Quite understandably there's huge indignation at the Freedom of Information disclosure that unreconstructed farming toffs, like Prince Charles and the Duke of Westminster, are being featherbedded by CAP subsidies.
But as the Telegraph reports:
'...the major recipients of the £3.9 billion that the British taxpayer pays into the CAP are big companies with little or no link with the land.
Principally, they are sugar and dairy processors, the top dozen of which received more than £10 million each, nearly five times more than any farming business.
One such firm, Meadow Foods, received £25 million, and Nestlé £11.6 million, but the others in the top 10 are dwarfed by Tate & Lyle, which received £127 million.
The reason so many food companies receive so much money is that subsidies and import controls make sugar three times the price it is on the world market and dairy products twice as expensive.
To compensate for the higher prices that result from European Union protectionism, companies that export outside the EU are entitled to apply for export refunds that cover the difference between the prices at which they buy and sell.
Producers of processed foods are allowed production refunds for the same reason.'
So to compensate for the inequity of our artificially high food prices, taxpayers have to subsidise foreign consumption of our processed junk foods.
Lunacy on lunacy.
But of course, although our farmers don't get the whole of that £3.9 billion tax transfer, they do benefit hugely from those higher food prices.
The OECD, which every year publishes its aggregate Producer Support Estimate (PSE), says:
'Clearly, in asking how much is spent on agricultural policies, it is crucial to consider overall support, rather than just government payments. Out of the Euro107 billion producer support going to EU farmers in 2002, Euro61 billion came from consumers’ pockets to pay the high prices caused by tariff protection and export subsidies, and €46 billion from tax transfers.'
Euro107 billion is the equivalent of about Euro280 per head. So with a UK population of 60 million, and an average 2002 exchange rate of 1.6, this implies a total CAP cost to UK taxpayers and consumers- ie you and me- of over £10 billion.
And as for paying farmers to 'look after the countryside', why can't they just sell out to investment banker vanity farmers? Unlike real farmers, they won't want to grub out the hedgerows, and they'll be more than happy to pay for ornamental sheep, haywains etc.
And why can't I have a subsidy for looking after my garden?