Sadly, no, it doesn’t. The system of subsidy is so gloriously insane that it actually makes food more expensive for end consumers.

We can test that particular point. If food were cheaper then we would not have tariff barriers against food from outside the EU. Wouldn’t need them, for the subsidised food we produced inside would be cheaper than what could be imported. We also would not have export subsidies, so that EU produced food could compete in the world markets. For the subsidies would make the food cheaper than the world price and thus export subsidies would not be needed.

Now, what is it that we actually have? We have high import tariffs to stop all that non EU food flooding the market and we have high export subsidies so that EU food can be sold outside the EU.

Therefore we must conclude that food inside the EU is more expensive than outside it. Thus, CAP makes food more expensive, not cheaper.

At the moment we’re subsidising European Food. Which makes European food cheaper for us to buy.

Why do you want to raise the prices of fresh food for British end consumers?

“The total EU budget for 2008 was €116.5 billion, which represents 0.94 per cent of the EU Gross National Income. Research suggest that “over ten years, the Single Market has boosted the EU’s GDP by €877 billion. This represents €5,700 of extra income per household.”

So, one year (2008) costs €116.5B. TEN years boosted the EU household income by €877B.

Averaging out, that is an “increase” of €87.7B per year for a cost of €116.5B (in 2008) i.e costing €28.8B more than you claim is “generated” A DRAIN.

“This represents €5,700 of extra income per household.” and how much did it cost to generate this “Extra income”of €570 per year (averaged). Using those figures above (€877B ‘earning’ €5,700 per household gives 158.95 Million households) Yet 2008 COST that same household €732.

2008, spent €732, ‘generated’ €570

The EU costs us Money and no manner how you cut it it’s all about concentration of powers away from the people.

Err, as I wrote above, Verhuegen gave us both the costs and the benefits. Have a look again: there are two figures there, no?

“If CAP were scrapped tomorrow, there is no guarantee that other European countries would not introduce their own subsidies. This uncoordinated approach could raise food prices even higher. ”

What have you been smoking? If the Germans subiside the production of German food this makes German food cheaper for us to buy. If the French subsidise French food this makes French food cheaper for us to buy.

How would the Germans and the French subsidising food production make food more expensive for us?

“3. The “rank idiocy” is thinking that EU costs are binary. They are not. We need a strong voice in Europe in order to reform the costlier elements.”

And there we disagree. It’s unreformable thus we should leave.

Thanks for your comments. A few points:

1. Verheugen, like TPA, wrote purely about the costs and not about the benefits. This is accounting innumeracy

2. As we made absolutely clear, we are not seeking to defend CAP which is distortionary, harms developing world producers, and raises our prices. We would love to live in your utopian world where there were no producer subsidies but it is not realistic. CAP was created as part of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to bring together the race-to-the-bottom subsidies of competing European countries. If CAP were scrapped tomorrow, there is no guarantee that other European countries would not introduce their own subsidies. This uncoordinated approach could raise food prices even higher.

3. The “rank idiocy” is thinking that EU costs are binary. They are not. We need a strong voice in Europe in order to reform the costlier elements.

Best wishes,

Wukk