Have a Good NEWS

dukes, water companies and charitable wildlife will be relieved to know the looting of agricultural subsidies in the Common Agricultural Policy can last at least until 2020

What would you do with £ 245? You: a) use it to buy food for the next five weeks, b) take a family vacation, c) is used to double their annual savings, or d) give the Duke of Westminster

Let me take the case of option D. This year, the Duke fell into relative poverty. Relative, ie, the three newcomers who have moved from the top of the list in the wealthy British. (Yes, not so bad in absolute terms, the value of their properties rose last year to £ 7 billion.) Is the culmination of the population of British origin in the list, and surely we have a patriotic duty if it does not. It is a splendid example of British society, to be enterprising enough to have inherited their land and the income of his father.

it must be a reason not to? Therefore, if households have to pay the money - the equivalent of five weeks on average on food and almost average annual savings (£ 296) - some of the richest men and women in the UK? Why, if this tithe of 21 th century, the tax return for the front cover Robin, will be perceived?

I talk about the payments that are large farmers through the Common Agricultural Policy. They swallow ? 55 billion (£ 47 billion) per year, or 43% of the EU budget. Despite spending crisis raging across Europe, the policy remains intact. Worse still, governments intend to maintain this level of spending during the next budget period, from 2014-2020.

all expenses of perverts in rich countries, agricultural subsidies must be one of the most regressive. In the EU are paid according to the size of their land: the larger the area, the more you get. Except in Spain, the system is nowhere grants the most unfair in the UK. According to Kevin Cahill, who is the author of Great Britain, 69% of the land here is owned 0.6% of the population. This is the group that the largest payments. The total budget, according to the government database is divided between only 16,000 persons or companies. Let me give some examples, starting with a group of old friends.

As chairman of Northern Rock, Matt Ridley has overseen the first run on a British bank since 1878, and helped precipitate the economic crisis that has impoverished many. This champion of free market economy and his family have received £ 205,000 of taxpayers last year by holding their assets appropriately called Blagdon. That falls shy of widespread public charity with Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia fixative in the center of a corruption scandal Al-Yamamah. In 2007, The Guardian discovered that he had received a payment of up to £ 1 billion of arms manufacturer BAE. He used his wealth, earned by the purchase of the farm Glympton in Oxfordshire. This public service is paid £ 270,000 a year. Guv'nor grateful I am sure.

In a sense, the government of this country is right. He lobbied the European Commission, so far without success, to "very important to reduce the CAP budget." However, maintaining enthusiasm. He also demanded that the fall of the EC, the only sound in the project proposal being negotiated by Member States: there must be a limit to the amount an owner can receive. Our government warns that the limitation of payments "to prevent the consolidation" of farms. It seems that 0.6% of the population owns 69% of the land is not fair.

enough
If subsidies are remaining profit is certainly to protect the most vulnerable small farmers. The British proposals would ensure that the budget is still monopolized by large landowners. With regard to payments for environmental protection, this option seems to me that you get when you refuse to regulate. The rest of us do not get paid for not flying the elderly. Why farmers should be paid not to destroy the biosphere? Why should they not be legally obligated to protect, like other companies are?