Farmers will get 100m new consumers on enlargement

Ireland should not be an opponent of EU expansion and a fairer deal for the poor of the world, argues Chris Haskins

Ireland should not be an opponent of EU expansion and a fairer deal for the poor of the world, argues Chris Haskins

No country has benefited more from membership of the EU than Ireland. When I left Dublin 40 years ago, the standard of living was half that of Britain and had scarcely improved in the previous 40 years.

Today Ireland is as prosperous as Britain. When I left, I was following the route of millions of others because there was no work at home. Now, after a century and a half, that trend has been reversed because of the opportunities which exist in the Republic.

In those days, the much more affluent Northern Irish were fearful that reunification would decimate their prosperity. Today it is Dublin which has concerns about the economic burden of unification.

READ MORE

The most powerful cause of this remarkable change was the decision to join the EEC in 1972, though the abandonment 10 years earlier of a policy of protectionism in favour of free trade with Britain was already showing benefits.

Membership of Europe transformed incomes and attitudes as massive amounts of cash flowed in from the European budget. Investments soared as businesses - especially from the US - saw the potential of Ireland as a European base and the introspective, insular, static society of my time gave way to the outward looking, confident and progressive style which typifies modern Ireland.

Small countries such as Ireland and Denmark have, thanks to the EU, been able to influence their international destiny for the first time, by having a real influence over the policies of the community.

The 11 prospective members in eastern Europe are experiencing similar problems to those of Ireland a generation ago - a stagnant economy bedevilled by protectionism and a large rural peasant society with its roots more in the 19th rather than the 21st century.

These countries need to benefit through fiscal transfers from the richer countries and Ireland is now one of these. I'm sure that most Irish citizens would accept the logic and justice of this objective, but more needs to be done if enlargement and fairer global trade is going to be achieved.

The Common Agricultural Policy, from which Ireland has been a huge beneficiary, is in urgent need of reform. It has become too expensive and even the farmers who are meant to be the gainers recognise its shortcomings as their economic prospects have declined.

One of the CAP's top objectives, to maintain a vigorous rural society and to halt the migration from the countryside, has failed, with the numbers of farmers halved. It would surely be madness to extend such a flawed policy to the 11 new members.

The Irish Government argues that no policy review is required to take place until 2006, but enlargement negotiations are due to be complete by December this year and the EU Commission is committed to bringing forward to the World Trade Organisation in the spring of next year proposals to reduce protectionist tariffs on food imports and subsidies on food exports. Therefore, Mr Franz Fischler, the Agricultural Commissioner, is quite correct in putting forward radical reform proposals ahead of these events.

Irish taxpayers, business people, consumers and environmentalists should welcome these reforms and support the pursuit of enlargement and more liberal trade agreements, particularly vis-à-vis food, which will benefit the poorer countries of the world.

Under the Fischler proposals, market subsidies would be reduced substantially and instead farmers would be paid to pursue environmentally sustainable farm practices. Larger farms, over 1,500 hectares, would have their subsidies capped, but as Ireland does not have many of them this should not matter.

Smaller farms would experience no reduction in income and the rest would see their subsidies decline gradually to 80 per cent of existing levels. This would give them plenty of time to adapt to changing circumstances.

Although farming practices have improved in recent years, much more can be done to improve the Irish and European rural environment. Our rivers are far too polluted, our water supply is under constant threat and much of our cherished wildlife habitats are in decline. Taxpayers will be much happier paying farmers to do good things in the countryside as opposed to the present system which encourages them to apply chemicals recklessly.

IRISH farmers worry about their ability to survive without protection but there are large numbers of dairy farms which can compete with any in the world.

In due course, if production restraints are removed, they will be able to expand their businesses as happens in other markets and cash in on the benefits of scale offered by modern science and technology.

Farm numbers have been reducing for generations and they will continue to reduce, whatever agricultural policies are in place. Many smaller farmers are getting older and their children no longer need to suffer the hardship of their antecedents, as with good education, they can find rewarding work elsewhere. Part-time farming is widespread, will increase and should be encouraged.

Older farmers remember the harsh pre-war years and fear a return to those days if existing policies are changed. They need have no such fears. Today's circumstances are very different.

State and EU support for farming, non-existent then, will continue to be very generous. Farmers can now benefit, like other citizens, from far higher standards of public service and social security. Marketing of farm produce is much more effective and it is much easier for farmers to access their markets. Science and technology continues to improve productivity and reduce cost and farmers have far more opportunities to supplement their income by other activities.

Enlargement of the EU must be an opportunity and a benefit for the people of Ireland, including its farmers. It is an opportunity to increase the successful Single Market from just under 400 million to 500 million consumers and for businesses to expand accordingly.

It will be a benefit in terms of bringing political stability to a chronically unstable part of Europe. In time, the troubles of the Balkans will be best solved by those countries joining the EU. Fairer free global trade in food will help developing countries far more than direct aid - $150 billion per annum compared with $50 billion. It would be a tragedy if these opportunities were jeopardised by unnecessarily anxious vested interests, frequently misled by their own trade organisations.

A rejection of the Nice Treaty could have serious implications for enlargement, fairer trade with poorer countries and the future of the EU. It would be both ironic and sad if Ireland, so long the champion and the beneficiary of the European idea, was to emerge as an opponent of EU expansion and a fairer deal for the poor people of the world.

Lord Haskins of Skidby is a former chairman of Northern Foods and a farmer who has advised the British and Irish governments on food and agricultural policy matters.