'Now is the time to defend food security', says Irish MEP ahead of CAP vote
It marks a critical step in setting out the Parliament's political priorities ahead of the European Commission's proposals for the post-2027 CAP later this month.
Advertisement
The report, led by Spanish EPP MEP Carmen Crespo Diaz, outlines the Parliament's vision for the CAP in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Fianna Fáil MEP for Midlands North-West, Barry Cowen, served as lead negotiator for the Renew Europe Group.
The vote comes amid growing debate in Brussels over the future structure and financing of EU agriculture policy.
The report strongly defends a ring-fenced CAP budget and argues that food security must be treated as a pillar of EU strategic autonomy. It stresses that the CAP should remain a standalone EU policy and not be folded into a broader national funding envelope.
'Secure and constant access to food has become a matter of strategic security,' the text notes.
Advertisement
In terms of content, the report calls for better environmental rewards for farmers, a clearer approach to generational renewal, and urgent simplification to reduce bureaucracy. 'Farmers must be properly rewarded for their environmental contributions,' it states, while urging that eco-schemes be made 'simpler and more flexible".
It also proposes the continuation of direct payments, including to part-time and small-scale farmers.
Notably, the report repeats the Parliament's call for 'impact assessments that take into account farm-level implications' before introducing new requirements. It urges the Commission to cut red tape and simplify access to support through a 'CAP one-stop-shop' – a key ask from recent farmer protests across Europe.
Speaking before the vote, Barry Cowen MEP said: 'This is my first report as a lead negotiator for Renew Europe and I'm pleased to have helped shape a strong, constructive text that reflects the real concerns of farmers across the Midlands North-West, Ireland and Europe
Advertisement
'The process – meeting hundreds of stakeholders across Europe before engaging in detailed technical and political negotiations – is one I relished and look forward to repeating many times.
'While not every proposal I put forward in my recent position paper on the future of European agriculture made it into the final version, I'm satisfied that a large number of my key asks are reflected – particularly on food security, stronger environmental rewards for farmers and the simplification agenda.
'This vote, I hope, will send a clear message to the Commission ahead of its upcoming MFF and CAP proposals: agriculture is not a footnote to Europe's security – it's central to it. If we want more from our farmers, we must match that with more meaningful support."
Mr Cowen added: 'Too often, farmers have been caught between rising expectations and falling incomes. The next CAP must reset that imbalance with clear schemes, fairer payments and a structure built to last.
Advertisement
'Dismantling the CAP's ring-fenced budget would be a historic mistake. Farmers need predictability, not political games. Equally, however, I will not be distracted by debate around the CAP's structure and will not accept stagnant funding even if the current format is retained.
'Without an inflation adjustment, the CAP's real value could shrink by 54 per cent by 2034 - an effective €250 billion shortfall. A secure, increased CAP budget is the only way to secure the future of European agriculture and that message will be sent loud and clear to the Commission today.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
37 minutes ago
- Reuters
Austria's OMV records lower energy prices in second quarter
July 8 (Reuters) - Austrian oil and gas group OMV ( opens new tab recorded lower average energy prices in the second quarter of 2025, it said on Tuesday, as average natural gas prices fell by 23% from the previous quarter. Average realized crude oil price also fell 9% to $66.2 per barrel, it said.
Reuters
44 minutes ago
- Reuters
Morning Bid: Tariff deja vu takes hold
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rocky Swift U.S. President Donald Trump's assertion that his latest tariff deadline was "firm, but not 100% firm" was all Asian share markets needed to stage a weak rally. A July 9 date to secure trade deals with the United States was reset to August 1, and even as 14 nations received letters about tariff hikes on their goods, Trump's words left plenty of time and wiggle room for negotiation. Since Trump's unveiling of his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2, each additional policy change has obeyed the economic maxim of "diminishing marginal returns" in terms of market reaction. Still, 25% duties on goods from Japan and South Korea, America's second- and third-largest trade partners in Asia, are still a hefty burden. More letters are expected to be doled out to other countries this week, keeping tariffs on the front pages. For the time being, a sense of deja vu is keeping market moves muted. The European Union is not among those expected to get a letter, EU sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Monday. The EU still aims to reach a trade deal by Wednesday after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trump had a "good exchange," a commission spokesperson said. Since April, the Trump administration has put together just two, thinly sketched out trade agreements, with Britain and Vietnam, and a fragile trade truce with China. The U.S. dollar has been one of the biggest casualties from the tariff turmoil, but it bounced back strongly on Monday and held gains in Asia. Strength in the greenback against Japan's yen and the South Korean won added a tailwind to their major share indexes on Tuesday. Equity futures are indicating a down day broadly for Europe , whereas the U.S. market is poised for a flat open. But on the bright side, Goldman Sachs raised its return forecasts for the S&P 500, citing expectations for U.S. interest rate cuts and continued fundamental strength of major large-cap stocks. Key developments that could influence markets on Tuesday: - Germany trade data for May - Reopening of 5-year government debt auction in Germany – Reopening of 24-year government debt auction in the United Kingdom Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The middle class have the most to fear from Labour's wealth tax
A wealth tax would be economically damaging, administratively burdensome and ultimately counterproductive. There is a clear need to push back against calls for one in the UK. Although often framed as a response to rising fiscal pressures, such taxes consistently fail to deliver the revenues promised, distort behaviour and penalise saving, investment and growth. Worse, they divert attention from the deeper structural challenges in public spending and the need for long-term reform. Few countries globally have a wealth tax, with the number in the OECD falling from 12 in 1990 to three now. In those three –Norway, Spain and Switzerland – thresholds have risen and rates fallen. The global retreat from wealth taxation reflects a hard-earned recognition that such levies don't work. While much coverage focuses on the fact that the wealthy will leave, the truth is these taxes fall disproportionately on those who are not internationally mobile – retired savers, small business owners, and households with illiquid assets. The most mobile individuals and capital simply relocate. The middle class would be those with most to fear from a wealth tax. The result would be not just lost revenue, but a damaging shift in the composition of the UK economy. Britain would risk becoming a 'domestic economy' – less open to international capital, talent, and enterprise, and more reliant on taxed domestic wealth and consumption. That is a path to stagnation, not renewal. For the UK to raise a wealth tax would send a negative signal about the outlook, disincentivising entrepreneurs and wealth creators, discouraging them from investing or creating jobs here. An efficient tax is one which does not impact behaviour. A wealth tax would do just that. This is not a defence of billionaires but a focus on the economic reality of how the policy would work. It would deter those considering the UK as a base for innovation and enterprise. Research for The Wealth Tax Commission by academics at the London School of Economics, and endorsed by former Cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell, is often cited in favour of the idea. Interestingly, its analysis contains many reasons to oppose the very tax it is advocating. For a start, it accepts that it would be more effective to make existing taxes on wealth such as capital gains work better, as opposed to a new one. Worryingly, it acknowledges that even at a very low rate of wealth tax, one in six of those impacted could leave. As the report puts it, 'at a tax rate of 1pc, between 7pc and 17pc of the initial tax base would be lost to behavioural response. This is not a trivial amount'. That research also found that for individuals with taxable wealth over £5m, 87pc is tied up in 'business assets.' It also acknowledged that 'another problem category could be start-ups that are potentially profitable but loss-making in the early years'. A wealth tax would clearly act as a deterrent to those with the potential to create jobs, growth, and future tax revenues. It would be both anti-business and anti-growth. The double taxation involved in capital gains tax, inheritance tax and wealth taxes would, in time, tend to limit domestic savings, investment and capital accumulation. The long-term result would be to reduce the UK's productive capacity, undermine financial resilience and discourage long-term planning. These issues are not new. Dennis Healey, Chancellor between 1974 and 1979, acknowledged: 'We had committed ourselves to a wealth tax, but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.' Perhaps just as well. Ireland, which did impose a wealth tax in 1975, abolished it in 1978. There are also deep issues of liquidity and fairness associated with wealth taxes. An old argument against is that they would hit people who are asset rich but cash poor. Even its advocates accept that it 'may require acceptance of the need to force some additional borrowing and/or asset sales.' Yet, the economic reality is that imperfect capital markets mean it is often difficult for people to raise the cash value of their fixed assets such as houses or precious items. Borrowing, or deferring tax liabilities, would be cumbersome and could depress asset prices, undermining property markets and, in turn, inheritance tax receipts. The Treasury has always argued in favour of taxes where there is a clearly identified income stream, making them easier to collect and harder to avoid. That is clearly not the case with a wealth tax. The administrative burden would be significant. Unlike income, which is transparent and traceable, wealth is often hard to value and easy to shift. Implementing a wealth tax would require annual valuations of illiquid assets and would create strong incentives for avoidance, reclassification and emigration. Worse still, if applied at a rate high enough to raise material revenue, it would amount to a slow expropriation over time. A recurring wealth tax of 2pc would see the state appropriate the full value of a person's assets over 50 years. Alternatively, if imposed at a lower rate - one that households might realistically be able to pay - the revenue raised would likely be minimal, raising the question of whether the disruption would ever justify the return. A progressive tax system is right but in a globally competitive economy, over-taxing mobile assets risks driving talent abroad and deterring investment. The UK's future prosperity will be secured not by taxing wealth more but by creating the conditions for more people to generate it.
