I don’t know cp, don’t you think that pretty well all the single deskers would have already been in question #1 category? We were certainly all told often enough by the CWB that they couldn’t exist in an open market, (though at least some of us, didn’t believe them and/or we were willing to take the chance to get an open market).
On the other side though, many of us who didn’t agree with a single desk voted #2. The CWB can choose to compete if they are able to add value to the marketplace. And if they can’t add value, why would we want them as the only buyer?? I saw no benefit to #3 forbidding them from buying barley; why limit the number of buyers and reduce the number of players competing for our barley?
You’re right about one thing for sure though cp, this whole thing has caused a lot of bad blood, and needlessly so. There will still be buyers looking for our barley after this is all over. Threatening to use farmer money from the pools to challenge the will of the 62% of farmers who want an open market, is just plain wrong.
On the other side though, many of us who didn’t agree with a single desk voted #2. The CWB can choose to compete if they are able to add value to the marketplace. And if they can’t add value, why would we want them as the only buyer?? I saw no benefit to #3 forbidding them from buying barley; why limit the number of buyers and reduce the number of players competing for our barley?
You’re right about one thing for sure though cp, this whole thing has caused a lot of bad blood, and needlessly so. There will still be buyers looking for our barley after this is all over. Threatening to use farmer money from the pools to challenge the will of the 62% of farmers who want an open market, is just plain wrong.
Comment