On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:16:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

OK, and what were you thinking about these matters?

Hmm. It was your brain I hoped to explore. The initial level was set
quite high and then reduced drastically in subsequent years.

Would you be referring here to one of the errors in McSharry, which
you said was quickly adjusted?

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?