Without the Cap, farmers would have to be able to operate under the same conditions as countries outside the EU in order to survive, writes Colm Markey.
Tony Blair's recent attacks on the Common Agricultural Policy (Cap) are simplistic and emotive and reinforce misperceptions about the Cap and the rationale behind its existence.
Mr Blair's basic premise that farmers are the sole beneficiaries of the policy is wrong. There are many good aspects to Cap which he and other critics often choose to ignore.
The latest version of the Cap was negotiated during late 2002 and early 2003 and Mr Blair and his government were party to the final settlement agreed in Luxembourg in the summer of 2003.
Indeed, in a statement to the House of Commons on the Cap reform deal on June 26th, 2003, Margaret Beckett (secretary of state in the UK's department for environment, food and rural affairs) went so far as to proclaim: "I am happy to say that the agreement today delivers what we wanted - real change."
One of the main issues during the lengthy talks which produced the "Luxembourg agreement" was that the sea change from production- based supports to payments that are no longer linked to output was actually brought to the table by the commission during what was supposed to be a mid-term review of the previous agreement reached in 1999.
This caused massive uncertainty for farmers who had made their plans based on the 1999 agreement, which was due to run until 2008.
How could farmers rely on the new deal given that the previous one had effectively been discarded?
However, we were assured that the new deal was more sustainable and would be more in line with World Trade Organisation principles.
Ironically, farmers have yet to receive a penny under the new decoupled regime that started this year and already attempts are being made to unravel the deal.
Some argue that farmers should be left to the free market to compete openly with the rest of the world's farmers. Indeed, I know farmers who wouldn't mind a crack at it either.
However, they would only have a chance of survival if they were allowed to operate on the same basis as countries outside the EU. That means being allowed to use hormones and genetically modified crops, not having to adhere to the strict environmental conditions imposed at EU level and not having to worry as much about animal welfare, inspections, record keeping and so on.
But of course the EU consumer cares about all of these things and cherishes the right to consume food produced without compromising the environment or animal welfare, and which does not involve the use of hormones or the growing of genetically modified crops. The maintenance of our unique "green" countryside is also extremely important for consumers. The Cap provides all of these things.
Without the Cap, food would be considerably dearer for the consumer because farmers would need far higher prices for their product if they were to remain in production.
This would be passed straight back to the consumer by the real power-brokers, the retail multinationals. It must also be pointed out that without the Cap one cannot say, with any certainty, that Europe would have sufficient food supplies. This was one of the main reasons why the Cap was introduced.
Already, Europe is not self-sufficient in many commodities and if this becomes more widespread, European consumers' power to demand what conditions food is produced under will be removed.
In the US they have reverted to production subsidies to avoid a dependence on imported food and the attending bio-security risk that would bring. It can never be forgotten that it is food we're dealing with, not random luxuries. One other argument often put forward is that more of the EU agricultural budget should be siphoned off for rural development. The theory is that this should be used to encourage small business in rural areas, which is a laudable objective given the concentration of industries in cities and large towns. However, we already have 140,000 small businesses in every corner of Ireland in the form of living, breathing, working farms.
There are thousands more businesses who are dependent on farming to survive. I was talking to one farmer recently who counted 63 different businesses he was dealing with on his farm, from huge firms such as Dairygold co-op to sole traders such as his accountant.
The money that comes into farming through the Cap does not just stay with farmers - it percolates right through rural Ireland, causing a multiplier effect which sustains thousands of businesses, large and small, and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Other EU schemes to create jobs in rural areas have not and never will be as effective at encouraging economic activity.
Of course not every aspect of the Cap is perfect. The policy is a product of compromise, which by their nature, all EU policies are. However, it must be emphasised that the Luxembourg agreement will deal with many of the aspects of the Cap that have been most criticised over the years. In the words of Margaret Beckett, it will deliver "real change".
In particular, farmers will no longer be encouraged to produce commodities when they are in surplus. The controversial export subsidies are also being phased out.
It must also be stressed that the new payments are not index-linked and that 5 per cent of the payments are being siphoned off for rural development. Thus, for farmers the real value of their payments will be reducing each year, which was a bitter pill for farmers when the deal was agreed. However, the main positive for farmers from the deal was that it left them to farm for the market rather than producing for subsidies.
The other big positive was supposed to be the certainty of the new system. It would be WTO- proof and farmers would know where they stood for the next 10 years and could plan ahead. This was particularly important for young people who had committed themselves to the industry. Now, thanks to Mr Blair's attempted revisionism, no one is sure of anything.
Colm Markey is a dairy, beef and tillage farmer and national president of Macra na Feirme, a voluntary organisation for people aged 17-35, which promotes agricultural and rural development