"Peace Clause" on Agrisubsidies in WTO Expired

[Spiffor]

Sikander, Boshko:
Re the wildlife, keep in mind I speak for myself, and not for "the Europeans".
I feel an "environmentalist" in the worst sense , ie. that I think the environment is at our service, and should be protected only to make sure we humans live in a viable world. Not for the sake of nature.

The problem Isee isthat we have an extensive network of infrastructure, which is btw one of the few things France has to boast to international investors. This extensive network has been built in areas that have been tame for centuries, and they are not designed to withstand a return of wildlife.

OTOH, wildlife means a lack of effective control on the territory by the authorities, which I think is bad, because it makes it much easier to create havens for criminals, and to make non-law areas in general(I knoy Boshko, being an anarchist, will disagree with me )

[Impaler[WrG]]

Spiffer:

I agree with your overall stance on "The environment exists to serve us" stance. I feel we should be preserving (or alteast not degrading) it so that it may serve us rather then out of some purely altruistic sense or Gaia worship. Many environmentalist (the kind that will live chained to a tree for 300 days with only a copy of Dr. Sueses "The Laurax" to read) would likly disagree with us on this point.

Also I am wondering adsactly what you mean by Wildlife? I have never been to Europe but my impression is you have no "pristine" wilderness anyware, everything has been or IS a farm of some sort with a village a short distance away. Any forest have been logged for centuries or used in some way. Isn't the infastructure rather robust? I mean Roman Roads are still around arn't they. If a large chunk of France was just suddenly abandoned by all humans all that would happen over the next 30 years would be for trees to start growing in all the Fields and for houses to become run down, right? Your coment on Criminals sounds as if you fear some kind of RobinHood like senario, this seems very far fetched to me, is such a thing actualy possibility in Europe? Criminals need people to comit crimes against so they tend to go to ware people are, namly cites.

In the US especialy in the western US ware I live their are VAST (and I mean the size of Germay) areas that have nothing but a few highways, cattle and small villages/hamlits in them. Without trees their was no insentive to log the areas and the soil is too poor for farming. Even on the East Coast their is considerably less use of the land then in Europe, small chunks of second growth forest cover atleast half the land outside of a City. Theirs enough forest cover to support deer and most wildlife that existed their before setlment of the new world everyware and yet these things dont present any danger to our infastructure (and we have very shoody infastructure too). Only whole sale neglect would seem to be a threat and I asume your infastructure would take longer to decay then ours.

[Seeker]

That's 'Lorax'!!

And I agree that Europeans have no 'gut' concept of the kind of tracts of nearly uninabited territory we have here.

[Ramo]

Spiffor, you're kidding, right? This has got to be the craziest reason for agrisubsidies I've ever heard of. Pristine wilderness is beautiful. It's a good thing that should be preserved, particularly if you consider the pollution from farming practices such as nasty pesticides.

The US has plenty of wilderness, and they aren't exactly havens for criminals or barriers to adequate infrastructure. You've been reading too many stories from the middle ages, dude.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Bosko = Right Tripledoc = Wrong

Now that we got that cleared up

Agriculture has become so machinery/fertilizer/investment oriented in the West that it is can practicaly be considered a heavy Industry like Steel Production.

.....

Subsidizing Agriculture production in the west artificialy lowers price as supply often exceeds demand (even considering that in the west Calorie intake is 180% of physical requirments, more then double that of a poor african Country).

Agriculture is vastly more polluting than the industrial sector. Instead of affecting the air, it polutes the water. That is why some European countries are rinsing thier drinking water through radioactive carbon.

In Great Britain alone as many as 250.000 people in Great Britain are on a starvation diet. A measurement of calorie intake is no way to jugde the quality of food supply. With a heavy and fattened food intake severe malnutrition is still taking place. Not only leading to overwight but also vitamine deficiency.

[Ramo]

So what about politics in Europe? Will the EU cave in to the WTO? Or will France, Spain, and Eastern Europe manage to overrule the rest of the EU? What are the expected reactions to either policy going to be among the public?

What about Japan?

[Ramo]

Which is why I predict stalling during the election year followed by quiet surrender afterward. Of course there will also be a tendency for weaker governments to "stay the course", which will allow for a lot of foot dragging and subsidies disguised as retaliation.

Stalling for 11 months would be quite a feat. If this were a viable option, why did he cave in on steel?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ramo
So what about politics in Europe? Will the EU cave in to the WTO? Or will France, Spain, and Eastern Europe manage to overrule the rest of the EU? What are the expected reactions to either policy going to be among the public?

I have no idea, but I'm bored, so here's the speculation-of-the-hour.

France will be torn between its fidelity to Germany, and the need for Chirac's party to win the upcoming elections. In the end, France is likely to be really silent about the issue, and let the Poles and Spaniards do all the job advocating the subsidies (if the debate begins after April, when the new members officially join). With a French abstention and a Spanish-Polish agreement, there may be no overruling majority to change the status quo.

But such an obvious strategy would be very EU-ish. Most likely, there will be a compromise: fewer subsidies, but in a way that the French / Spanish / Polish voter doesn't feel to frustrated. I expect the Poles to be especially adamant on the issue, as an unnatural chunk of their population still lives from farming.

[Ramo]

Do you think that a compromise would really satisfy the developing world (given that your agrisubsidies are already extremely high)? What'll happen to public sentiment if they decide that's not good enough, and start putting trade restrictions on the EU?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ramo
Do you think that a compromise would really satisfy the developing world?

To put it bluntly, our governments don't care. Like any trade hegemon, they care about themselves, and look at the weaker'uns as things that are subordinated to them.

What'll happen to public sentiment if they decide that's not good enough, and start putting trade restrictions on the EU?

I don't really see the third world countries in any position to hurt EU exports. EU economy is largely self-centred, and our out-of-EU exports mostly go to other rich countries. Besides, African countries are basically our hoes with the French and English influence there. And I don't see India slowing down its restructuration by entering a pissing contest with the EU.

So basically, the poor countries will have to follow what is decided between the EU and the States (+Japan), like it has always been in this ****ing system

[OzzyKP]

Good. End the peace. Kick the farmers off welfare.

[Ramo]

Spiff, my understanding is that EU exports to the developing world made up somewhere around a quarter of their total exports, and mostly in Asia and to a lesser extent Latin America (with not as much going to Africa)? This still sounds like substantial pressure to me...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think the outright suppression of farming subsidies is stupid, because small non-competitive farm businesses provide externalities no corporate farming can provide. That is, small farms do prevent a big chunk of the territory to become wild, despite this land not being proper for competitive farming.

I'm all for cutting subsidies to competitive agribusinesses, but the few farmers taht remain should not have their subsidies cut.

It is really hard to imagine the logic of this post, being against wildlands and such. I thought that nature and wildlands was the holy grail of the left.

[Ned]

I think killing farm subsidies in sellable to the people if the money is used to provide health insureance for all.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
It is really hard to imagine the logic of this post, being against wildlands and such. I thought that nature and wildlands was the holy grail of the left.

1) I'm not "the left", nor "the French", nor "the Europeans". I am Spiffor, and I have my own thoughts, that can clash with the categories you'd like to fill me in Whatever I say, I speak for myself and myself only, unless I specify it otherwise.

2) I'm an environmentalist, which is why I defend Kyoto for example (please keep the merits of Kyoto for another thread - I have the premise that applying Kyoto would help preserve our environment; you disagree with this premise, end of story).
"Environmentalist" means "I think nature is here to serve us, but we have to be responsible with it, and make sure the environment can continue to sustain us in the future". As such, I'm not a tree hugger. At the contrary, I'm more of a factory-hugger, but of a factory that doesn't pollute and that doesn't waste resources.