BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…12611262126412661267…2110

Comments

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    silvers wrote:
    As I indicated in my first post, measures of current state are not great to plan the needs of the future.

    To be clear, I think food and water are two things that can’t be judged on purely “productivity” measures. But then i’m Not an accountant.
    Other than that blind spot, I find little to argue with in most of your posts :D

    Surely allowing in food tariff free is a good thing
  • silvers
    silvers Posts: 16
    Not for farmers in the UK it isn’t ... but then you know that.
    And yes ... many farmers voted to leave and don’t understand the potential impacts (just like the rest of the population)

    PS don’t mean to come across as chippy ... as I acknowledged in my first post, I am a bit close to the topic and thus probably a bit biased myself.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,550
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    silvers wrote:
    I wouldn’t measure economic significance by simplistic GDP measures only

    Other than being 2% of labour and 2% of GDP what other measures are there? There is a whole other thread saying farming is bad for the environment

    Say we allowed EU agric products to be tariff free in exchange for UK automotive products being imported into the EU tariff free?

    Do post up some examples of countries that import 100% of their food.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • silvers
    silvers Posts: 16
    Singapore won’t be far off
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,347
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    silvers wrote:
    I wouldn’t measure economic significance by simplistic GDP measures only

    Other than being 2% of labour and 2% of GDP what other measures are there? There is a whole other thread saying farming is bad for the environment

    Say we allowed EU agric products to be tariff free in exchange for UK automotive products being imported into the EU tariff free?

    Do post up some examples of countries that import 100% of their food.
    Preferably ones that are islands that have just decided to tear up all the trade agreements with the nearest landmass...
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,325
    briantrumpet wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    silvers wrote:
    I wouldn’t measure economic significance by simplistic GDP measures only

    Other than being 2% of labour and 2% of GDP what other measures are there? There is a whole other thread saying farming is bad for the environment

    Say we allowed EU agric products to be tariff free in exchange for UK automotive products being imported into the EU tariff free?

    Do post up some examples of countries that import 100% of their food.
    Preferably ones that are islands that have just decided to tear up all the trade agreements with the nearest landmass...
    Looking on the bright side. We may have found the solution to the obesity problem.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,550
    silvers wrote:
    Singapore won’t be far off

    We've a few more people than 5million. And even Singapore has agriculture.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • silvers
    silvers Posts: 16
    When they said that we could be Singapore on Thames .... I don’t think anyone was talking about that aspect though :(
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Farmers should be burned and their land given to immigrants
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    sorry for my previous posit trying to be a metropolitan elite
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    silvers wrote:
    Not for farmers in the UK it isn’t ... but then you know that.
    And yes ... many farmers voted to leave and don’t understand the potential impacts (just like the rest of the population)

    PS don’t mean to come across as chippy ... as I acknowledged in my first post, I am a bit close to the topic and thus probably a bit biased myself.

    98% of the population aren’t farmers - why not look after them?

    Those that are farmers can be helped by distributing the existing subsidies more fairly
  • silvers
    silvers Posts: 16
    Not sure what your getting at to be honest, UK already has the cheapest food in Western Europe.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45559594

    Would you trust this (or any) government to get such a realignment right? I’m aware of Defra proposals to replace CAP payments ... let’s say that farmers won’t be happy.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    silvers wrote:
    Not sure what your getting at to be honest, UK already has the cheapest food in Western Europe.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45559594

    Would you trust this (or any) government to get such a realignment right? I’m aware of Defra proposals to replace CAP payments ... let’s say that farmers won’t be happy.

    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.

    There must be better ways of spending £2bn than disproportionately subsidising some of the richest people in the country
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,550
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    silvers wrote:
    Not sure what your getting at to be honest, UK already has the cheapest food in Western Europe.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45559594

    Would you trust this (or any) government to get such a realignment right? I’m aware of Defra proposals to replace CAP payments ... let’s say that farmers won’t be happy.

    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.

    There must be better ways of spending £2bn than disproportionately subsidising some of the richest people in the country

    In what way better? Nutritionally?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    silvers wrote:
    When they said that we could be Singapore on Thames .... I don’t think anyone was talking about that aspect though :(
    Probably not, but that could be one unexpected upside of a hard Brexit.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    silvers wrote:
    Not sure what your getting at to be honest, UK already has the cheapest food in Western Europe.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45559594

    Would you trust this (or any) government to get such a realignment right? I’m aware of Defra proposals to replace CAP payments ... let’s say that farmers won’t be happy.

    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.

    There must be better ways of spending £2bn than disproportionately subsidising some of the richest people in the country

    In what way better? Nutritionally?

    Meat from S. Africa and Argentina
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,347
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.
    Better? Please do tell.

    You're also ignoring other aspects of food production, notably that it's not something that people can do without, and the profound effect it has on our environment: you might not like the system that's in place now (and there's certainly an argument as to exactly how subsidies are apportioned), but you've got to be certain that what replaces it is not going to bring about unintended negative consequences, whether that's the environment, food quality, or ensuring supplies in all circumstances. It's not like fishing: if the UK fleet stopped tomorrow, it might be a disaster for UK fishermen, but the fish would still be fished; put the majority of UK farming out of business, and not only would nearly every corner of the UK's countryside be altered dramatically (it's not like the oceans where other trawlers can just come along and do the job), but our diet would be massively reliant on imports and the vagaries of the world market, in potentially turbulent times.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • silvers
    silvers Posts: 16
    As I said ... on this topic SC is hilariously ill-informed and should stick to subjects he knows about
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.
    Better? Please do tell.

    You're also ignoring other aspects of food production, notably that it's not something that people can do without, and the profound effect it has on our environment: you might not like the system that's in place now (and there's certainly an argument as to exactly how subsidies are apportioned), but you've got to be certain that what replaces it is not going to bring about unintended negative consequences, whether that's the environment, food quality, or ensuring supplies in all circumstances. It's not like fishing: if the UK fleet stopped tomorrow, it might be a disaster for UK fishermen, but the fish would still be fished; put the majority of UK farming out of business, and not only would nearly every corner of the UK's countryside be altered dramatically (it's not like the oceans where other trawlers can just come along and do the job), but our diet would be massively reliant on imports and the vagaries of the world market, in potentially turbulent times.

    I will always favour markets over regulation.

    Removing tariffs and quotas will encourage people to export to us.

    Why would the majority of farmers go out of business? - check out NZ as an example.

    If they did all go bust why would the environment returning to it’s natural state be an environmental disaster?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,550
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    silvers wrote:
    Not sure what your getting at to be honest, UK already has the cheapest food in Western Europe.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45559594

    Would you trust this (or any) government to get such a realignment right? I’m aware of Defra proposals to replace CAP payments ... let’s say that farmers won’t be happy.

    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.

    There must be better ways of spending £2bn than disproportionately subsidising some of the richest people in the country

    In what way better? Nutritionally?

    Meat from S. Africa and Argentina

    In what way is that qualitatively better?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • silvers
    silvers Posts: 16
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.
    Better? Please do tell.

    You're also ignoring other aspects of food production, notably that it's not something that people can do without, and the profound effect it has on our environment: you might not like the system that's in place now (and there's certainly an argument as to exactly how subsidies are apportioned), but you've got to be certain that what replaces it is not going to bring about unintended negative consequences, whether that's the environment, food quality, or ensuring supplies in all circumstances. It's not like fishing: if the UK fleet stopped tomorrow, it might be a disaster for UK fishermen, but the fish would still be fished; put the majority of UK farming out of business, and not only would nearly every corner of the UK's countryside be altered dramatically (it's not like the oceans where other trawlers can just come along and do the job), but our diet would be massively reliant on imports and the vagaries of the world market, in potentially turbulent times.

    I will always favour markets over regulation.

    Removing tariffs and quotas will encourage people to export to us.

    Why would the majority of farmers go out of business? - check out NZ as an example.

    If they did all go bust why would the environment returning to it’s natural state be an environmental disaster?

    NZ? 50% of farmers did go bust and were taken over by larger businesses. It’s virtually a monoculture. They have pretty bad environmental problems given the size of population too.
    Oh and the food in the supermarkets there is incredibly expensive , apart from crisps and chocolate.

    Markets alone can’t work this problem out until we find a way to incentivise sustainability over pure profit.

    Blunt instruments don’t always yield the best result IME
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,550
    Breaking away from SC's undying faith in markets to solve all, more nonsense from no. 10.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/h ... otiations/

    For your amusement.
    So, if talks go nowhere this week, the next phase will require us to set out our view on the Surrender Act. The Act imposes narrow duties. Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about. Different lawyers see the “frustration principle” very differently especially on a case like this where there is no precedent for primary legislation directing how the PM conducts international discussions.

    We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.

    I wonder if this is the same legal advice they used for the propagation case.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    silvers wrote:
    Not sure what your getting at to be honest, UK already has the cheapest food in Western Europe.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45559594

    Would you trust this (or any) government to get such a realignment right? I’m aware of Defra proposals to replace CAP payments ... let’s say that farmers won’t be happy.

    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.

    There must be better ways of spending £2bn than disproportionately subsidising some of the richest people in the country

    In what way better? Nutritionally?

    Meat from S. Africa and Argentina
    I don't think the brexshitterati will be happy about Argentinian beef.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    silvers wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Food would be cheaper and better if we had no food import tariffs or quotas.
    Better? Please do tell.

    You're also ignoring other aspects of food production, notably that it's not something that people can do without, and the profound effect it has on our environment: you might not like the system that's in place now (and there's certainly an argument as to exactly how subsidies are apportioned), but you've got to be certain that what replaces it is not going to bring about unintended negative consequences, whether that's the environment, food quality, or ensuring supplies in all circumstances. It's not like fishing: if the UK fleet stopped tomorrow, it might be a disaster for UK fishermen, but the fish would still be fished; put the majority of UK farming out of business, and not only would nearly every corner of the UK's countryside be altered dramatically (it's not like the oceans where other trawlers can just come along and do the job), but our diet would be massively reliant on imports and the vagaries of the world market, in potentially turbulent times.

    I will always favour markets over regulation.

    Removing tariffs and quotas will encourage people to export to us.

    Why would the majority of farmers go out of business? - check out NZ as an example.

    If they did all go bust why would the environment returning to it’s natural state be an environmental disaster?

    NZ? 50% of farmers did go bust and were taken over by larger businesses. It’s virtually a monoculture. They have pretty bad environmental problems given the size of population too.
    Oh and the food in the supermarkets there is incredibly expensive , apart from crisps and chocolate.

    Markets alone can’t work this problem out until we find a way to incentivise sustainability over pure profit.

    Blunt instruments don’t always yield the best result IME

    so farming in NZ did not end and could be argued to have become more efficient.

    Imagine that you start with a blank piece of paper, the Govt has spent all of it's money and has permission to borrow £2bn, what would you spend it on?

    ending fuel poverty?
    helping the homeless?
    investing in high tech industries?
    give it away to some of the richest people in (or not) the country because they are farmers?

    higher food prices are a regressive tax hitting the poor disproportionately hard

    People think I hate farmers, I don't, I admire them, as an organisation they have done the most awesome PR job in convincing the common man that their interests are aligned. Buying off politicians is more obvious and simple but still takes money and commitment. As individuals they are geniuses at squeezing every last penny out of the system.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    sorry for my previous posit trying to be a metropolitan elite

    Not convincing, we wouldn't countenance the emissions.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    You should probably separate farmers and landowners in your analysis. The farmers don't make much money.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    Laura Kuenssberg
    ‏Verified account @bbclaurak

    1. PM spoke to Merkel at 8am this morning - No 10 source says she said there could only be a deal if Northern Ireland stays in Customs Union, if not, then deal is 'overwhelmingly unlikely'

    So permanent backstop is the only deal being offered. Not a great look, but I imagine that feelings on this will be split two ways as usual.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,550
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    higher food prices are a regressive tax hitting the poor disproportionately hard

    If only they had access to cheap South American beef. :roll:

    Food prices aren't higher overall. Meat might be pricey, but it always has been and even that is cheaper than its ever been. A whole value range chicken costs less than a takeaway coffee.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,550
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Laura Kuenssberg
    ‏Verified account @bbclaurak

    1. PM spoke to Merkel at 8am this morning - No 10 source says she said there could only be a deal if Northern Ireland stays in Customs Union, if not, then deal is 'overwhelmingly unlikely'

    So permanent backstop is the only deal being offered. Not a great look, but I imagine that feelings on this will be split two ways as usual.

    We could all stay in the Customs Union. I'd bet the majority of the country don't really care one way or the other. Party policy is the only thing saying this is absolutely unacceptable.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Laura Kuenssberg
    ‏Verified account @bbclaurak

    1. PM spoke to Merkel at 8am this morning - No 10 source says she said there could only be a deal if Northern Ireland stays in Customs Union, if not, then deal is 'overwhelmingly unlikely'

    So permanent backstop is the only deal being offered. Not a great look, but I imagine that feelings on this will be split two ways as usual.

    They don't trust Boris.

    Also, does it make clear that only a permanent backstop is being offered? That quote just says in the CU.

Categories