Africa for Chinese

Highnoon

Was reading the Indo today, think it was the Kevin Meyers section. Came across
a bit where it said there are around 700,000 Chinese in Africa at the moment and that China has a big interest in the continent. I thought this was of interest so did a bit of a google to learn more and came across what looks like a letter/article from 1873. Link below.


http://galton.org/letters/africa-for-chinese/AfricaForTheChinese.htm

I'd say there are alot of countries straining at the leash to get into Africa in the same way that the Chinese seem to be.

rosarosa

I too read the article.....like anything by Kevin Myers, I took it with a pinch of salt and put it down to his usual sensationalist approach to everything.

No suprise that he began by generalising the entire continent of Africa, talking about how Kenya was supposedly the shining light of the whole of sub-saharan Africa. Why? cos so many British people settled over there? I guess he never heard of other democratic peaceful countries with no history of violence in their post-independence days. Botswana, Malawi, Zambia, Namibia, anyone? And he totally ignores the reasons why Kenya is in the position that it's in today. What about the legacy of divisive British colonial policy? what about acknowledging that the country is made up of different ethnic groups that are economically imbalanced by those same policies? how about admitting to the blind eye that the west turned when the country was under a one-man show led by Jomo Kenyatta? the list goes on, but there are so many reasons that he could have researched, instead of dismissing the whole country with his usual patronising, west-right-attitude.

He seemed to imply that Africa should turn its back on China. Why? at least they have been open about their greed and need for resources. Better that than two-faced aid/loan policies that cause too much suffering (IMFs structural adjustment plan comes to mind. Privatise your parastatal companies indeed!) he also seems to be implying that African states should adopt (better) western-style ideals of democracy as well. um, excuse me, we are not all ignorant of European history....how long exactly has it taken for the present system of governance to come about? what about the centuries of nationalistic fighting, wrangles over policies and dare I say it, the corruption that existed (and probably still does, one way or the other? does he even acknowledge that most African states are less that 50 years old? these same states that never existed before the scramble for Africa?

i don't in any way condone the situation with China and Sudan, but my goodness, if the man wants to talk about that, why does he have to rope in a continent of over 55 states into the mix? or does he think that we are all alike?

and by the way, OP, what's with the link to the racist and offensive article. Do you agree with the sentiments expressed?

edanto

Yeah the Chinese have been looking West for years. I wonder what they could want - most likely a share of the contracts in place with US/EU countries for resources, also market access and well, I guess food too. They are supporting a good number of agribiotech initiatives.

I would hope that the increasing communications infrastructure (over the next decade) in Africa grows awareness there of how many populations are being shafted by corrupt governments and people start to act in concert to reclaim democratic rights.

Completely agree with rosarosa re the oversimplified view that myers took in the article.

Highnoon

Do I agree with the link? not entirely. The Chinese would strike me as being industrious and willing to get stuck in. the Africans however got a bit of a bashing. Was just doing the search on Africa and China and found this ... kind of like a time capsule type article, just sitting there in the middle of cyber space. Thought it was a little odd really.
As for China at least being open about there greed and willingness to deal with the corrupt leaders that govern alot of the countries in Africa i'd agree. I'm sure there are alot of under the table type things going on between the U.S and other countries in Europe etc. One wonders how Mugabe for example is still there but I'd say it would be better left up to the people of Zimbabwe to sort that out themselves. better that than have an outsider with ulterior motives.
Civilisations come and go, The Greeks, Romans, The British, Americans at the mo with The Chinese seemingly in the frame to be the next (though I have my doubts) I'm expecting the Africans to get themselves sorted at some stage though it'll probably be many years. They certainly have the resources and population to get themselves into the game. If that's indeed what they want?

rosarosa

Highnoon, if you knew any African people, you would know that they are seriously crying out for change and a better life. why else would they be trying so hard to to leave for Europe/ USA? I lived in a few countries in Southern Africa and I can tell you that no-one wants to be stuck with the current crop of useless "politicians" (unless he/she is a relative of course....:D)

anyways, regards the Chinese industriousness...perhaps that has a lot more to do with communisms and it's legacy? In college I shared a house with a really nice guy from Shanghai, and he was always quick to dismiss stereotypes and myths about the Chinese...like the way think they all supposedly work like ants. maybe cos they have to? 7-day working week and all that. he used to work in burger king part-time, and I remember him being so glad to have mondays and tuesdays off! and he was always putting down Chinese people from the countryside/villages, saying they were lazy, and poor. Since I'm not Chinese, I couldn't comment, but I concluded that China is such a big place, generalising the work ethics of the whole country would be a poor way to start.

Change will come to Africa....and as a native of the place, well,I have hope, and I think they already are. The wars in Angola, Mozambique and DRC are over. it will take time though. But becoming some sort of Chinese colony? I don't think so!

which parts of the letter did you agree with?

Húrin

yes China is engaging on wholesale theft of what remains of African resources. is this really a point of contention?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Húrin wrote: »

yes China is engaging on wholesale theft of what remains of African resources. is this really a point of contention?

They're clever buggers to be doing it as well, give them a few years and they'll be a serious superpower to contend with.

sink

Certain parts of Africa are worse off now than when they were subjected to brutal colonial rule. If the Chinese are willing to go in and provide some economic development and rule of law, irrespective of their human rights record Africa will be better off.

Here is an interesting article from time.com

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html

DadaKopf

edanto wrote:

I would hope that the increasing communications infrastructure (over the next decade) in Africa grows awareness there of how many populations are being shafted by corrupt governments and people start to act in concert to reclaim democratic rights.

#
That's a very good point. Just as communications in Western Europe fuelled nationalism, revolution, and democracy, changes will be expected across Africa, too. Although, leaders know the importance of the media and try to control it (it played a crucial role in the Rwandan genocide, but also it is controlled more subtly in Tanzania, Kenya, and explicitly in Nigeria, with many journalists being murdered. This, they have in common with China. But the media has already played a role in publicising anti-China labour protests in Zambia; copper mine workers striked against their Chinese employers for low wages. Later, the Zambian government gave Zambians a choice: more Chinese investment, or none. They went with China.

Anyway, the thing about China in the sub-Saharan African context is that China offers African governments a choice about who to ally with; the question is whether China is offering a different development model to challenge Western-dominated capitalism, or is it offering much of the same but with a different flavour?

China is offering 'soft loans' to African governments, and Chinese state-owned enterprises are out there seeking to China's strategic interests. Due to China's foreign policy doctrine - power projection - they're playing a game of chess. Lull Africa into false hopes, but keep them indebted just like the IMF has. The difference is that China is giving African governments what they want, which is infrastructure and grand projects like the stadium in Tanzania. But most of the labour is Chinese.

edanto

Do you know of any good analysis done on the Chinese debt honey trap in the current context of Africa? ie some research where it is laid out what has been loaned to which nations, when, for what and the likely ability of the govt to repay?

I would be concerned that the Chinese experience in dampening voices of dissent through violence and state terrorism will be rolled out across nations which accept a strong Chinese influence. This is based on the idea that corrupt African governments stand to benefit if they can quash democratic dissent and will be very open to the Chinese showing them how.

You say above that the Chinese are loaning money for infrstructure, I'll take a punt that they are all grand buildings/infrastructure for getting people to work or products to chinese markets and less than 1% related to telecommunications infrastructure that could facilitate communication amongst the poor.

DadaKopf

There's a lot of research going on alright. But I'm still following up on sources. A friend of mine is doing a PhD on this very subject, so I get sent loads of stuff from time to time. A good place to start is www.pambazuka.org. They have an ongoing series of Sino-African analysis articles.

Highnoon

What is the reason that countries in Africa seem to be slower in organising themselves? Has there been any research on this? Africa is supposed to be where we all came from and then migrated outwards. So while alot of the migrants i.e. Chinese, Europeans have developed in lots of ways, Africa seems to still be stuck in a warp. Is it just from exploitatation? Is it the tribal system that still seems so strong with people having tribal loyalties which spark up when things aren't going well and makes them turn on each other. I'm thinking the last two examples of Rwanda and now Kenya.
Whereas the Chinese under Communism have a Borg like collectiveness about them. Good for organising etc but of course has negatives also. Granted I hear that the farmers regularly have fights with Government sponsered goons over land. Is there are happy medium between an Iron fisted leader and many small groups pulling in different directions?
Interesting article by the way about the boatman in DR Congo. I wonder is his opinion of bring back the colonising powers shared by all?

rosarosa

Africa is not slow! Like I mentioned previously, you have to remember that as a continent of democratic states, the whole place is only learning to stand on its feet. 50 years isn't a long time. My parents were already around when independence began to spread around southern Africa.

you are comparing this "slowness" to the hundreds of years of European democracy and technological advancement was founded a good deal on the industrial revolution, which was the beginning of colonialism anyway due to the need for space, and which, I think, there was no overwhelming need for inn Africa.

Are you aware that before the advent of colonialism, there were states already present that were forcibly forced into the current nations? like the Monomutapa Kigdom, the luyi Kingdom of the zambezi valley, the bakongo kingdom that had female queens in Angola, and various, other states (whose existence, by the way, you can read about here

---

sorry for the long link, not sure how to hide a link under my own words.....)

http://books.google.com/books?id=sMpMuJalFKoC&pg=PP1&dq=general+history+of+africa&sig=3Sx9IXax_O-XieMzMk_elGSNs7s

anyhoo, you are generally right to talk about tribal wrangles. in previous years, tribes were nations, and much of the animosity is still present. My granny can still talk about such things, and she's 81. not so long ago.

also, colonialism, sure, advancement at the expense of a few million people. slave labour, arpartheid sytems, racial prejuduce and induced societal divisions. you only have to look at South Africa to see that it takes a good while for all the anger to go away. anyway, at the moment, it seems that southern Africa, (cos that's where I'm from) is like an economic colony of Europe anyway. woolworths, spar in the shopping centres, nestle goods.....I might as well be here when I go to the shops!

as for being slow....I went to high school with some minds that would put the brightest straight "A" students here to shame. And where are they now? One I know for sure is a tax accountant in Jersey. Theres another doing her Phd. in Texas state uni. sadly, they left for better opportunities, but my point is, its not for lack of brains. most of my own parent's genereation wnet to university. All of the people I have met here in Ireland from my part of the world are really highly educated and good at what they do. There are a number of reasons as to why industrialism is lagging, but that's a tangled web in itself. Suffice it to say that a bunch of greedy politicians can make life hell for many. but trading blocks like the EU and the World Bank and IMF have not helped either.

Nonetheless, I think that progress is coming along. its slow, but from a cultural point of view, the only thing that is slowing things down too much is disease, and thats something that is changing as well, as a lot of useless traditions regards women are being discarded.

I always think that its hard for people who have never lived in Africa to judge without some sort of prejudice showing. there are too many negative stereotypes portrayed in the media. I've even stopped getting offended.

The Corinthian

rosarosa wrote: »

Why? at least they have been open about their greed and need for resources. Better that than two-faced aid/loan policies that cause too much suffering (IMFs structural adjustment plan comes to mind. Privatise your parastatal companies indeed!)

The West needs to be two faced because it is democratic and the Western electorate has a weak stomach where it comes to real politik - we have no problem reaping the rewards of favourable economic treaties, we just don't want to know the unpleasant details.

China has no such official ethical restrictions.

he also seems to be implying that African states should adopt (better) western-style ideals of democracy as well. um, excuse me, we are not all ignorant of European history....how long exactly has it taken for the present system of governance to come about?

Well not to demand such standards would in effect be admitting that Africa is inferior to the West - as equals the adoption of Western values should simply be a question of application on their part, after all. Otherwise we are conceding that they are socially less evolved than us, and that would make the West feel all guilty and racist.

DadaKopf

China has no such official ethical restrictions.

Well, not precisely. For what it's worth, they're a member of the UN and have ratified the UN Charter of Human Rights. There are some, global, ethical restrictions, which China itself co-drafted and ratified. However, 'Western' countries don't live up to the social and economic rights of the Charter, China doesn't live up to civil and political.

Well not to demand such standards would in effect be admitting that Africa is inferior to the West - as equals the adoption of Western values should simply be a question of application on their part, after all. Otherwise we are conceding that they are socially less evolved than us, and that would make the West feel all guilty and racist.

If you want to be racialist about it. You could take another attitude altogether: that other cultures have the right to do things differently, not better or worse, superior or inferior.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote: »

Well, not precisely. For what it's worth, they're a member of the UN and have ratified the UN Charter of Human Rights. There are some, global, ethical restrictions, which China itself co-drafted and ratified. However, 'Western' countries don't live up to the social and economic rights of the Charter, China doesn't live up to civil and political.

I said official ethical restrictions; I'm not suggesting that our shĩt is any cleaner then theirs. My point is that as the West is democratic it needs to pay lip service to ethical issues for PR reasons more than China.

If you want to be racialist about it. You could take another attitude altogether: that other cultures have the right to do things differently, not better or worse, superior or inferior.

I agree with you - indeed one of the greatest conceits of the West is that we've figured it all out. All I was saying is that such a suggestion would be perceived treated by us as racialist and invoke post colonial guilt.

For the West to accept that other cultures have the right to do things differently is probably too much of a jump for our psyche. I can't see us accepting female circumcision as an acceptable cultural difference, for example.

DadaKopf

I said official ethical restrictions

Yes, officially, China is obliged to live up to the UN charter. Of course, in practice, they don't.

You're right, it is a major jump for our psyches. I wonder what'll happen over the next 25 years as power shifts eastwards, and climate chaos ensues. A double-whammy. The nationalisation of Northern Rock is the first real indicator that this is happening (as well as the Iranian Oil Bourse).

kmick

Africa has to stop looking outwards to blame and start looking inwards. Its not just the politicians who are corrupt. Its not just the politicians who have a low respect for the life of others. The countires in Africa have to get it together for themselves. No one is going to do it for them. People in the West are tired of hearing how we are responsible. Nothing seems to change there even after decades of aid. Its a story I am tired of hearing about and I like hearing stories.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote: »

Yes, officially, China is obliged to live up to the UN charter. Of course, in practice, they don't.

Perhaps officially was not the right word to use. Let's put it this way, a Western nation needs to appear to live up to an ethical code due to the watchdog of democracy. China has no such watchdog - certainly public opinion is of concern within China, but nowhere to the same degree as it is in the West.

As for anyone being obliged to live up to the UN charter, who really believes that any more? Independence anyone?

You're right, it is a major jump for our psyches. I wonder what'll happen over the next 25 years as power shifts eastwards, and climate chaos ensues. A double-whammy. The nationalisation of Northern Rock is the first real indicator that this is happening (as well as the Iranian Oil Bourse).

Neither of those are necessarily indicators unless they have more than a passing impact and it's too early to say on that front.

As for the rest it will still be a question of survival of the fittest, as it always has been, and if the West is to fall into that category it may be time that we shed some of those hypocritical good intentions.

djpbarry

kmick wrote: »

The countires in Africa have to get it together for themselves.

The point has already been made that several African nations are doing quite well for themselves, but this rarely makes the headlines in this part of the world.

kmick wrote: »

People in the West are tired of hearing how we are responsible.

We (the West) are at least partly responsible, but there are other ways of helping other than giving aid. For example, free trade between Africa and say, the EU, would work wonders for Africa's economy, but it probably won't happen, largely due to the CAP.

Highnoon

When I said 'slow' in a previous post I was talking about building a strong society. I wasn't saying that African people were slower mentally. As for 50 years? Africa has been around alot longer than that and there are alot of countries like China and Muslim countries that didn't have democracy.

Though it's true to say we only hear about the countries that are in trouble. There are some which must be ticking over nicely as I don't see them in the news.

I notice that George Bush is in Africa himself these days (not sure what country, Tanzania I think) and I think it's fair to say he doesn't have the welfare of the African people high on his list.
I don't know what the answer to it is. Kick all non-Africans out of the country (the leeches and exploiters) might be a start? Easier said then done I suppose.

rosarosa

The Corinthian wrote: »

The West needs to be two faced because it is democratic and the Western electorate has a weak stomach where it comes to real politik - we have no problem reaping the rewards of favourable economic treaties, we just don't want to know the unpleasant details.

.

And there you have it. That's what it all boils down to. This is what was so wrong about slavery, what was so wrong about colonialism, and what's so wrong with spending 150 euro on an expensive pair of Nike shoes when they are produced in some terrible factory somewhere in the east.

It's not confined to western democracies, it's just a problem with humanity. who cares about the poor man when we are living our wonderful decadent lives full of pampered comfort?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

never forget though, we're the good guys.

Fratton Fred

rosarosa wrote: »

And there you have it. That's what it all boils down to. This is what was so wrong about slavery, what was so wrong about colonialism, and what's so wrong with spending 150 euro on an expensive pair of Nike shoes when they are produced in some terrible factory somewhere in the east.

It's not confined to western democracies, it's just a problem with humanity. who cares about the poor man when we are living our wonderful decadent lives full of pampered comfort?

good job slavery was banned 200 years ago then.

If you spend €150 on a pair of runners made in Asia and the person who made them gets €1 of it. How much do you think they get for a pair of runners costing €20?

The big boys get all the stick, but how hard on their suppliers do you think the cheap shops have to be to make a profit?

It's not that clear cut is it?

djpbarry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you spend €150 on a pair of runners made in Asia and the person who made them gets €1 of it. How much do you think they get for a pair of runners costing €20?

The big boys get all the stick, but how hard on their suppliers do you think the cheap shops have to be to make a profit?

It's not that clear cut is it?

You see, you've highlighted a big problem there - people in the West are totally detached from globalised production. They don't know how the trainers got into the shop and, for the most part, they don't care. There will likely always be a third world unless this attitude changes and people start thinking about where these products come from.

El Stuntman

Highnoon wrote: »

I don't know what the answer to it is. Kick all non-Africans out of the country (the leeches and exploiters) might be a start? Easier said then done I suppose.

yes, that's worked really well in Zimbabwe :rolleyes:

also google 'South Africa load shedding' - a direct result of getting rid of the old white (yes appointed under apartheid conditions but still technically competent) managers of the electricity provider there

sorry, but your 'solution' is a total over-simplification

Fratton Fred

djpbarry wrote: »

You see, you've highlighted a big problem there - people in the West are totally detached from globalised production. They don't know how the trainers got into the shop and, for the most part, they don't care. There will likely always be a third world unless this attitude changes and people start thinking about where these products come from.

If people are concerned, then they should take a look at the ethical sourcing policies of Nike, I am not saying they are a shining example, but they do have a policy which they do their best to enforce. I wonder if Pennys, Dunnes, Walmart have the same?

Knee jerk reaction to this is don't buy their products, then you have underprivilaged people who are no longer exploited, but have don't have jobs.

The EU agricultural policy is another joke, paying farmers to sit on their arses or subsidising crops to prevent third world farmers importing into europe is a crime. We prevent these people from earning a living, then give them charity.

djpbarry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If people are concerned, then they should take a look at the ethical sourcing policies of Nike, I am not saying they are a shining example...

That's an under-statement if ever there was one. But anyway, I'm not going to debate the ethics of Nike's manufacturing policies here.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Knee jerk reaction to this is don't buy their products, then you have underprivilaged people who are no longer exploited, but have don't have jobs.

Well, that depends. If, for example, I discovered that a certain company (not looking at anyone in particular ) was aware of the use of child labour in several of it's contractors' operations, then I would be very unlikely to purchase products developed by that particular company, as I would be effectively condoning the use of child labour.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The EU agricultural policy is another joke, paying farmers to sit on their arses or subsidising crops to prevent third world farmers importing into europe is a crime.

Yes, that is true - I touched on the CAP earlier. Not to mention the fact that it pushes up the price of our food.

faceman

Highnoon wrote: »

I don't know what the answer to it is. Kick all non-Africans out of the country (the leeches and exploiters) might be a start? Easier said then done I suppose.

That is not the answer. look at uganga and tanzania and compare with kenya. Kenya didnt kick out non nationals after independence, the other 2 nations did.

Most, if not all (i havent been to them all yet ) African countries have tribal segregation. Often local politics exploits that for their own gains.

Im not sure if you were having a pop at kenyatta, who despite his faults, did bring change and some good to Kenya. The less said about Moi the better. Kibaki was an awful leader too however he did help start to improve the economy.

I always find it a blinkered western view when journalists in particular talk about africa as if it were a country and not a continent. Every country in africa is at different levels of development, has different economic conditions, different level of corruption and so on.

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The EU agricultural policy is another joke, paying farmers to sit on their arses or subsidising crops to prevent third world farmers importing into europe is a crime. We prevent these people from earning a living, then give them charity.

The problem isnt' so much that "we" subsidize our crops as "we" use "aid" AKA IMF/World Bank/Usual suspects etc etc etc etc against them and prevent them subsidizing theirs.

sovtek

Highnoon wrote: »

I don't know what the answer to it is. Kick all non-Africans out of the country (the leeches and exploiters) might be a start? Easier said then done I suppose.

Problem is "we" are the leechers and exploiters for the most part. The one with the most power anyway.
I think a start is to admit that a lot of responsibility lies on our shores both past and present. Then start taking responsibility for it.

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Knee jerk reaction to this is don't buy their products, then you have underprivilaged people who are no longer exploited, but have don't have jobs.

That's assuming they are working under "our" type of economic system.

faceman

sovtek wrote: »

Problem is "we" are the leechers and exploiters for the most part. The one with the most power anyway.
I think a start is to admit that a lot of responsibility lies on our shores both past and present. Then start taking responsibility for it.

Focus less on the past, focus on now and future instead

sovtek

faceman wrote: »

Focus less on the past, focus on now and future instead

Well it's the past that rules the present. Colonialism ended in name only for the most part.

Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The EU agricultural policy is another joke, paying farmers to sit on their arses or subsidising crops to prevent third world farmers importing into europe is a crime. We prevent these people from earning a living, then give them charity.

Famine and disease in Europe wouldn't be high on your list of Bad Things I take it? Claiming the CAP exists purely or mainly to let farmers become lazy dole seekers is frankly amazing.

Fratton Fred

Moriarty wrote: »

Famine and disease in Europe wouldn't be high on your list of Bad Things I take it? Claiming the CAP exists purely or mainly to let farmers become lazy dole seekers is frankly amazing.

what has famine and disease got to do with paying farmers not to produce crops, or paying over the market rate for the crops they do produce. the CAP is there purely to protect european farmers from imports.

If I am wrong tell me why.

DadaKopf

Food security.

faceman

sovtek wrote: »

Well it's the past that rules the present. Colonialism ended in name only for the most part.

*adds to book about broad generalisations on africa*

Please elaborate on your post.

Fratton Fred

DadaKopf wrote: »

Food security.

is food security that important in europe? There is plenty of capacity in europe, it's just not being used to keep market prices artificially high.

purple'n'gold

Moriarty wrote: »

Famine and disease in Europe wouldn't be high on your list of Bad Things I take it? Claiming the CAP exists purely or mainly to let farmers become lazy dole seekers is frankly amazing.

The CAP does not exist purely or mainly to let farmers become lazy dole seekers. But the fact is that is exactly what it does. Farmers are now just glorified dole merchants who live on “the cheque in the post” which they get for doing precisely nothing.

DadaKopf

A agree. I think the CAP is in need of major reform, and it does also operate to shut out exports from developing countries through subsidisation (combined with trade barriers) However, in an era of globalisation, without support to domestic producers, it would make no economic sense to produce food. In the event of a catastrophe, or simply excruciating oil prices, for example, Europeans would starve.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the CAP as is, but its fundemantal rationale is food security. Could it not be reformed in such a way as to eliminate its crookery, but preserve its essential purpose?

djpbarry

DadaKopf wrote: »

Could it not be reformed in such a way as to eliminate its crookery, but preserve its essential purpose?

I'm sure it could, but the farmers' lobby is a powerful one, especially in countries such as Ireland.

purple'n'gold

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sure it could, but the farmers' lobby is a powerful one, especially in countries such as Ireland.

The farmers lobby is not anything like as powerful as it used to be. There are a lot less farmers in Ireland now than there was 30 years ago. And the farmer’s don’t have a lot of friends in Germany or UK. The CAP can and should be reformed, god knows the MEP’s are getting paid well enough to streamline and modernise it.

Fratton Fred

purplengold wrote: »

The farmers lobby is not anything like as powerful as it used to be. There are a lot less farmers in Ireland now than there was 30 years ago. And the farmer’s don’t have a lot of friends in Germany or UK. The CAP can and should be reformed, god knows the MEP’s are getting paid well enough to streamline and modernise it.

The French are the ones still behind the CAP.

I think when the UK gave up it's rebate from the EU, one of the conditions was reforms to the CAP, so they may be coming. Nothing seems to happen too quickly in Brussels though:rolleyes: