For anyone that thought the CAP was good for anything more than making impressive piles of food into museum pieces, here's this little cherry from The Grauniad.
To paraphrase, one third (€14bn) of the CAP budget goes to food companies, not farmers, which is meant to be the legitmating reason for this abomination of welfare policy. These beneficiaries include the elsewhere notorious Gate Gourmet, British Airways' catering firm, whose mile high food provision somehow qualifies for them for £1/2 million subsidy. Also rewarded were Nestle and, sadly too late for Devil's Kitchen, Eton College who admitted they had no idea why they received the money despite inquiries.
The largest British recipient, however, was Tate & Lyle, with £227 million over the two years 2003-4. A quick look at their website shows that CAP subsidy accounted for just under half of total profit over those two years. How many hospitals is that?
So the deal is this: the EU pays €14 billion to companies by some opaque undemocratic process and we get in return ... higher food prices!
... and a few more jobs in creaking industries that could be far more usefully employed elsewhere. The next time I hear anyone bemoan the widening productivity gap between Britain and America I will give them two words to ponder: TATE LYLE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Also rewarded were Nestle and, sadly too late for Devil's Kitchen, Eton College who admitted they had no idea why they received the money despite inquiries.
It wouldn't surprise me: Eton is something like the fourth biggest landowner in the country (which is why their facilities are so good, and their fees - relatively - low): I happen to know that they own quite a few farms all over Britain.
These investments are handled by a trust that is - theoretically - unconnected to the school itself. The people running the school from day to day would certainly be unaware of what the CAP money went to, if it was them that were asked.
DK
Cough, cough.
T&L subsidies. They import cane sugar (it’s British Sugar that deals with the beet) and refine it in the UK. Much of it is then exported. T&L must either pay the EU price for their imported sugar (you remember, the ACP countries are allowed to sell some amount at the EU not world price) or pay large duties on those imports.
When they export.....they get a subsidy on the export equal to the higher price they are forced to pay on their inputs.
At least, that’s how I understand it works and would love to be told if I’ve got it wrong.
So, do T&L get subsidies? Yes. But who actually gains from the subsidies? T&L? No. They merely compensate for the higher input prices. So who does gain from the higher prices? The ACP sugar farmers. Or, the taxpayers when duties are levied on non ACP sugar imports.
If T&L were free to buy sugar on world markets at world prices then they wouldn’t get any subsidy.
Post a Comment