|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 13:07:12 GMT
Since 1987, the agricultural branch of the EU has financed a food programme for the poor, using mostly agricultural surplus items which would otherwise be destroyed. 19 of the 27 EU countries use this programme for 240 different NGOs. Italy, Poland and France are the biggest users of these supplies. The programme helps to feed more than 13 million people throughout Europe.
Unfortunately, in the past two years the stocks became quite low and it was necessary to buy some items for the programme. Well, Germany filed a lawsuit, saying that if there is no surplus, it is illegal to keep funding the programme. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled in Germany's favour. With some maneuvering, it was able to save the programme for 2012 and 2013, but six countries do not want to feed the poor anymore: Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Denmark and Sweden.
These countries prefer to give their money to the banking system, because the poor are of no importance.
Perhaps they can be persuaded to finance a programme to cut more notches in the belts of the poor as they continue to tighten them.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 20, 2011 15:17:49 GMT
I can understand the logic of questioning what to do when there is insufficient surplus to keep the program going. After all, if the whole concept was to distribute surplus, what should happen if there is no surplus? If the program also involves shared funding, each country is right to expect to know what the charge will be, for purposes of budgeting. On the face of it, "don't want to feed the poor anymore" sounds dreadful. But is that the whole story? I looked up Common Agricultural Policy for the EU, and found this outdated information: ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/freefood/back/index_en.htm, which I'm including because of its useful historical background. Am I incorrect in interpreting all of this to mean that each country is feeding its own poor, however with the EU consolidating and distributing the common fund? This was the plan for 2011: www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/fr/article_10154_fr.htm. The "recent adapted proposal to adjust the scheme in future" referred to in that article is here: ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/freefood/index_en.htm. So, are the six countries cited in the OP all Ebenezer Scrooges, or are they simply seeking to serve their poor in a different way? |
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 20, 2011 15:18:33 GMT
Oddly, most of those countries are among the wealthiest in the EU.
Perhaps the new Danish government might have a slightly different outlook, though Scandinavians tend to Euro-scepticism.
Obviously some simply don't care, but I also feel that those in power simply fail to grasp how much want there is even in affluent countries. Because most poor people are NOT street beggars. Many do at least some paid work - often precarious nowadays (my own work is, though of course when I do work it is better-paid), and others are incapable of working due to age (very old or very young) or physical and psychological disabilities.
Sure, there are lazy layabout poor, but there are lazy layabouts in all classes of society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 16:37:34 GMT
Many of the poor in Europe are also non Europeans.
The article that I was reading today basically said that these countries prefer to feed their own poor. These crisis years are times of selfishness. Obviously the rich countries can afford to help feed the poor of Greece, for example -- but can Greece afford to do so if the others don't want to?
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 20, 2011 16:57:12 GMT
That is the source of my confusion. From what I was able to understand, each country, whether rich or poor, draws from the fund and distributes the monies among various ngos and charities to serve that particular country. However, before my eyes glazed over, I did get the impression that the CAP was maybe overly heavy on bureaucracy. Perhaps the countries which wish to pull out of the program are not going to abandon the poor, but are no longer in favor of how the EU manages the program.
Of course that raises the question of what happens to the poor of countries in need, if the wealthier countries don't throw some aid their way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 17:12:39 GMT
The UK has always believed that the CAP was cheating it. That was the whole deal of Margaret Thatcher and "I want my money back!" The fact that France has always received the most money from the CAP has not helped its relations with the UK (however, France is the biggest agricultural producer of the EU and gives back as much as it gets in funds). That is one of the "behind the scenes" elements of the current acrimony.
People who believe that bureaucracy can be eliminated are delusional.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 20, 2011 17:44:06 GMT
What happens now, with those six countries pulling out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 17:46:59 GMT
They still have 2 years to kiss and make up -- and by then we might be buried under a new agricultural surplus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 18:10:30 GMT
Meanwhile, on the evening news, the Red Cross called this a "humanitarian tsunami."
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 20, 2011 18:39:52 GMT
Can't they just get a job?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 18:49:45 GMT
That's a great idea! Why didn't I think of that?  |
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 20, 2011 19:17:40 GMT
Several of the poor actually have a job, Mark. It isn't true that all poor people are on benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Sept 20, 2011 19:30:01 GMT
Actually the poor perform a useful function in even an advanced prosperous culture. They are there to depress wage, lower general expectations and demoralize the middle classes by making it clear that structural poverty is an acceptable state of affairs and if those that might want to challenge the authority of the powerful act out they have a place to put them besides in jail where they cannot even count on meals or a bed.
Imagine trying to ruthlessly rule a society with no poor. I don't think it would work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 19:42:52 GMT
I don't think Mark was being completely serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 20, 2011 20:42:10 GMT
All the millions of pounds/euros spent each year on the poor. Wouldn't it be more economic to just put the fit ones in the Army?
They'd get three meals a day, a roof over their heads and keep them out of trouble.
Those not fit could still be in the Army but used for support services like catering, cleaning the toilets etc.
Not only would it save vast amounts of money (the bureaucracy is already there anyway to run the Forces, for instance) you could get something useful out of them instead of tripping over them in city centre doorways.
The only problem would be what to do with the dogs they always seem to have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 20:45:59 GMT
Is the army prepared to provide a 'shooting gallery' for their drug injections and a big storage room for all of the things that the children steal?
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 21, 2011 4:23:52 GMT
Well that's two problems they wont have then.
Not only will the druggies be cured because they just wont have much access to them, the thieving kids wont have any where to hide, they'll be caught and some sense thrashed into them.
It's just a win win situation as they say.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 21, 2011 16:39:41 GMT
Another thought - all the poor in Europe get, what, several pounds/euros a day in benefits of one sort or another? Wouldn't it be cheaper to at least halve their money and buy them a one way ticket to India? Why? Because there they can live adequately on half a dollar a day - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14998248"Half a dollar a day is "adequate" for an Indian villager to spend on food, education and health, the country's main planning body has said."
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 17:27:52 GMT
That reminds me of when there was an absolutely huge artichoke surplus one year in France, and the farmers were destroying massive mountains of artichokes to the dismay of everybody who hates waste. I think this was the same year as the giant Ethiopian famine. It was necessary to point out that there was really no way to export and feed artichokes to people who have never even seen one and who would not even believe that such a thing was edible.
|
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 22, 2011 0:13:32 GMT
They aren't very calorie dense either. They do contain vitamins and some medicinal properties - they are supposed to be a big help for people with various forms of arthritis, and certainly can't hurt, but would be useless in a famine situation.
Pity they couldn't freeze or can them though.
European poor people, even if they work (and I must remind all that a majority of poor people of working age do work at least to some extent) would be utterly useless in Indian society. They would simply die, as they would not enjoy the social/family support that allows Indian villagers to survive in lieu of rupees.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 22, 2011 4:21:15 GMT
True enough. However, if you sent a load of them out they'd be able to do the support thing between them.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Sept 22, 2011 9:09:43 GMT
I thought you could can artichokes.
I never understood the "set aside" scheme we used to have here whereby farmers were paid not to grow food to avoid surpluses.
Never made sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by lola on Sept 22, 2011 13:47:27 GMT
Mark is spiritual descendent of Jonathan Swift. Or is it Ebenezer Scrooge?
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 22, 2011 14:09:13 GMT
I think the idea of paying farmers not to grow certain crops was to prevent gluts on the market and to sustain farmers so they'd keep farming. On the one hand, it makes total sense, but also seems the kind of scheme that would be hard to keep on course.
There may be, or at least should be, research & development on ways of turning specialty crops such as artichokes into practical foods. I guess that's how corn got where it is in terms of being a major crop. We get corn by-products in our diets whether we want them or not. By the same token, it seems that excess or culled artichokes, for instance, could be used as a component in a high-nutrition pasta or food bar. That's the kind of item that might have commercial value, could be part of govt help programs or school menus, and a practical thing to send to famine areas & the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Sept 22, 2011 14:25:05 GMT
I think the idea of paying farmers not to grow certain crops was to prevent gluts on the market and to sustain farmers so they'd keep farming. On the one hand, it makes total sense, but also seems the kind of scheme that would be hard to keep on course. There may be, or at least should be, research & development on ways of turning specialty crops such as artichokes into practical foods. I guess that's how corn got where it is in terms of being a major crop. We get corn by-products in our diets whether we want them or not. By the same token, it seems that excess or culled artichokes, for instance, could be used as a component in a high-nutrition pasta or food bar. That's the kind of item that might have commercial value, could be part of govt help programs or school menus, and a practical thing to send to famine areas & the like. It wouldn't have been so bad if it had been certain crops but it was any crops. Farmers were actually paid NOT to produce. And as sure as eggs are eggs surpluses are followed by deficits. I was listening to a programme the other day that said within 10 years we would all be eating insects - although we might not recognise them as such. A cheap and efficient source of protein apparently. Locust steak anybody? A side order of mealworms perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 22, 2011 14:31:10 GMT
I'm not so good at poetry, Lola, as Mr Swift.
I tend to think I'm more related to Statler and Waldorf.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Sept 22, 2011 14:40:57 GMT
I'm not so good at poetry, Lola, as Mr Swift. I tend to think I'm more related to Statler and Waldorf. Fantastic Terrific Great Ok Could have been better Rubbish. |
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 22, 2011 14:41:52 GMT
The idea to pay farmers not to produce something so that they can retain the capacity to grow it in the future (rather than stopping farming altogether) is a good one.
In theory.
But with all schemes like this there is an element in the equation that people in power seem to overlook. The human factor.
If you pay people benefits to such a sum that they have no incentive to work, or look for it, and then double the blow by taxing low incomes so that it is more economically viable for them to stay at home watching Neighbours and Jeremy Kyle - then they'll do bugger all.
It's the same when you pay farmers not to produce something. They'll be paid to such a degree that they realise with all the hard work of actually growing a crop they are not much worse off financially if they don't bother. Why work if they get compensated enough not to.
Hence, in my opinion, when you have a good idea the best way to cock it up is to give it to humans to implement it.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 22, 2011 14:43:25 GMT
Are you Statler, mick, or Waldorf?
Your choice and I'll be the other one then.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Sept 22, 2011 14:48:02 GMT
Are you Statler, mick, or Waldorf? Your choice and I'll be the other one then. Statler - I don't have a moustache. I guess you do.... |
|
