we milked the EU for all we could back in the day. Which was ncie.


ITs good, but has flawes. But then, it is impossible to have a polical system thats perfect, especially when it incompasses so many different nationalities and standards.

___________________
Liverpool Champions of Europe 2005!


TA's NFL survival League winner 2006!

I voted option 1, but as as others don't consider the EU a perfect institution. To me it seems as some of the bigger countries (France & England) need to do a little pride-swallowing before the great promises of the project can be realized.

@Arbiter: You're talking about the EU or the CAP? If "the EU", can you please be a little bit more elaborate?

quote:

Originally posted by h0tsweetbabyd0l so....i think the CAP is necessary and useful for many reasons first it contributes to give to european guarantees and safety for the future products they buy ,furthermore PAC contributes for the environment 's protection and also promote the culture of the bio products but it also contributes to make the EU 's products more competitive on the world's market that's why i think we gotta keep the CAP

Okay, so in 2004, CAP cost about 50 billion euro, that could given a country of 90 million people a free education, grade one all the way to a university degree. Think that would be a better way of using the money?

Or perhaps the reason that CAP according to some estimates kills as many as 6 600 people EVERY DAY. Thats a lot of people, but hey europeans get safe food products, thats all that matter eh!

I dont know how many different institutions and reasearches that have showed that agricultre subsidies is the nr one reason for third world countries not developing faster than they do. But as long as we all have environmental friendly food, then i guess it doesnt matter that 80% of the worlds population will stay poor.

And even for us egocentric europeans this is not only beneficial, its estimated that our food prices are about 25-80% higher than they would be without CAP. But not only that, it cost every citizen in the EU, 23 euros a week, to pay for all the subsidies.

So except for killing third world ppl, keeping the rest of the world poor, making our food more expensive and costing us a shitload of money, except for that, its also a higly unefficient way of having labour. In a market economy there shouldnt be any business that should be subsidiesed like that, year after year, without any sign of turning around. This also leads to a huge overproduction, and people working with things they shouldnt, so it really slows down the economy of europe too. If the european egriculture business is not competitive enought, either we make it competitive or we start doing something else where we can compete without government support instead.

As for food safety and environmental rules, you could still have it, its not like the car industry make safe cars just because the government gives them money for it (the government doesnt...), they simply do it because there is a consumer demand for safe products, also there is a certain minimum requirment for a car to be allowed out on the roads, the same would be applied to food (and is already!).

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'd say it's positive as an economic institution, however it seems negative (so far anyway) as a political one.

Imo, i have almost the opposite opinion

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic @Arbiter: You're talking about the EU or the CAP? If "the EU", can you please be a little bit more elaborate?

This is going to be short and rather cursory as I'm about to head off to bed, but here's the short version.

I'm talking about the EU - I think that, economically, it's advantageous for Europe to pool their resources to some extent: a unified currency, strong commercial and financial ties with fairly liberal restrictions. Although there are some questionable economic initiatives in the EU, it generally encourages economic cooperation which ought to lead to economic growth.

Politically, however, the EU seems to be taking on too great a role IMO. Immigration policies have led to a myriad of problems already, and there is, as far as I can tell, a growing sense that the EU may threaten the sovereignty of its member countries. Because of this, quite a few Europeans seem relatively hostile to the EU and the vast majority of others quite apathetic towards it, as they really only identify with their home country, rather than seeing themselves as "citizens" of the EU.

I think the EU would be more effective if it spent less energy creating "policies" that are enthusiastically supported by a very dubious number of Europeans and more energy fostering the type of economic cooperation it has the potential to create. In other words, instead of trying to act as another layer of government, it ought to act as a small, simple, and efficient overseeing body for European economic affairs which helps businesses, governments, and individuals throughout Europe form mutually advantageous relationships with a minimum of bureaucratic involvement.

well erik i gotta admit u are right on some points that's why the CAP has been reformed !

quote:

Originally posted by h0tsweetbabyd0l well erik i gotta admit u are right on some points that's why the CAP has been reformed !

Exactly how has the reform lead to any significant improvment?

@Arbiter: Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your sentiments to some extend, though I don't think that the flaw is in the political ambitions of the EU, but rather the speed with which they're implemented. The unknowing masses need time to adjust.