have to see the end product before deciding for definite but I might
    Bad idea, why should the speaker decide, and what does it mean for the speaker given irrespective of what he says he will be wrong.

    The amendment (that I'm not actually going to write) literally just removes the EU clause.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I have a friend who works for the EU and I visit from time to time, so could be an envoy for or on behalf of the Government?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Bad idea, why should the speaker decide, and what does it mean for the speaker given irrespective of what he says he will be wrong.

    The amendment (that I'm not actually going to write) literally just removes the EU clause.
    I know it wasn't the best idea, but it was the only thought that popped in my head within those 30 seconds
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    I know it wasn't the best idea, but it was the only thought that popped in my head within those 30 seconds
    The correct answer is that we shouldn't.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Because we had a vote and voted to remain in the EU; which means we can't just stick two fingers up at them and change some things to go against their terms, without negotiating with the rest of the EU. Like barnetlad said, a detailed motion or SOI to negotiate with the EU would receive my support without a doubt - I love the bill, it just goes against the terms of the EU.
    That's why we have a canon amendment. We make law and assume they agreed.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The correct answer is that we shouldn't.
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That's why we have a canon amendment. We make law and assume they agreed.
    Bah, whatever, Aye.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 9, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.