The yanks have been bad enough in the past with their trade policies,but the Europeans take the cake here.They want to be part of WTO,yet they will not stop the subsidies.Are they scared of countries at the arse end of the world that stopped subsidies years ago and became efficient at what they do?

Attacks on Fonterra (A NZ Dairy Company) simply delaying tactics

17.12.05 5.00pm

By Kent Atkinson

European attacks on Fonterra, wrongly labelling it a state trading enterprise (STE), at the international trade talks in Hong Kong are simply delaying tactics, says Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton.

"Delaying indefinitely over the issue of what will be the date by which export subsidies will be eliminated is a way of avoiding getting to the next item on the agenda," he said.

At the halfway point of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in Hong Kong, there has been little movement on the key area of agriculture, with Europe still resisting demands from nations such as New Zealand and Australia to do more to open its protected farm markets to competition.

The European Commission negotiators had not come up with a good offer on cutting farm subsidies because they did not have a mandate for it from the European Union, Mr Sutton said.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel said yesterday New Zealand, as well as Canada and Australia backed the continued use of what she called state trading enterprises (STEs) and this practice had to end.

Ms Fischer-Boel said the EU wanted exporters such as Fonterra, as well as the Australian wheat company AWB and the Canadian Wheat Board, out of business because as "monopolies" they were not transparent.

But the claim was just a stunt, said Mr Sutton.

The EU was embarrassed because "it can't put an offer on the table on market access that any way lives up to the commitments they made at Doha and again last year in Geneva".

"There are some things that the big economies need to do at the moment (that) they're finding extremely difficult to do politically."

Mr Sutton said today EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson had "totally implausibly" accused New Zealand of delaying the trade talks because New Zealand refused to acknowledge it was subsidising dairy farmers through Fonterra.

When New Zealand offered to stop any subsidies that the EU could identify, "Mr Mandelson turned around and said: 'Your true agenda is to deny that you're doing what you're doing, we can't trust and therefore our offers are off the table'," Mr Sutton said.

"None of the other countries in the Green Room take this seriously for a single moment," Mr Sutton said.

Mr Mandelson also said he was sick of nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand being sanctimonious about export subsidies used by the EU.

Fonterra's director of strategy, government and trade, Philip Turner, also said that the attacks were diversionary.

"The EU appears to be seeking to distract attention away from the main issue in the agriculture negotiation, which is the commitment to substantial improvement of market access."

Fonterra was not an STE or enjoying subsidised support, and any company could collect, make and export dairy products.

Fonterra did manage access to New Zealand-only quotas in some lucrative markets such as the EU, in an arrangement due to expire from 2007, but Mr Sutton said this was a competition issue which the Europeans were trying to sneak on to the agenda.

Fonterra, a dairy cooperative owned by about 12,000 farmers, controls more than a third of all the world's milk traded internationally.

Fonterra's investments in United States operations have also made it the largest US dairy exporter and it has argued that even without subsidies, US farmers can compete with those in Australia, New Zealand, Brazil or Europe.

Dairy producers are the only US farmers paid subsidies to encourage exports and US trade representative Rob Portman has offered his WTO counterparts in Hong Kong a 60 per cent cut in US subsidies.

Mr Turner said ending those subsidies would probably force an immediate jump in world dairy prices and then build up milk production in areas outside of Europe.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in the dairying state of Minnesota, reported that dairy farmers, one of the largest recipients of government farm aid on that side of the Atlantic, were jettisoning their protectionist past and cautiously embracing plans to reduce their price supports.

A system of government payments, purchases and import quotas that date to the Great Depression makes milk one of the most protected products in the US, with government support reaching US$4.5 billion ($6.55 billion) a year, more than any other agricultural product.

Mr Sutton said negotiators at the WTO had time remaining -- if they could push through an agreement in the next 12 months, President George Bush would have six months left of his mandate to sign binding treaties.

"The Americans have put a good offer on the table in respect of cutting farm subsidies -- and they will further improve it -- but I think though the EU have put a very low-quality offer on the table for market access, they will come up with something better with more time and more pressure."

- NZPA

hmm,

So waht do you reckon Mate?

The yanks have been bad enough in the past with their trade policies,but the Europeans take the cake here.They want to be part of WTO,yet they will not stop the subsidies.Are they scared of countries at the arse end of the world that stopped subsidies years ago and became efficient at what they do?

Are you talking trade policies or agricultural subsidies? They aren't necessarily the same thing.

The agricultural subsidies is one thing that I've never understood about my American government and other western governments. America grew strong by being a free market economy, supply and demand and all that. Yet there have always been price controls and subsidies over many agricultural products. Why can't farmers go to market and seek their own fair price? Why should the government pay to keep a business afloat if the business model doesn't work? Same goes for France, Germany, UK and others.

Why should the government pay to keep a business afloat if the business model doesn't work?

Our wonderful U.S. government does it for a lot more business' than just farmers. Take a gander how they have propped up the constant money-losing Amtrak Train Company from going out of business because Amtrak has never been able to make a profit in this day and age of airline travel. Simply ridiculous!

Why should the government pay to keep a business afloat if the business model doesn't work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our wonderful U.S. government does it for a lot more business' than just farmers. Take a gander how they have propped up the constant money-losing Amtrak Train Company from going out of business because Amtrak has never been able to make a profit in this day and age of airline travel. Simply ridiculous!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amtrak is a bad example, because practically every government in the world with the possible exception of Japan runs non-profit subsidized mass transit. But your point is well taken.

The yanks have been bad enough in the past with their trade policies,but the Europeans take the cake here.They want to be part of WTO,yet they will not stop the subsidies.Are they scared of countries at the arse end of the world that stopped subsidies years ago and became efficient at what they do?

Are you talking trade policies or agricultural subsidies? They aren't necessarily the same thing.

The agricultural subsidies is one thing that I've never understood about my American government and other western governments. America grew strong by being a free market economy, supply and demand and all that. Yet there have always been price controls and subsidies over many agricultural products. Why can't farmers go to market and seek their own fair price? Why should the government pay to keep a business afloat if the business model doesn't work? Same goes for France, Germany, UK and others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that British subsidies were put in place after WWII to make sure that we were as self sufficient as possible.

Why should the government pay to keep a business afloat if the business model doesn't work?

Our wonderful U.S. government does it for a lot more business' than just farmers. Take a gander how they have propped up the constant money-losing Amtrak Train Company from going out of business because Amtrak has never been able to make a profit in this day and age of airline travel. Simply ridiculous!

Amtrak is a bad example, because practically every government in the world with the possible exception of Japan runs non-profit subsidized mass transit. But your point is well taken.

Amtrak isn't mass transit. Mass transit is defined as a city bus or train system. Amtrak is for travelers that are going beyond city limits and for our government to keep them in business when they have made it abundantly clear they are incable of turning a profit is asinine. Let them go out of business and save Joe Q. taxpayer some money instead of keeping a dead dog on life-support. Shape up or ship out, thats the whole basis of capitalism. Only the strong survive.

hmm,

So waht do you reckon Mate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boycott em!!

The yanks have been bad enough in the past with their trade policies,but the Europeans take the cake here.They want to be part of WTO,yet they will not stop the subsidies.Are they scared of countries at the arse end of the world that stopped subsidies years ago and became efficient at what they do?

Are you talking trade policies or agricultural subsidies? They aren't necessarily the same thing.

The agricultural subsidies is one thing that I've never understood about my American government and other western governments. America grew strong by being a free market economy, supply and demand and all that. Yet there have always been price controls and subsidies over many agricultural products. Why can't farmers go to market and seek their own fair price? Why should the government pay to keep a business afloat if the business model doesn't work? Same goes for France, Germany, UK and others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Both really.Subsidies to farmers and high Import tarrif on certain goods. eg:Lamb

Mostly it's vote buying imo.The thing is that when protection comes off, it certainly makes for a better product/efficiency...Business is then made to get better to survive.This is what happend in NZ and Oz years ago and changed not only the quality of the product,but the cost of producing as well.

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby

English will be the official language of the European Union rather

than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that

English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a

5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will

make the sivil servants jump with joy.

The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up

konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the

troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like

fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted

to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have

always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag

is disgrasful and it should go away. By the 4th yer people wil be

reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w"

with "v". During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords

kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl

riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find

it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum

tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in

ze forst plas.

Good one Boon Me. Sounds more like French than German, but we get the idea

Amtrak is a bad example, because practically every government in the world with the possible exception of Japan runs non-profit subsidized mass transit. But your point is well taken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Believe that Indian Railways always makes a profit......room on top for 500 more.

“Bohemians” or “Trailer Trash?”

It depends on whether or not you’re French.

La plupart d'entre eux pensent au départ ne rester que quelques semaines. Puis, précarité aidant, le provisoire s'éternise...

Check out the rest...Heh

French farmers fuming about subsidy issue

22/12/2005 7:35:03

French farmers are threatening to fight against losing their subsidies.

The latest international trade talks have resoled to remove export subsidies by 2013.

French correspondent Catherine Field says that would mean European butter would not be able to find a market abroad.

She says the farmers are receiving a lot of support from the government. She says with the recent race riots in the suburbs of Paris, the last thing anyone wants is a load of butter and courgettes being dumped outside the city's town hall.

Ms Field says the subsidies are so entrenched it would be a brave politician who takes them away

connard français

Globalization will never benefit the poor countries unless tariffs and subsidarys in the rich countries are once and for all removed.

Les chères têtes blondes

The New Year's results are in : 425 cars torched and 362 arrests on New Year's Eve. Both figures are much higher than last year despite a massive police presence and a still active State of Emergency. Those figures do not include the incidents on a New Year's Eve Nice-Lyon train where between 20 and 30 French youths terrorized 600 passengers (systematic beatings, muggings and at least 2 sexual assaults were reported).

Sure glad they got a handle on the situation...

The agricultural subsidies is one thing that I've never understood about my American government and other western governments. America grew strong by being a free market economy, supply and demand and all that. Yet there have always been price controls and subsidies over many agricultural products. Why can't farmers go to market and seek their own fair price? Why should the government pay to keep a business afloat if the business model doesn't work? Same goes for France, Germany, UK and others.

The Western countries (USA, EU, etc.) subsidise the export of agricultural products: the farmers are the winners.

Thailand imposes an export tax on many agricultural products (rice, sugar, etc.): the farmers are the losers.

Go figure!

-------------------

Maestro

So much rubbish talked here I wouldn't know where to start......everyone has tarriffs of one kind or another - take a look at the US cotton subsidies and the effect they have on the 3rd world......

US grew strong in Splendid Isolation....for many years it was a self-sustaining ecomomy....now it is having to look outside for such things as oil and doesn't understand what it sees...

There are 2 places on this planet: the USA and where I come from - the rest of the world!

So much rubbish talked here I wouldn't know where to start......everyone has tarriffs of one kind or another - take a look at the US cotton subsidies and the effect they have on the 3rd world......

US grew strong in Splendid Isolation....for many years it was a self-sustaining ecomomy....now it is having to look outside for such things as oil and doesn't understand what it sees...

There are 2 places on this planet: the USA and where I come from - the rest of the world!

Well, we are not talking about the USA......yet

there are a few countries that are going with the WTO and have reduced or phased out tarrifs.Believe it or not, it teaches a country to be better at what they do, instead of waiting for handouts. Europe seem to be a bunch of pussys in this regard.