How should EU reform farm subsidies?

If people can't afford their food, I can guarantee they won't be thinking about the environment.

The biggest enemy of the farmers are the supermarket chains which pay the lowest possible prices for profit and short term gain without regard to the sustainability of resources, soil quality or animal welfare. That is why farmers need subsidies. In effect, the subsidies are there to boost supermaket profits.

Its not just EC policy than needs sorting out. The Rural payments Agency was set up as a single paying agency for most Common Agricultural Policy schemes in England - the UK has elected to implement a complex payment scheme in the most complex manner. The RPA is simply not fit for purpose. it is costing a huge amount of tax payers money and tieing farmers up in red tape just to process claims - claims which are often not paid anywhere near on time.

I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of agri subsidies but as far as I can make out there are the following possibilities:

1. Everyone keeps subsidies and everyone accesses each other's markets.

2. Everyone gets rid of subsidies and everyone accesses each other's markets. (My favoured solution - because why should agribusiness be seen as different to any other business?)

3. The EU gets rid of subsidies and shuts the door to all other countries' food - or imposes tariffs to equalise things.

The French have done well out of farm susidies, because of the Napoleonic law farms were sub divided between all members of a family not past to one child. So many French people own a small plots of land whilst having another job, the number of people benifitting from subsidies is therefore far greater. One of the biggest problem in farming now is the ridiculous ammount of paper work. Large farms employ a secretary but on smaller farms it is a nightmare. Few of those who work on the land can be bothered with the paper work as most of it is so unnecessary that it is meaningless.

This government are showing a complete lack of understanding of farming. The biggest reason we still have some farmers left in this country is because they're being subsidised by the EU. If left to go it alone they would be unable to afford to produce meat & veg because the supermarkets insist on cheap food production & won't pay what it actually costs to produce it with high standards. It feels like our government want to do all it can to prevent us from being self sufficient & make us reliant on foreign imports for everything.

We need to cut all subsidies for farmers and make them work, my personal experiences of English farmers are they claim all the benefits they can and sit back enjoying their easy life. If the land is not suitable for agriculture, then no subsidies are paid and the authorities take the land for housing, industry and leisure development. I know a farmer who receives £50,000-00 a year for one field because the land is useless for farming while a nearby school and hospital need a playing field and both need additional car parking. Because of these enormous payouts, the rest of us pay are forced into paying higher and higher prices for imported food and I really don't care about the environment when I need food for my family at a reasonable cost.

We used to be a self-sefience country with a hard working population but in one generation we have become lazy and inefficient because of 'free' money.

"How should EU Reform Farm Subsidies"? is the HYS question.

Recommend post #02 @ 3:08pm on 18 Oct - 'Confuciousfred'.

Supermarkets in the UK are not only damaging to UK farming and farmers, but to all economic diversity in UK.

As we all know, France benefits most from EU subsidies - so there will be no reforms that affect France in any way, shape or form - as usual.

Cut all subsidies, let the market find it's own prices. Some of the less efficient farmers ( most of France's ) will go out of business but the slack will be quickly taken up by the more efficient. Paying subsidy for land not being cropped and olives left to rot on the tree is typical of the EU, incompetent and ludicrous. The sooner Britain leaves this organisation and withdraws it's £6.5 billion annual contribution to bureaucracy , the better. Subsidies produce artificially high food prices and keep people in business who should not be.

the reason for subsidies was in response to to price bread during french revolution and great depression. Because farmers expenses exceeded the price that they could earn for selling there crops. this also set up a system of quotas that were set up to prevent overproduction and the prices of food to fall below the price thus causing farmers to go bankrupt.
The idea is good but the problem is doing it real world causes lots of complications. the Idea was to create stable food price not highs and lows that happen causing a boom and bust cycle. the problem is any time goverment interferes in market it has unintended consequences. hence the mountains of butter and other goverment stock piles of past.
goverment is no better at predicting future then any one else.

There should be no subsidies. Let the market decide the price.

8. At 3:58pm on 18 Oct 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:

"How should EU Reform Farm Subsidies"? is the HYS question.

Recommend post #02 @ 3:08pm on 18 Oct - 'Confuciousfred'.

Supermarkets in the UK are not only damaging to UK farming and farmers, but to all economic diversity in UK.

As we all know, France benefits most from EU subsidies - so there will be no reforms that affect France in any way, shape or form - as usual.

-----------------------------------

And you know who the criminals are! Us. We buy from supermarkets because they are thought cheaper than local. But people buy from the cheapest supermarket. So supermarkets have to drive prices down to have any business.

I moved away a while ago and was very surprised to find that the local market was around half the price of the large supermarket here. Our bill cut in half instantly and we support the local producers. There are the few items we must get from the supermarket but it recieves a lot less business from us

All these farming subsidies are a scam! I am a keen rambler & traverse the English countryside for 15 miles on average every weekend: I come across swathes of un-harvested sweetcorns. Are they there for the benefit of the field mice?

In 1996 the agricultural industry contributed 10 billion pounds (1.5% of GDP) to the UK economy. By 2008 this figure had nearly halved to 5.8 billion pounds (0.6% of GDP).

In 1996 our balance of trade deficit on agriculture was nearly 8 billion pounds. By 2006 the deficit had more than doubled to 18.5 billion pounds.

In 1996 the UK was 68% self sufficient in all foods and 82% self sufficient in indigenous foods. By 2006 this had declined to 59% and 72.5% respectively.

Isn't it about time we did something to reverse these trends and start investing in our agriculture industry?

Many in the farming community have already had quite enough of our money through agri-environment schemes which, in many cases, have achieved nothing whatever for wildlife.

In mid-Wales, our money is spent on trashing hedgerows that should have been managed but weren't, and re-fencing every field that ought to have received regular attention but didn't. In return, farmers gave over one field - the most impoverished - to growing crops such as beet. Result? No improvement in the environment or wildlife, but nice new fencing and hedgerows laid while the farmer followed the local hunt or spent the day at the local market.

Subsidies should be withdrawn, and farmers compelled to form co-operatives; food prices, and their incomes, should be increased to reflect their true value.

Hats of to the French,at least the will protect there interests unlike this country who dumb enough play by the rules and hand over are rebate.

Countries dont get nowhere being nice.

Subsidies should be scrapped, they don't do anything to improve farming, live stock suffer because farmers know they will get paid regardless of how they treat them.

Just getting rid of the bureaucracy involved in administering the subsidies would save thousands.

I guess the key question to answer before deciding what to do is whether the subsidies are in effect subsidies of supermarkets who demand rock-bottom prices from the farmyard whilst making a fat profit through retail, or whether the whole structure of the industry from farm to kitchen table is not factoring in economic reality?

It matters not what we want (the UK) if France says Non the answers is Non!

end of discussion

2. At 3:08pm on 18 Oct 2010, Confuciousfred wrote:
The biggest enemy of the farmers are the supermarket chains which pay the lowest possible prices for profit and short term gain without regard to the sustainability of resources, soil quality or animal welfare. That is why farmers need subsidies. In effect, the subsidies are there to boost supermaket profits.

----------------------------------------------

The only reason why this is so is because people want cheap food and are not prepared to pay the going rate for food produced in this country. They just want cheap food and don't give a hoot as to where it comes from. The solution is in your hands but you just don't care. Why don't you shop at a farmer's market or direct from the producer then? Answer - you'd rather buy cheap imported food and spend the difference on other imported stuff, probably that you don't need.

Cut the french subs in total and give it to us.

The CAP is well past its sell by date. It was designed to deal with post world war 2 food shortages

It must be scrapped ASAP and or the UK opt out (as it has the single currency)

The concept of agricultural subsides and their possible reduction is a difficult one. To cut back subsidies for family farms in countries such as France would result in many having to leave agriculture and likely migrate to cities, with many of them joining the ranks of the unemployed and hence and ironically, receiving governmental benefits. Another consequence would be the concentration of agriculture and then the supply of food into the hands of fewer producers, in the U.S. situation with vertically integrated companies assuming many operations, and that could mean their enhanced ability to control the price of food. On the other hand, in the U.S. the largest subsidies strangely are paid to the corporations involved in agriculture rather than to family farms. The EU needs to examine both sides of the equation thoroughly, insist that subsidies paid to agriculture in other countries do no place them at a competitively unfair advantage, and avoid the mistakes made in the U.S.

In reply to ian cheese the maize harvest (sweetcorn) has only just started so thats why it is still in the fields.
Farm subsidies will continue as long as we all rush to Tesco to buy our food as they are the ones who benefit most as we all like cheap food.

Subsidies go to the biggest farmers and agro-business. Not the smallholder or local farmer.

Buy from the local market, you won't have to pay the same for packaging, or ridiculous transport (runner beans from Africa anyone?). Usually the food is better too. What you DO pay for in a supermarket is the waste - about one third of all produce is thrown away because it is slightly "shop-soiled".

How should EU reform farm subsidies?

By passing laws that do that.

Get rid of all subsidies!!

Replace them with a minimum price per kilo/litre of produce to the grower.

If we can do it for wages we can do it for food!

Set the price regardless of where it is produced the playing field would be levelled farmers would be supported.Higher prices could be paid based on quality.

It should never be cheaper to cargo food thousands of miles than it is to produce it at home!!

I am not a farmer, but certain things seem self-evident to me.
1. The subsidy is purported to help poor, small farmers; yet, the richest seem to reap the most benefit.
The biggest beneficiaries are sugar companies such as France's Tereos; it received €178M last year. The number of subsidy millionaires seems to be in the up tick.
2. Item “1” becomes even more relevant when you consider the poor spend a bigger share of their income on food; so the subsidy seems backwards.
3. Farmers in developing countries are getting hurt. Their exports face EU high import tariffs; therefore sales are undercut by EU export subsidies. This seems counter to EU's stated promotion of international development.
4. If the subsidy program has been successful, how come farms still need help? Market impediments to supply & demand (subsidies) ought to be phased out.
5. Food safety is important. Genetically modified foods ought not to be subsidized until we are absolutely sure of its health & environmental ramifications.
6. Food prices need to reflect their environmental cost. Big agriculture - a big source of emissions - should be included in Europe's emissions trading scheme.

Why does the European taxpayer give away money to farmers?

Why does the European consumer pay more money than they need to for their food?

Because militant French farmers dictated the terms of European farming policy.

Is that right?

Don't care. Britain should get of this corrupt, wasteful, fascist organization ASAP.

I don,t hear much call from farmers to cut subsidies ,to many farmers the monthly cheque from the EEC is a welcome bonus and helps to buy a new 4x4 each year ,it is a pity that only some of the UK farmers benefit from the EEC but does seem the ones who benefit most are those who afford to pay someone or have the time to make sure they are getting everything available from the EEC.
Of course the system should be sorted out but I think British farmers have more to lose than to gain hence their deafening silence I bet they are not lobbying their ConDem MP for change.

For those whingeing about the subsidies paid to farmers, how many of you use local independent outlets? How many of you support Farmer's Markets, farm Shops, Butchers and Bakers who sell 'real' and seasonal foods?

You don't do you because the supermarkets dictate that you 'need' runner beans in December, strawberries twelve months of the year, new potatoes, again year round.

UK farmers are having to adapt to fulfil this need by growing these unseasonal foods to satisfy the 'need' that you are now all so used to.

If the UK population supported UK farmers, everyone and everything would benefit, transport costs would be reduced, packaging would be reduced and a healthier lifestyle just might cut medical costs.

HYS - "How should EU reform farm subsidies?"

By getting their pea-brained heads together and forcing ALL EU States to ensure that their farmers are ALL running their Farms EFFICIENTLY.
FRANCE alone, always have insisted on massive EU Farm subsidies to a ridiculous extent.

I recall that there was a time not too long ago, when the EU was creating SO MUCH food - due to EXCESSIVE subsidies - that they had 'food mountains' in excess. (look it up).

Our government has the RIGHT idea at the moment, and the EU should listen to them - rather than 'knuckle-down' to the politically-motivated French and other 'EU heavyweights' - but of course, we doubt they will - yet again...

Of all countries on this Planet,we,in Britain,have experienced,what happens,when a Government decides to go for the cheapest option.
The result..No mining idustry worth speaking about.Shipbuilding,a mere fraction of what it used to be.A much reduced Steel Industry.A Motor Industry in the hands of Foreign Companies.Ditto,our Gas & Electricty Industry.We no longer build aeroplanes.Just parts of aeroplanes.
Our Politicians must be worried.
Not much left to sell.Guess our Postal Services is an attractive possibility.Or maybe our National Health Service?
Who knows..there could be some brilliant economist out there,who thinks it would be a good idea,to buy,the so called,non existent,Edinburgh Tram Network.
Like everything else sold by a Politician.You could be buying a licence to print money?
They do not care.Why should you?

The Queen gets one of the biggest EU Farm subsidies under CAP because of her private Estates.

Everyone else in the EU world knows this...except the people of the UK..

Farm subsidies are racist- how many black farmers are there? Exactly.

This won't affect us in the UK. UK farmers are traditionally Tories so the Tories will step in to protect them and ensure their unfair subsidies continue.

To potatolord, your comment is offensive, no there are not too many black farmers in the UK, but they would be as entitled as any other UK farmer to receive a subsidy. Incidentally, a local small supermarket sells sausages from 'The Black Farmer' together with a photograph of him.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The CAP was originally put in place as a way of assisting both French farmers and German industry so as to drive up self sufficiency in food and industrial production after WW2. It basically worked by paying farmers to over produce. When the French farmers got their subsidy cheque they then went down to the local BMW or Mercedes dealer to buy cars or to buy Siemens, Bosch white goods. This was spectacularly successful when the EEC was just six nations. It had a few undesirable side effects: incenting sugar beet production is a highly inefficient way of producing sugar compared to sugar cane production in the tropics (so essentially subsidising the European farmers to misuse land so they could put farmers in developing world out of business).

The EEC expands: Ireland and Denmark benefit from this same system but the UK with very efficient farms but inefficient industry is caught between the two and needs the rebate to be put in place to get its fair allocation.

Then the Club-Med (Spain, Portugal, Greece) join and then the system designed for France starts to fall apart: wine lakes, butter mountains etc etc.

Now the EU is 27 states the CAP is unsustainable and would result in huge cash flows from efficient countries to inefficient ones solely to produce stuff, irrespective of whether the production is needed, whilst assigning farmers in developing world to poverty as they cannot sell their goods in the EU as they cannot match the subsidised prices. The US (the land of the free market, remember) also has huge market distorting subsidies for its farmers.

So, the CAP keeps prices high in Europe, uses taxpayers; money to subsidise the rich whilst also keeping the poor in poverty. It does need reforming and abolishing. We should move to full free trade so that the European consumer gets the best choice and price and at the same time this would enable the developing world to improve their economies without relying on aid.

However, be ready to lose the UK Rebate: with the UK GDP/capita well above the EU average AND no farm subsidies going to other rich EU nations (like France, Italy, Ireland etc) it would no longer be justified.

2. At 3:08pm on 18 Oct 2010, Confuciousfred wrote:
The biggest enemy of the farmers are the supermarket chains which pay the lowest possible prices for profit and short term gain without regard to the sustainability of resources, soil quality or animal welfare. That is why farmers need subsidies. In effect, the subsidies are there to boost supermaket profits.

If a true market existed then supermarkets could not get away with this as farmers getting below cost would go out of business, capacity would go down to match demand and prices stabilise to the market level. Subsidies distort the market and ensure inefficient producers remain in business and so supermarkets can abuse their buying power.

"Is it right to spend taxpayers' money to protect farmers from fluctuating prices?"

Wrongly worded question. Instead of 'farmers', it should be 'consumers'.

I really cant understand these buffoons in power years ago they gave farmers large amounts of money not to grow anything on certain amounts of land now they are saying should we give farmers subsidies I am sure the farmers would love to open up there fields again to grow more food but politics forbids it.then Mrs thatcher bless her closed all the coal mines which created thousands of jobs for people with cheaper coal for mainly a lot of poor people now we are importing it from other country's then beecham closed many railway lines now we have the worst congestion in the world who is really running this country democrats or anarchists.

Cut the CAP to cut the crap.

Don't subsidise, rationalise.

Don't reform, retreat, come home and pull up the drawbridge.

36. At 8:10pm on 18 Oct 2010, potatolord wrote:
"Farm subsidies are racist- how many black farmers are there? Exactly."

Should we evict white farmers and give them to black people just to show we arnt rascist?.

What idiotic PC statement.

I'm sure farmers in the UK wouldn't mind going back to when there were no subsidies and a dozen eggs cost more than a gallon of petrol, people worked 3 days a week to pay the rent and 2 days a week to buy food and Saturday for any extras. AND you got deported/hung for stealing a sheep.
I'm all for an open/free market but there will be periodic shortages and gluts without some sort of regulation/incentives.

35. At 8:08pm on 18 Oct 2010, insidestories wrote:

The Queen gets one of the biggest EU Farm subsidies under CAP because of her private Estates.

Everyone else in the EU world knows this...except the people of the UK..

The biggest farmer in the country used to be the Co-OP. Isn't that still the case?

29. At 7:12pm on 18 Oct 2010, Bradford wrote:

"Why does the European consumer pay more money than they need to for their food?"

Because they're too lazy to produce it themselves!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes I think that all Governments and other bodies such as the UN, UNESCO,World Bank etc should be assisting in funding to groups and people to get back to farming. This will help bring down the high cost of Food and Food production Globally. Yes! I am in food production and contribute this and other food science production around the world to encourage True Sustainable Development.

Yes get rid of benifits for farmers just like they are doing for the rest vof the population.....

Strange when it comes to Farm Subsidies none of the usual suspects complain about the EU interfering in British life...

Farms are subsidised with cheap fuel for tractors and machinery, they receive grants for leaving margins around the edges of their fields, (which are often difficult to cultivate anyway), and the grant per acre of land held is a sheer mockery of the ordinary taxpayer, the more you have the more you get even if you are already making a huge fortune out of it by growing grain or allowing shooting of game birds to garner in thousands of pounds per day. Allowances are made for the business being handed on from one generation to the next and grants are made for forestry. There is no need to insure your stock against the diseases which they are prone to because the ordinary taxpayer bails you out massively in circumstances in which regular commercial insurance companies would declare that you had not taken due care and refuse payment. No other industry has ever been so featherbedded, not even the arms industry, the grants are not even means tested but handed out willy nilly to one and all. And why is this allowed to go on? Because so many politicians, even so-called Labour ones have or have had farming interests.

Grants and or subsidies to the farming industry should only be paid where it is necessary and in the national interest to keep farms producing in marginal areas. For too long the farmers have pled poverty when it has so often been far from the case. Competition which we are so often told is good for us has not been allowed to weed out the grossly inefficient ones and in the meantime so many other industries just as essential to the survival of this island nation have been allowed to go to the wall. All farmers should be made to take out their own insurance against natural disasters such as foot and mouth and also to cover the payments they should have been making in respect of all those who have suffered that appalling death of nvCJD caused by the BSE that developed in our cattle herds (and is still present) because the livestock industry wanted to feed cheap protein to their animals.

At this time of cuts agriculture is the area in which to get really serious.

Why does the UK grow endless fields of rape which cause major problems for sufferers of asthma? Could it be that no one else in the EU wants to grow it?

The UK Government is trying to avoid vast amounts of UK citizens' monies being sent to Eastern Europe to prop-up (& develop) the agriculture of those countries.
Which ever way you cut it, the UK will be a nett payer, not a nett gainer.

The last thing the UK should be doing is moving the argument from agricultural production to environmental protection (And I speak as an environmentalist).

We are entering an era where the land within the national boundaries will progressively need to support the national population. Previous suppliers will renege on contracts because the Chinese offer is so much better. Much of the world’s foodstuffs will become re-routed to China.

Countries like the UK have the capacity to survive and prosper IF home grown supply meets home requirements.
This means a radical re-structuring of the proportion of each crop grown in UK soil – this is a dietary balance issue. It would help if we had a GM bread-wheat strain that prospered in UK conditions. Why do we not have this? - bread is our staple requirement (Government: “Let them eat Biscuit”.)

It also means planting to forestry the vast majority of the UK uplands – and quick – it takes some time for trees to grow.

National self-sufficiency will need the re-negotiation of an awful lot of trade agreements over the next, say, 20 years; but Prudence is merely in a coma, not terminally knocked out.

We need to cut the EU then you don't have to bother asking questions such as this.
France will get the lions share as usual.
They're going to need it to pay for everyone retiring at 60 or 62 (whoever wins) on state pension, then once retired, they can start up small holdings and claim subsidies.
The whole EU things a joke anyway, created by former Nazi's (re RED HOUSE REPORT) and ran by 'gravy train' politicains with large expense accounts, insisting its essential, hindering individual countrys systems with all the stupid rules and imposed Monopily currency.
If Camerons wants to really get rid of Quango's just start with the EU and save millons.

kaybraes said it pithily: "Cut all subsidies, let the market find it's own prices."

Precisely.

And so did angry_of_garston: "There should be no subsidies. Let the market decide the price."

We should pay farmers for managing land in the public interest -- access, interesting wildlife, scenic hedgerows, ecologically necessary wildlife, traditional building styles, etc. If they can also produce and sell some food while doing so, that's their business. Some kind of sliding scale: a certain minimum standard is simply required by law for all landowners; a higher standard gets a modest payment; a very high standard a larger payment and so on. We will certainly produce less "bulk" food: cereals and so on, but that's not a sensible use of the limited amount of open space on a smallish island anyway. Canada and Russia are much more sensible places to grow grain.

Would the farmers need subsidies if the supermarkets were not allowed to dictate what they would pay to the farmers. Farmers should have a minimum price they sell their products. Subsidies only benefit supermarket profits and not citizens of the EU

Thank you, posters 2 and 8 - that saves keyboarding.

France ducked out of reforming the CAP ripoff before 2000 and ?was it 14 or just forever? at the same meeting at which Princess Blair marked President LeGrenouille's card about stimulating drought, starvation and rebellion in Africa through the CAP and got a coarse geule-full of dirty words before the snobby unspeakable realised that the only perfect thing about Our Tone was his French.

The Common Market, EU, or whatever you want to call it, has never been more than a Teutono-Gallic stitchup of everyone else, especially the despicable Brits who spent most of recent history thrashing them back into their little boxes. The CAP scam is now getting a bit old and obvious, so the French have to milk the last of it before the pesky environmentalists expose it for the gross abuse of human rights it is (the days of sinking their ship and murdering their crew are over, mes amis).

Just belt up about subsidies and city-stereotype farmers, folks. The CAP is killing people in the "developing" world and the only things it's growing are desperation and, ultimately, terrorism.

47. At 10:13pm on 18 Oct 2010, rjimmer wrote:
35. At 8:08pm on 18 Oct 2010, insidestories wrote:

The Queen gets one of the biggest EU Farm subsidies under CAP because of her private Estates.

Everyone else in the EU world knows this...except the people of the UK..

..........................

The biggest farmer in the country used to be the Co-OP. Isn't that still the case?

.........................

Fair comment. Have just checked the figures available from the Rural Payments Agency - uk govt website - and Farmsubsidy which is a Danish NGO that tracks where EU money goes..

The Queen gets less than a million it seems. The biggest gainers are the giant sugar co's like Tate & Lyle who get over a 100 million!

Generally it seems that the really big farms benefit - which includes a lot of very wealthy private landowners too - but it includes others like the CoOp. It seems that most of the farming activities that gain are private interests and of the non-farmers it's the big sugar corporations.

I agree it's silly to pay subsidies, but the problem is that if they are cut, farmers will simply grow the most profitable crops. And, as we can easily see in other countries, that tends to be drugs.

On the other hand, if subsidies are cut, and the price of food subsequently goes up, the government will have to subsidise our wages, because we won't be able to afford to buy food!

Through compulsory insurance, made mandatory for the subsidized, with the insurance premium to be paid by the insured.

The best result for the UK would be a referendum on EU membership, which has been stealthily slid in by politicians of all colours, that would mean that the CAP would be irrelivant to us.

The savings by not paying all these foreigners would allow our government to spend more for us in this country, including supporting OUR farmers, which at present they are unable to do as a result of past Labour policies and the £40 million lost to Brussels per day.

We could even keep Arc Royal until its replacement was ready by doing the above.

Get rid of subsidies completely. If farmers wish to sell products then they should form their own collectives to take on the supermarkets or sell direct to the public. While we are at it get rid of the EU and save us all a whole lot of money.

64. At 06:28am on 19 Oct 2010, SnoddersB wrote:
The best result for the UK would be a referendum on EU membership, which has been stealthily slid in by politicians of all colours, that would mean that the CAP would be irrelivant to us.

The savings by not paying all these foreigners would allow our government to spend more for us in this country, including supporting OUR farmers, which at present they are unable to do as a result of past Labour policies and the £40 million lost to Brussels per day.

We could even keep Arc Royal until its replacement was ready by doing the above.

Our NET EU contributions are about £6B a year so that would not go very far at all in funding much else.So the £40m "lost" per day is incorrect once the rebate and subsides are returned.

Ironically we could not subsidise farmers if we were outside the EU as that would be counter to WTO rules (as these would be a barrier to trade with countries that don't subsidise agriculture). The US and EU can only get away with flouting WTO rules because of their size.

Lets get rid of subsidies altogether. The UK has supported innefficient French farmers for far too long. If the French want subsidies, then let the French governemrnt pay them, NOT THE REST OF US.
And I dont care what the Yanks do.
As for the supermarkets, the farmers should tell them to shove it and seek markets elsewhere.
Environment. The environment is constantly changing and the earth, after a billion years in existance, is still here. Environmental charges are just a cynical way of extracting more tax from us

64. At 06:28am on 19 Oct 2010, SnoddersB wrote:

66. At 07:18am on 19 Oct 2010, Total Mass Retain wrote:

Our NET EU contributions are about £6B a year so that would not go very far at all in funding much else.So the £40m "lost" per day is incorrect once the rebate and subsides are returned.

Ironically we could not subsidise farmers if we were outside the EU as that would be counter to WTO rules (as these would be a barrier to trade with countries that don't subsidise agriculture). The US and EU can only get away with flouting WTO rules because of their size.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

£40m per day is the correct figure. This does not only include what we actually pay after we get our rebate, ( which is going to dissapear very soon thanks to Mr B'liar )but includes implementing all aspects of EU law, including what it costs our business's every year to operate in this communist led society

I have yet to see any policy come out of Brussels that actually benefits the UK, and yet year on year i see the EU becoming more and more of a state in its own right.

This trend has to be reversed, and our country needs to take a grip of its own affairs.

68. At 07:46am on 19 Oct 2010, Emzdad wrote:
64. At 06:28am on 19 Oct 2010, SnoddersB wrote:

66. At 07:18am on 19 Oct 2010, Total Mass Retain wrote:

Our NET EU contributions are about £6B a year so that would not go very far at all in funding much else.So the £40m "lost" per day is incorrect once the rebate and subsides are returned.

Ironically we could not subsidise farmers if we were outside the EU as that would be counter to WTO rules (as these would be a barrier to trade with countries that don't subsidise agriculture). The US and EU can only get away with flouting WTO rules because of their size.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

£40m per day is the correct figure. This does not only include what we actually pay after we get our rebate, ( which is going to dissapear very soon thanks to Mr B'liar )but includes implementing all aspects of EU law, including what it costs our business's every year to operate in this communist led society

But you can't calculate it that way: the contribution minus rebate minus subsidies and grants is about £6B a year. If you're then going to add back in what it is suggested the indirect costs to business in, then I am entitled to add in the calculation of the benefits in trade from the single market which is many times greater and totally pays back the "£40m a day". Apart from the millions employed by exporters to the EU, the direct benefit to each of us from the single market is far more than that.

Certainly the rebate is going to reduce and possibly disappear. But it was put in place when Britain had one of the lowest GDP/capita in the EU (it now has one of the highest) AND it got less back from subsidies (as its agricultural sector was both smaller and more efficient than France's). If the CAP is to be reformed and Britain is much wealthier, on what basis can you justify the continuation of the rebate? It really is a similar argument to why should the highest paid continue to get child benefit?

Stick to the facts on what we pay the EU (that is the direct, measureable figures you get from the FCO or EU). If we start bandying around figues on indirect costs and indirect benefits we will find those figures taht support our prejudices. The direct figures are much less than £40m a day and your figure looks suspiciously close to the GROSS contribution (ie without rebates and subsidies/grants) to include those indirect costs you claim it does (if it does, £40m a day is quite a bargain).

BTW, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and Austria contribute more per capita now than the UK.

Our Agricultural Sector was once one of the most productive in the world. The EU CAP etc has been one of the major factors that has changed that. In my view the subsidies need to go - the major beneficiaries seem to be smallholdings in France and Germany. We need to get to a situation where we are far more self sufficient in the EU. The only subsidies I would use over the next 5 years or so would be to help modernise farming where needed. I would also encourage our supermarkets to pursue farm friendly policies so that our farmers are not having to dump produce. For example tons of apples never see our supermarket shelves because they do not meet the size/shape criteria of the supermarkets - ridiculous.

The removal of all subsidies with the exception of environmental impact support. This would ensure the right use of resources and lower the costs to all.

"2. At 3:08pm on 18 Oct 2010, Confuciousfred wrote:
The biggest enemy of the farmers are the supermarket chains which pay the lowest possible prices for profit and short term gain without regard to the sustainability of resources, soil quality or animal welfare. That is why farmers need subsidies. In effect, the subsidies are there to boost supermaket profits."


Very well put. Unfortunately I doubt that many will stop going to the big four. When there are only the big four everyone will wonder where the choices have gone as they only find own brands.

This is just another example of why the EU doesn't work. The theory is we all belong to a federal super state where we all pull together for the common good however, whenever we talk about the CAP its everyone back to trenches to look after their own national interest.

France isn't going to allow the Common Agricultural Policy to be reformed as it will actually have to start paying money in.

The UK isn't going to give up its rebate otherwise it will end up paying for everybody else.

70. At 08:44am on 19 Oct 2010, Total Mass Retain wrote:
68. At 07:46am on 19 Oct 2010, Emzdad wrote:
64. At 06:28am on 19 Oct 2010, SnoddersB wrote:

66. At 07:18am on 19 Oct 2010, Total Mass Retain wrote:

Our NET EU contributions are about £6B a year so that would not go very far at all in funding much else.So the £40m "lost" per day is incorrect once the rebate and subsides are returned.

Ironically we could not subsidise farmers if we were outside the EU as that would be counter to WTO rules (as these would be a barrier to trade with countries that don't subsidise agriculture). The US and EU can only get away with flouting WTO rules because of their size.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

£40m per day is the correct figure. This does not only include what we actually pay after we get our rebate, ( which is going to dissapear very soon thanks to Mr B'liar )but includes implementing all aspects of EU law, including what it costs our business's every year to operate in this communist led society

But you can't calculate it that way: the contribution minus rebate minus subsidies and grants is about £6B a year. If you're then going to add back in what it is suggested the indirect costs to business in, then I am entitled to add in the calculation of the benefits in trade from the single market which is many times greater and totally pays back the "£40m a day". Apart from the millions employed by exporters to the EU, the direct benefit to each of us from the single market is far more than that.

Certainly the rebate is going to reduce and possibly disappear. But it was put in place when Britain had one of the lowest GDP/capita in the EU (it now has one of the highest) AND it got less back from subsidies (as its agricultural sector was both smaller and more efficient than France's). If the CAP is to be reformed and Britain is much wealthier, on what basis can you justify the continuation of the rebate? It really is a similar argument to why should the highest paid continue to get child benefit?

Stick to the facts on what we pay the EU (that is the direct, measureable figures you get from the FCO or EU). If we start bandying around figues on indirect costs and indirect benefits we will find those figures taht support our prejudices. The direct figures are much less than £40m a day and your figure looks suspiciously close to the GROSS contribution (ie without rebates and subsidies/grants) to include those indirect costs you claim it does (if it does, £40m a day is quite a bargain).

BTW, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and Austria contribute more per capita now than the UK.

=======================================================================

Why is it the supporters of the Euro Disneyland Banana Republic seek to bring intangibles such as 'what we earn back from the EU' to justify the UK giving up its rebate. The rebate itself is justfied as the UK receives relatively little in farming subsidies compared to countries in France and Southern Europe. The position surrounding our relative wealth (GDP)has to be put into context, France and the UK have similar 'wealth' levels yet the UK pays in far more which is clearly wrong.

With regard to our earnings you seem to believe that if we were outside the EU these earnongs would simply disappear. They wouldn't, we would simply enter into a trade agreement with the EU as Norway and Switzerland do.

69. At 08:43am on 19 Oct 2010, AqualungCumbria wrote:
I have yet to see any policy come out of Brussels that actually benefits the UK

Have you not heard of the "EU Single Market"? You directly benefit from the choice and price competition from it every day of your life. If you have ever brought more than 1 litre of spirits back from a holiday in the EU you have personally benefited. If you have made a mobile phone call in an EU country recently you have personally benefited from lower costs. Ten years ago car manufacturers were ripping off UK customers by a price fixing cartel until the EU stopped them. If you have bought a new car in the past 10 years you have benefited. The EU also forced car manufacturers to respect warranties even if cars had been serviced at non-franchise garages. That increases competition and lowers prices. Low cost airlines are able to operate because the EU put in place an open skies policy. If you have flown on a budget airline you have personally benefited. If you own a second home in the EU or have relatives who have retired to another EU country, this is only possible because of EU membership.

So tell me why these aren't policies "out of Brussels that actually benefit the UK"?

Simple choice; half the population or forget about the environment.

EU farming subsidies are a big con paid for by the UK because in France if you have a cow, a few chickens and a goose you are considered a farmer. If the UK used the same criteria then anyone with a vegetable garden or allotment would get grants.

We should get out of the EU now, remake our links with the commonwealth and stop wasting "wrong shaped" potatoes and the like because of EU red tape and protectionism.

Why is it the supporters of the Euro Disneyland Banana Republic seek to bring intangibles such as 'what we earn back from the EU' to justify the UK giving up its rebate. The rebate itself is justfied as the UK receives relatively little in farming subsidies compared to countries in France and Southern Europe. The position surrounding our relative wealth (GDP)has to be put into context, France and the UK have similar 'wealth' levels yet the UK pays in far more which is clearly wrong.

With regard to our earnings you seem to believe that if we were outside the EU these earnongs would simply disappear. They wouldn't, we would simply enter into a trade agreement with the EU as Norway and Switzerland do.

If you'd read my post, you would have understood that I was saying I won't include intagibles in the benefits if you don't include intangibles in the cost. I wasn't using it to justify giving up the rebate.

As for the rebate: if the CAP is abolished then you have agreed that the rebate is no longer justified, have you not? France (and the Club Med countries) won't get the subsidies any more. Also France will be a large net contributor in such a reform (as it is in the current budget cycle). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

You'll see from that that Britain's contribution per capita is far from the highest in the EU and not that much higher than France.

You do agree that the rebate would not be justified when:
1) the CAP has been reformed (abolished) so the palying field is level
2) the net contribution of countries such as France and Britain is related to their actual GDP/capita
do you not?

Those days are not so far off.

With regard to our earnings you seem to believe that if we were outside the EU these earnongs would simply disappear. They wouldn't, we would simply enter into a trade agreement with the EU as Norway and Switzerland do.

Norway and Switzerland still have to contribute to the EU and abide by its rules and regulations but have no say in setting them (they are not represented on the Commission, Council of Ministers or EU parliament). How is that democratic? They also have specialised economies and small populations. They are, in case you didn't know, members of the Schengen "open borders" arrangement (unlike the UK).

The idea we could leave the EU and retain all the current benefits of membership and ditch all of the costs is actually "Disneyland" thinking.

If we left, expect Honda, Toyota and Nissan to move their manufacturing to Eastern Europe.

strength of the british farming industry belongs to the land owner,the farmer in many cases has to pay for the use of the land owners land and subsidies help to minimise cost,especially in areas of less productive places per hectare.If you are lucky enough to own land then europe will do the rest,geared to preserve the more valuable land owners of france and britain,if the british government has it's way the small farmer will loose,to allow the big land owners more profit by inducing the small farmer to give up farming,much the same as the coal industry shut down,the clamp down on subsidised industries,is the result of too many shared interests,the difference between coal and land is that coal went up in smoke and land shot up in price because of the value on subsidised areas of land owned by private companies,do nothing enterprises,and accept by doing nothing,huge subsidies,which the common market distribute with freedom to pay up,and not under duress but with pleasure in many cases of millions of Euros to people in the busness of agriculture.
Landowners of british agriculture, not resident, but in ownership, profit from paid subsidies,the royals recieve subsidies,the Queen recieved well over a million Euros just months ago for her shared interest in landownership for the current year, subsidised from Europe and many other nobles ,aristocrats,all in the pool,gaining their share of tax payers money paid into the common market,while the poor farmer,like the coal miner was and still is under threat from the coalition government's attempt to put an end to farming susidies,by wanting to engage the common market into subsidising environment changes such as wind and water energy,and loose the production of food.

It's important to develop local economies and produce locally, I would try to encourage local supply and production and remove subsidies from high mileage food.

Comments #1,#2,#3 really do well to sum up the crux of the issues here.

There are better ways to plan agriculture and environmental usage than playing it like a game of "Monopoly", where ownership (and implicit controlling power) rests with corporate interests and not the consumer. The EU has never played a fair game even prior to the UK's decision to apply for membership, and our countryside has been largely wrecked by decisions made which may reflect conditions in one or two places but are not sensible for others.

Consumers and customers must get control of their rights and responsibilities back and that means sacking large corporates and reducing them in size and increasing choice and fair competitiveness. The food industry is not interested in feeding people; it is interested only in making money.

The reforms necessary to bring the CAP up-to-date would be so wide ranging and serious that they are sure to be blocked by the French at EU level. The whole EU/CAP seems to be seem to be run for the ultimate benefit of the French and the Germans, with the Greeks and Italians hanging on their coat tails - so no major changes are likely. Also any major changes would have to be reflected in other countries - the USA and China among them. And changes in the USA, with the huge political power of agri-business there, is very unlikely.
Best thing to do? Get out of the EU, negotiate a new trade treaty and carry on as normal. Better still, revert the EU to the EEC and change it back to a trade area rather than a way of the Franco-German axis having it as a means of achieving what 2 World Wars failed to do...... The EU is so riddled with inefficiency and corruption that it is akin to the Roman Empire before the fall. Learn from history.
(And comments about swathes of standing maize and other crops - they may be left as "cover crops" for game birds).

Farmers are the most cosseted group of individuals appart from the "Windsors" in this country, it is time we stopped feather bedding this group of multimillionaires, let them stand on their own two feet like the rest of us, I have only ever had on financial goal and that was to have £1 less in my account than the "poorest Farmer" I would be rich indeed

Refer to post #47 @ 10:13pm on 18 Oct - 'rjimmer'.

Good point, I remember a documentary many years ago about the Co-op as the biggest farmer in the UK. It is now one of the biggest food distributers too.

The Church of England, Prince Charles and many American owned farms in the UK also benefit as landowners of agricultural and 'fallow field' subsidies.

However, we are still left with the problem of supermarkets who don't play fair with our UK farmers, and we as consumers are equally guilty of who buying air-freighted food just because we can and saw those ingredients on another cooking program.

So, we are all a bit mixed up? When I buy potatoes I never buy imports; UK fresh spinach or watercress. However, I don't understand why anyone would buy 'fresh' green beans from Africa - they look awful, are at least a month old with no vitamin content left - so buy British frozen green beans - yes, there is an obvious cost to that too. Lemons and oranges - no options.

As for british bread in supermarkets - don't get me started. I don't just mean wrapped bread. There is a tiny cartel of 'millers' in UK. The next time you buy wrapped bread look at who produces that bread and google the producer - you will be very surprised at what's allowed and what else they manufacture.

Buy British or Irish meat or bacon. But imported bacon is heavily subsidised by it's home nation and heavily pushed by supermarkets.

EU Farm Subsidies??...a bit of a con this one.....I worked on a farm until my boss started receiving Farm Subsidies. We all lost our jobs and the farmer's lifestyle suddenly shot up as if he had won the Euro Millions. His farm is now used for grazing his neighbour's livestock, while he himself and family are forever on exotic holidays. And he has this annoying habit of sending me postcards from faraway places with strange sounding names. It's all true !...for crying out loud ! I just wish he would get on with it and leave to my misery here in rainy Blighty.

UK citizens do not want more spent on the environment: we want reasonably priced food.

The UK government had better start to live in the real world like the rest of us.

No one has even yet begun to think “sustainability”. The only solution, and the one that is ignored, is sustainable farming and environmental protection. Framing is a business; unfortunately most farmers are clueless when it comes to economics, forward planning etc. For example, I don't agree with Stewardship Schemes, farmers basically getting grants to do what they ought to be doing anyway, it really is a joke.

83. At 10:48am on 19 Oct 2010, Shinglekicker wrote:
The reforms necessary to bring the CAP up-to-date would be so wide ranging and serious that they are sure to be blocked by the French at EU level. The whole EU/CAP seems to be seem to be run for the ultimate benefit of the French and the Germans, with the Greeks and Italians hanging on their coat tails - so no major changes are likely. Also any major changes would have to be reflected in other countries - the USA and China among them. And changes in the USA, with the huge political power of agri-business there, is very unlikely.
Best thing to do? Get out of the EU, negotiate a new trade treaty and carry on as normal. Better still, revert the EU to the EEC and change it back to a trade area rather than a way of the Franco-German axis having it as a means of achieving what 2 World Wars failed to do...... The EU is so riddled with inefficiency and corruption that it is akin to the Roman Empire before the fall. Learn from history.
(And comments about swathes of standing maize and other crops - they may be left as "cover crops" for game birds).

The idea that the EU is some tool of the French and Germans to achieve European dominance that Louis XIV, Napolean, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hitler failed to achieve and put those plucky Brits in their place whilst continuing with their way of life funded by us is ridiculous. The reforms in the Lisbon Treaty reduce their influence and increase the role of national parliaments, the EU parliament and require coalitions of countries large and small to get new rules through. The main reason the French rejected the "Constitution" was because they could see that they would have to pay their way much more AND lose their power and influence taht they were used to. Similarly with Ireland: they knew time was called on their EU funded good life and objected to providing to Eastern Europse the benefits they had themselves enjoyed that propelled them from the poorest EU member to one of the richest in 30 years.

As for being "riddled with inefficiency and corruption" can you substantiate that claim? The problems of getting the EU books audited is not evidence: it happens to set a much higher bar than natioanl governments or businesses have to meet and is proof that, if anyone is corrupt, it is the national governments who are the agents of the EU in disbursing its funds. CSA failures, IT project overspends, tax and benefit fraud are far higher in the UK than any such claims against the EU. The EU needs to show similar restrainst and cost cutting now along with all their member governments, of course.

Farming and environmental policy here and elsewhere has been a basket case for generations. I favour a free market with tariffs against those who subsidize production. It won't happen for political and tax reasons.

E.U. Subsides are nothing compared to the effects of super markets on farming.They have destroyed the milk industry,and thousands of little shops.They make billions of pounds profit at the expense of the customer,the farmer,its suppliers and the country in general.Get rid of supermarkets or curtail their size,and you would create thousands of jobs throughout the country.Supermarkets and this tory government are a scourge on this country.

Farmers have got used to all the subsidies on offer over the years and who can blame them? The trouble is there are few "small" farmers left and big business takes the rest and the sudsidies whilst making a packet out of the food "their"tied farmers produce. Its no wonder supermarkets corner the market and claim to be cheaper however if the subsidies were removed from big concerns and left on the small farmer we would see a totally different situation.Supermarkets would have to increase prices and small farmers would be able to compete.Food prices would increase but the result would be more employment and a huge saving to the EU in general.Years ago we had seasonal items in the UK and never thought anything about it.Some years veg was a bit higher in a bad harvest and other times it was cheap when it was a good year and so on.That is true market forces at work.Why should we expect cheap food all the time?Fluctuations in price have a way of making people cautious about what they buy and after all free markets can make food cheaper.As it is now farmers tend to grow what get the biggest handout and much of it isnt food.!

9. At 4:21pm on 18 Oct 2010, kaybraes wrote:
Cut all subsidies, let the market find it's own prices. Some of the less efficient farmers ( most of France's ) will go out of business but the slack will be quickly taken up by the more efficient.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Actually that has already happened. A lot of the subsidies given to the French have long gone. The unemployment rate amoungst agricultural workers is the highest by sector.

We only subsidised farming in the UK for the 50 years after WWII because we feared what would happen in another conflict.

After paying off the miners, the steel workers, heavy engineering, including car workers, how can farmers justify going cap in hand - again - to the government.

We must stop living in the past, in buscuit-tin-lid-britain, promoted by the countryside quango's. Put farmers out of work, we do not have to subsidise them because they have farmed the same land for generations.

There are a lot of better uses for redundent farmland. We could create more leisure facilities for example. What we have now is MAMONAA, Miles And Miles Of Nothing At All.

The only way we are going to get an equal playing field for British farmers is to leave the EU(stop paying the £ billions to Brussels and subsidies to the farmers internally within the UK.
We can then come up with internal environment and carbon capture deals for the British and have a different environment/carbon tax on continental trucker who bring the produce into the UK.
A playing field like this would allow British farmers to compete on quality of product basis and not price.

94. At 12:21pm on 19 Oct 2010, GavinH wrote:
The only way we are going to get an equal playing field for British farmers is to leave the EU(stop paying the £ billions to Brussels and subsidies to the farmers internally within the UK.
We can then come up with internal environment and carbon capture deals for the British and have a different environment/carbon tax on continental trucker who bring the produce into the UK.
A playing field like this would allow British farmers to compete on quality of product basis and not price.

Except this would contravene WTO rules and the EU would treat them as non-tarif barriers to trade, taking retaliatory action against British exporters (such as car manufacturers such as BMW, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Jaguar etc) and not permitting our services industries (banking, insurance, telecoms) easy access to their markets.

Its about time that the farmers in the UK and France found out what it is like to work for a living instead of just getting a big fat handout every year. I farm in Australia where there are no handouts at all and we all do very well thank you,so Let me tell you EU farmers something,"if your doing it hard,your doing it wrong" so stop working at a "lifestyle" and go and get a proper job! Stop the handouts and let every man get paid what he is worth.

Farming is like any other business.

It doesn't make a profit then it goes bankrupt.

Market forces will soon sort it out. Even in France.

Quite why we pay subsidies to people who own vast tracts of land is beyond me. I've never seen a poor farmer yet, though I do know plenty who claim to be on the bread line yet still drive around in brand new Range Rovers....

The reforms necessary to bring the CAP up-to-date would be so wide ranging and serious that they are sure to be blocked by the French at EU level. The whole EU/CAP seems to be seem to be run for the ultimate benefit of the French and the Germans, with the Greeks and Italians hanging on their coat tails - so no major changes are likely. Also any major changes would have to be reflected in other countries - the USA and China among them. And changes in the USA, with the huge political power of agri-business there, is very unlikely.
Best thing to do? Get out of the EU, negotiate a new trade treaty and carry on as normal. Better still, revert the EU to the EEC and change it back to a trade area rather than a way of the Franco-German axis having it as a means of achieving what 2 World Wars failed to do...... The EU is so riddled with inefficiency and corruption that it is akin to the Roman Empire before the fall. Learn from history.
(And comments about swathes of standing maize and other crops - they may be left as "cover crops" for game birds).

The idea that the EU is some tool of the French and Germans to achieve European dominance that Louis XIV, Napolean, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hitler failed to achieve and put those plucky Brits in their place whilst continuing with their way of life funded by us is ridiculous. The reforms in the Lisbon Treaty reduce their influence and increase the role of national parliaments, the EU parliament and require coalitions of countries large and small to get new rules through. The main reason the French rejected the "Constitution" was because they could see that they would have to pay their way much more AND lose their power and influence taht they were used to. Similarly with Ireland: they knew time was called on their EU funded good life and objected to providing to Eastern Europse the benefits they had themselves enjoyed that propelled them from the poorest EU member to one of the richest in 30 years.

As for being "riddled with inefficiency and corruption" can you substantiate that claim? The problems of getting the EU books audited is not evidence: it happens to set a much higher bar than natioanl governments or businesses have to meet and is proof that, if anyone is corrupt, it is the national governments who are the agents of the EU in disbursing its funds. CSA failures, IT project overspends, tax and benefit fraud are far higher in the UK than any such claims against the EU. The EU needs to show similar restrainst and cost cutting now along with all their member governments, of course.
========================================================================

Please tell me you are joking.

France supports the EU because through the Common Agricultural Policy it does very well thank you.

Lets look at some startling facts:

1) The UK is the second largest contributor to the EU.
2) Without the rebate it would be the largest contributor to the EU.
3) The UK opted to join a trading block when it voted for the Common Market. Ordinary Britons have never been given the opportunity to say whether they do or do not want to become part of a European Federal Republic that interferes with their day-to-day lives.

The fact is that we should have a two speed Europe. A Confederate Europe of countries that wish to be part of a trading block only and a United States of europe that strives for political union.

Germany supports the EU as it still believes it owes the rest of Europe something because of WWII

As to the environemntal problem, as I understand it most of the Worlds methane comes out of the rear end of cattle.

Why don't we connect up all cows' backsides to farmers' Rolls Royces thus solving the problem?

Ref 95
But if we left the EU entirely-would only WTO rules apply or are there other limitations?