TODAY, the first day of the British EU presidency, is the day Tony Blair and Gordon Brown can start in earnest on undermining the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

It remains to be seen whether Messrs Blair and Brown, seemingly united in their dislike of what is a deeply unlikable pillar of the eurostate, actually get anywhere. Given the depth to which French heels are dug in on this one, and given the frightening power of French farmers to influence Paris policy, it would be foolish to bet the whole ranch on reform. The CAP may eventually go. But you are likely to need a super strength magnifying glass to see movement by the time the presidency baton is passed to Austria at year’s end.

In one very significant way, however, it is a good thing that the CAP is likely to remain fitted at the head what the EU does. The CAP is the single most powerful mechanism by which Europeans can be assured that the Continent will be able to feed itself should some sort of political or military catastrophe strike and isolate our corner of the globe.

It was fear of hunger that led the fathers of the European union to construct the CAP. And while it is hopefully most unlikely that Europe will fall victim to some sort of diplomatic meltdown it is only right and sensible that sensible contingency plans are kept in place.

But the way the CAP helped to secure that other great European goal — peace — is of relevance here. For, arguably at least, peace came about because the CAP entwined the interests of western European nations. If the CAP is now dismantled, reconstruction could entwine the interests of the first and the third worlds. And if the economic interests of the world are wrapped together the security of supply issue — on which CAP relies for justification — would melt away.

Given the aforementioned power wielded by French farmers, any meddling with the CAP might precipitate the kind of unpleasantness it exists to cater for. So although Messrs Blair and Brown are right to press for the reform, perhaps even the abolition, of the CAP, they need to act in a way that serves to act sympathetically. Europe does need to ensure it will enjoy secure supplies of food before the CAP is unwound completely.

However carefully the road to CAP reform is travelled, there is a risk that Europe will find itself surrendering security over the supply of food while failing to preside over the creation of a safe world in which they have no need to worry about keeping their mouths filled. There is a sizeable risk that first and third worlds will fail to establish a workable system of interdependency.

But set against this risk is the harshly afflicting reality of third world poverty. By failing to take on the risk of meeting this failure, the first world will be guilty of acting in a way that is impoverishing to itself — both morally and financially.

The strongest argument in favour of the phased abolition of the CAP is that it will help developing countries to trade their way out of poverty. If the CAP was abolished for this reason, and this reason alone, it would amount to a one-sided act of charity. Charitable acts of this sort are laudable. But how much better would it be if the CAP was scrapped because it was seen to serve the best interests of first world nations in Europe as well as the third world states of Africa, Latin America and Asia?

It would be better because a sustainable and workable system is likely to be created if parties both sides are working selfishly rather than selflessly. Few of a caring nature would like to admit as much, but it is likely to be true. Moreover it would be better if protagonists are driven by self interest because change will occur more quickly.

Policy has to follow trends

LEWIS CARROLL would have appreciated the latest statistical revisions from the Office for National Statistics. Output is roughly what the ONS first thought but the economy, it seems, was growing faster than expected up to the spring of 2004 and has since been expanding noticeably more slowly than Gordon Brown has been assuming and slower even than most City economists thought.

Sceptics and traditionalists will reasonably conclude that policymakers have only themselves to blame if they base decisions on the detailed nuances of current economic statistics. Many of these can never be as accurate to one decimal point as they appear on paper. Such spurious detail may generate trade in financial markets but policy should rest on trends.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive