UK continues to subsidise French farmers, four years after Brexit vote

LATEST: France received 2.5 times as much in EU farm subsidies as the UK last year

Brexit Facts4EU analyses the latest numbers just issued by the EU Commission

The French still go ‘CAP in hand’ to the EU for subsidies after 62 years of EEC/EU membership.

Here, Brexit Facts4EU.Org looks at one aspect of the amazing story of how the second-richest EU economy has played the EU benefits system for decades and got away with it, taking billions per year in subsidies for its inefficient farming sector.

The UK’s economy is slightly larger than that of France, but its population is smaller. One significant area of difference is that France still retains a sizeable rural economy, subsidised by the French State and particularly by those few EU countries such as the UK who are net contributors. (The UK is of course still paying in.)

For decades France has fiercely protected one of the first features of what was originally the EEC or ‘Common Market’ – that of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It has done so because it is by far the biggest beneficiary of what are effectively subsidies for running an inefficient agricultural sector.

Look at how much French farmers receive

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

Over the past 10 years the EU has been spending 40% of its budget on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
In 2019 alone, the EU says it spent €54.5 billion on the CAP
France received €9.4 billion of this
That is an enormous sum of money – and this was only in the last year

Incredibly, rich France received almost one-sixth of the EU's entire Common Agricultural Policy subsidies in 2019, with a grand total of €9,439,521,000 (9.4 billion) Euros.

This made it the recipient of by far the biggest EU subsidy.

With the UK receiving just €3.9 billion Euros, this means:

France has been receiving over 2.5 times more rural and agricultural payments from the EU than the UK

Observations

Brexit Facts4EU.Org deals in the reality of the EU – including the way the EU gets money from the few net contributor member states such as the UK, and the way it spends that money. We look at the way decisions are made and at the nature of those decisions.

In short, we see the EU for what it really is.

By contrast, for years we have seen, heard and read Remainer-Rejoiner politicians and commentators in the UK on a daily basis, talking about what they think the EU is and does. They present a happy valley where ‘all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds’, as the French philosopher Voltaire had it. Alas, they are all sadly deluded.

“Voters didn’t know what they were voting for” – Remainer MPs certainly didn’t and don’t

Unfortunately, the ignorance of Remainer-Rejoiner MPs and campaigners doesn’t stop them lecturing the British people as if they actually knew what they were talking about. Day after day we produce solid evidence such as that above, showing that the EU is profoundly dysfunctional, undemocratic, warped in its thinking, and unrepresentative of the peoples of the individual member countries.

All of the data we researched to produce this article came from the EU itself. It’s up-to-date – or as up-to-date as the EU ever is. Remainer-Rejoiner MPs and campaigners can’t simply dismiss information like this. They have to face it, and then tell the British people why they still think that the voters got it wrong four years ago this week.

Poor France?

What justification can you think of, for why France should receive by far the largest agricultural and rural subsidies in the EU? Come to that, what justification can you think of for any agricultural subsidies to be collected and distributed by the EU at all?

If countries like France want to subsidise their agriculture and their rural economies, (something which the British government will do post-Brexit), let them do it themselves.

Finally, the work involved in producing real information like that above is considerable. Please help us to keep going, with a donation today.

[ Sources: European Commission, Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development | ONS ]

Thur 25 June 2020

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 31

21. Sydney Ashurst , Friday, June 26, 2020, 11:11:

Have faith. David Frost is holding firm.
Remember it is an Act of Parliament that repeals the European Communities Act and all subsequent Treaties.
Barjnier on behalf of the 27 members is claiming rights to which under International Law they are no longer entitled.

22. Derek Lund , Friday, June 26, 2020, 14:09:

Steve H, comment 16; Yes you're bang on; food security is the reason for agricultural subsidies. In the good old days the UK Milk Marketing Board intervened in the setting of farm gate milk prices and all farmers had to do was produce the stuff, which they did - too much! The faster you crank the handle the more money you make. Cue the MMB adverts "drinka pinta day", "milk's got a lotta bottle" etc. A similar thing was happening across Europe so next, to tackle over production, they introduced the milk quota which worked by taking total production for a given reference year, adding some wiggle room and dividing it among farmers. A farmer would be penalised if he produced milk in excess of his quota. What happened next? Well, milk quota itself became valuable and a market for the purchase, sale and leasing of quota evolved. When Authority intervenes in an economic activity - in this case milk production - there will be unintended consequences. Referring to the article's question about the justification of agricultural subsidies, I can appreciate that there is some short term justification for the subsidy of essential food supplies - whatever "essential" is agreed to mean - but not in the longer term. A handy side effect (or was this the plan all along?) is to make member states dependent on the EU.
Agricultural subsidies based on quantities produced have now been replaced by the "Single Farm Payment". This too has its own set of unintended consequences - but that's another story.
Unfortunately it is highly unlikley that the UK will ever achieve food security from subsidies alone. It is too densely populated. Perhaps the best food security policy is to ensure that we place our imported food dependency on the most trustworthy trading partners.
-
Here's one final thought. Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if, after 31 Dec, we were able to benefit from EU subsidised foodstuffs but not pay into the EU pot !

23. Barry , Friday, June 26, 2020, 17:33:

You seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention Thatchers rebate. For the reasons you describe, Margaret Thatcher negotiated a rebate of Britain’s EU contributions. This is around £4bn per year. Old news but you forgot to mention it.

24. Steve H , Friday, June 26, 2020, 17:58:

18 & 19 The Brexit Facts4EU
My, my. I do seem to have rattled you don't I. Deleting a perfectly valid link and then getting all shouty with your capital letters! The information in that link is the same as published on the EU website. All the data is in the second table down comparing the size of each EU member farming industry. Here is the link: https://www.europarl.europa...
I'm afraid you are utterly wrong about more than half of French CAP payments going to their wine industry. Where on earth did you get that figure from? The French wine industry received €0.281bn out of a total of €9.4bn. That is approx 3% of payments. Maybe you got the decimal point in the wrong place? .
As far as Gis (Geographical Indications) are concerned, the vast majority of UK producers who applied for a GI got one. There is simply more demand for them in EU as they tend to have more emphasis on locally produced produce, whereas the UK concentrates on the mass market generic products far more. Besides, if I want Champagne, Bordeaux wine etc, I expect it to come from there thank you very much.
Punitive import tariffs for Australian and Kiwi wine? Are you having a laugh? Tariffs on those wines are between €0.13 to €0.15 per litre. That is less than 10p on a bottle of wine. In fact the UK has negotiated a continuation of those low tariffs after 1st January, so no change there! Imports of wine from South Africa and Chile are completely free of EU tariffs due to FTAs with them. Under the EU South Africa FTA they can export up to 113 million litres to the UK tariff free. The UK wants to reduce this to 79 million litres tariff free, so less access for South African wines there then!
Before you scuttle off and get on with your 'far too much important research to carry on with', I would suggest you spend a little more time on each subject and at least get a nodding acquaintance with it before moving onto the next subject.

25. Andy , Friday, June 26, 2020, 18:18:

"Under the EU South Africa FTA they can export up to 113 million litres to the UK tariff free. The UK wants to reduce this to 79 million litres tariff free, so less access for South African wines there then!"
The 113 million litres are the total import quota for the entire EU. The proposed 79 million litres are the estimated import to the UK. As we are always being told by the Remainiacs that we are an insignificant economy to offer such access is generous.

26. Mike , Friday, June 26, 2020, 18:21:

I totally agree with pulling the plug & walking away from the EU,giving them absolutely nothing as they have stolen too much money from the UK & need to be told "no more money from us!" I live in Scotland & despite the whinging SNP who are sadly running Scotland,claiming that the whole of Scotland voted to remain in the EU,when we didn't,some of us Scot's,over 1 million,also voted to leave,also need to wake up & smell what they & the other undemocratic parties are shovelling,just like 17.4 million Brit's who can smell what they & the failed experiment of the EU are shovelling also!

27. 3ntropy , Friday, June 26, 2020, 19:10:

The article provides clear facts but the underlying issues are more complicated. 1)Certainly there is an historical issue of ensuring there is a sufficient food supply.
2)Farming and fisheries in the UK is tied up with financial investment controlled through the city of London by people who only want to make a fast profit
3) UK benefiited from EU by being the major financial services provider. That role will not be guaranteed in future.
So all in all different countries benefitted in one way or another. It is too simplistic to find odd facts, you really need to look at the big picture xxx

28. JonL , Friday, June 26, 2020, 19:14:

The entire debate over "food security" is a farm producer's scam that dates back to the 19th Century. European food production was very inefficient, as it still is, and American competition posed a serious threat, as it still does, or would without huge CAP subsidies.
The CAP has one purpose, which is to shield inefficient European farming behind a barrier of protectionist subsidies, so that European farmers never experience extreme pressure to update and modernize their operations. The argument is, as it always is when any inefficient industry is subsidized, that it allows "time" for adjustment, but it never works like that because cashing a fat Government cheque is a lot simpler and easier than updating your farming operations.
UK consumers have been subsidizing inefficient continental farming for four decades, and as each French farmer buys his third or fourth BMW, we end up subsidizing German manufacturing as well.
In the UK, we have two choices, one being to wait for the continental farming reforms that never come, and the other to remove one important source of CAP funds, that of the UK.

29. The Brexit Facts4EU.Org team , Saturday, June 27, 2020, 06:03:

REPLY FROM THE BREXIT FACTS4EU.ORG TEAM
Replying to Steve H, comment 24
1. We’re amused you think you’ve “rattled us”. But then, you do seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.
2. We do not get “shouty” – we use caps at the beginning of our rare comments to make it clear to readers it’s from us. It’s a courtesy.
3. We do not allow links in general and certainly not to commercial sites such as the one you posted.
4. We’re not wrong about what we said about French wine – you are. Try reading again what we wrote and then comparing with the facts. We were completely correct in what we wrote, and will await your apology.
5. Oh… life is way too short to correct you again. One request - please stop writing novels on here. If you want to do that, launch your own site. We ask everyone to keep comments as brief as possible.

30. Peter G , Monday, June 29, 2020, 17:49:

This is why Macron LOVES the EU !!!

31 comments, page 3 of 4

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.