BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

so Liz Truss is closing in on a deal with Australia but George Eustice is unhappy as it proposes zero tariff for Oz farmers which he fears will wipeout Brit farmers.

She has reassured him that it will make no difference as they are on the other side of the planet

It's entirely possible they are both right.

So she famously thinks that importing some of our cheese is an OuTrAge, but is happy to import all our meat. Obviously. Gove is apparently siding with Eustice as he can see that it will lose them what support they have in Wales and Scotland, and lose them seats in rural England. All for two fifths of f*** all in international trade terms.

Again it is all choices peeps. Get yourself down the butchers and buy British where possible and you will find that farmers will be unaffected. We already import a fair whack of New Zealand lamb however there are still plenty of sheep round the hills near me. Frozen meat is already being imported from around the world and I don't think this is what UK farmers are primarily competing with.

Australia is a bit like the USA in that it also has a large amount of arable crops that we don't have the land to grow or climate so this is a useful trade deal in terms of food supply. It is not all about beef albeit some people seem to have beef with the trade deal.

So why is Gove, who is as Brexity as they come, set against the deal?

I suspect it's his time at Defra giving him a bit of an insight on the impact of dropping the barriers.

I know that SC is a member of the Fvck Inefficient British Farmers Party, but that stance places absolutely no value on having domestic food production capacity (i.e., if it can be imported more cheaply, why should we bother grow it here), or places any value on how farming profoundly shapes virtually every inch of the British landscape, even the remotest parts of places like Dartmoor, as much as the places that are more obviously farmed.

I suspect that even Gove recognises the profound effect that such a trade deal would have on the fabric of our countryside.

Your reply is too absolute. I see no need to both subsidise British farmers and tax foreign ones. This means more expensive and worse choice for British consumers.

We are not going to get blockaded so I am ambivalent to being self-sufficient.

If you want to have an idealistic way in which the countryside should look then I am sure many would argue that it should be returned to native woodland rather than pasture. Being realistic doing it my way will only lead to a small % of farmers going bust.

On the plus side the jams and the left behinds will have cheaper food and the metro elite will be able to gorge on world class beef from the likes of Argentina. At the same time we will get favourable trade terms in the areas that count becuase the mugs we are negotiating with are hung up on emotional industries.

I realise we're not going to agree on this one, and also that I'm not going to persuade you that your "small %" is a long way from what would actually happen, given that truly vast swathes of the British countryside is uneconomic in world terms... also that it would be replaced by lovely woodland. What we have is actually a very delicate balance, at (I would argue) relatively little cost, especially if you consider how much less the average household spends on food, in historical terms.

It also ignores the devastating environmental and animal welfare impact in this and other countries that chasing the goal of ever-cheaper food produces. Rainforest beef on the menu? Well, at least it's cheap...

You might not have time for British farming, but it's pretty benign, in world terms, and at least something we have a degree of influence over. And at a time when we ought to be reducing our reliance on shipping stuff around the world, reducing domestic production simply for monetary cheapness seems to be a backwards step.

morstar

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

so Liz Truss is closing in on a deal with Australia but George Eustice is unhappy as it proposes zero tariff for Oz farmers which he fears will wipeout Brit farmers.

She has reassured him that it will make no difference as they are on the other side of the planet

It's entirely possible they are both right.

So she famously thinks that importing some of our cheese is an OuTrAge, but is happy to import all our meat. Obviously. Gove is apparently siding with Eustice as he can see that it will lose them what support they have in Wales and Scotland, and lose them seats in rural England. All for two fifths of f*** all in international trade terms.

Again it is all choices peeps. Get yourself down the butchers and buy British where possible and you will find that farmers will be unaffected. We already import a fair whack of New Zealand lamb however there are still plenty of sheep round the hills near me. Frozen meat is already being imported from around the world and I don't think this is what UK farmers are primarily competing with.

Australia is a bit like the USA in that it also has a large amount of arable crops that we don't have the land to grow or climate so this is a useful trade deal in terms of food supply. It is not all about beef albeit some people seem to have beef with the trade deal.

So why is Gove, who is as Brexity as they come, set against the deal?

I suspect it's his time at Defra giving him a bit of an insight on the impact of dropping the barriers.

I know that SC is a member of the Fvck Inefficient British Farmers Party, but that stance places absolutely no value on having domestic food production capacity (i.e., if it can be imported more cheaply, why should we bother grow it here), or places any value on how farming profoundly shapes virtually every inch of the British landscape, even the remotest parts of places like Dartmoor, as much as the places that are more obviously farmed.

I suspect that even Gove recognises the profound effect that such a trade deal would have on the fabric of our countryside.

We are 100% targeting importing all our food and making farmers subsidised custodians of the land rather than producers.
Article on BBC reaffirming this today and the vision has been consistent.
There are actually aspects that make sense regarding holding water on land etc. but I find the vision of reducing output being a primary objective slightly unusual.
It shows 100% unquestioning faith in globalisation and a loss of skills to the nation.
If we were growing in some other area, maybe I just lack vision. FS seems to be our key industry and we’ve destabilised that with Brexit.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

so Liz Truss is closing in on a deal with Australia but George Eustice is unhappy as it proposes zero tariff for Oz farmers which he fears will wipeout Brit farmers.

She has reassured him that it will make no difference as they are on the other side of the planet

It's entirely possible they are both right.

So she famously thinks that importing some of our cheese is an OuTrAge, but is happy to import all our meat. Obviously. Gove is apparently siding with Eustice as he can see that it will lose them what support they have in Wales and Scotland, and lose them seats in rural England. All for two fifths of f*** all in international trade terms.

Again it is all choices peeps. Get yourself down the butchers and buy British where possible and you will find that farmers will be unaffected. We already import a fair whack of New Zealand lamb however there are still plenty of sheep round the hills near me. Frozen meat is already being imported from around the world and I don't think this is what UK farmers are primarily competing with.

Australia is a bit like the USA in that it also has a large amount of arable crops that we don't have the land to grow or climate so this is a useful trade deal in terms of food supply. It is not all about beef albeit some people seem to have beef with the trade deal.

So why is Gove, who is as Brexity as they come, set against the deal?

I suspect it's his time at Defra giving him a bit of an insight on the impact of dropping the barriers.

I know that SC is a member of the Fvck Inefficient British Farmers Party, but that stance places absolutely no value on having domestic food production capacity (i.e., if it can be imported more cheaply, why should we bother grow it here), or places any value on how farming profoundly shapes virtually every inch of the British landscape, even the remotest parts of places like Dartmoor, as much as the places that are more obviously farmed.

I suspect that even Gove recognises the profound effect that such a trade deal would have on the fabric of our countryside.

Your reply is too absolute. I see no need to both subsidise British farmers and tax foreign ones. This means more expensive and worse choice for British consumers.

We are not going to get blockaded so I am ambivalent to being self-sufficient.

If you want to have an idealistic way in which the countryside should look then I am sure many would argue that it should be returned to native woodland rather than pasture. Being realistic doing it my way will only lead to a small % of farmers going bust.

On the plus side the jams and the left behinds will have cheaper food and the metro elite will be able to gorge on world class beef from the likes of Argentina. At the same time we will get favourable trade terms in the areas that count becuase the mugs we are negotiating with are hung up on emotional industries.

I realise we're not going to agree on this one, and also that I'm not going to persuade you that your "small %" is a long way from what would actually happen, given that truly vast swathes of the British countryside is uneconomic in world terms... also that it would be replaced by lovely woodland. What we have is actually a very delicate balance, at (I would argue) relatively little cost, especially if you consider how much less the average household spends on food, in historical terms.

It also ignores the devastating environmental and animal welfare impact in this and other countries that chasing the goal of ever-cheaper food produces. Rainforest beef on the menu? Well, at least it's cheap...

You might not have time for British farming, but it's pretty benign, in world terms, and at least something we have a degree of influence over. And at a time when we ought to be reducing our reliance on shipping stuff around the world, reducing domestic production simply for monetary cheapness seems to be a backwards step.

In terms of food I probably buy British far more than the average

Nothing personal against farmers, I just don't, as a rule, agree with Govt interference and I aee escaping CAP as one of the only benefits of Brexit. I will be genuinely shocked if we do the deal with Australia on those terms.

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

Nothing personal against farmers, I just don't, as a rule, agree with Govt interference

Does 'government interference' include education, health, and transport? All of those sectors are overwhelmingly government directed. It could easily be argued that state 'interference' in agriculture benefits society as a whole, in a similar way to the above sectors: when done well, it can protect the environment, and encourage access to locally-produced food to a wider range of consumers. (If British agriculture were to shrink significantly, the remaining produce would almost inevitably end up in the larders of the better-off, who can afford to choose).

I'd not argue that the CAP is not deeply flawed, and that there aren't benefits in not being tied to its distortions, but I'd equally argue that to open ourselves to the vagaries and problems of lowest-cost world food markets is not a panacea, and would degrade the British countryside almost immeasurably.

You might think that, for instance, the National Parks are a waste of space, in how they preserve an image of economically unsustainable past ways of life, but they are but an extreme example of how 'government interference' affects virtually every aspect of our environment. World markets care not one jot about it.

tailwindhome

The LCC appeared before the NI Affairs Committee today

Went well I thought

https://twitter.com/AndrewEQuinn/status/1394947149083942914?s=19

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

so Liz Truss is closing in on a deal with Australia but George Eustice is unhappy as it proposes zero tariff for Oz farmers which he fears will wipeout Brit farmers.

She has reassured him that it will make no difference as they are on the other side of the planet

It's entirely possible they are both right.

So she famously thinks that importing some of our cheese is an OuTrAge, but is happy to import all our meat. Obviously. Gove is apparently siding with Eustice as he can see that it will lose them what support they have in Wales and Scotland, and lose them seats in rural England. All for two fifths of f*** all in international trade terms.

Again it is all choices peeps. Get yourself down the butchers and buy British where possible and you will find that farmers will be unaffected. We already import a fair whack of New Zealand lamb however there are still plenty of sheep round the hills near me. Frozen meat is already being imported from around the world and I don't think this is what UK farmers are primarily competing with.

Australia is a bit like the USA in that it also has a large amount of arable crops that we don't have the land to grow or climate so this is a useful trade deal in terms of food supply. It is not all about beef albeit some people seem to have beef with the trade deal.

So why is Gove, who is as Brexity as they come, set against the deal?

I suspect it's his time at Defra giving him a bit of an insight on the impact of dropping the barriers.

I know that SC is a member of the Fvck Inefficient British Farmers Party, but that stance places absolutely no value on having domestic food production capacity (i.e., if it can be imported more cheaply, why should we bother grow it here), or places any value on how farming profoundly shapes virtually every inch of the British landscape, even the remotest parts of places like Dartmoor, as much as the places that are more obviously farmed.

I suspect that even Gove recognises the profound effect that such a trade deal would have on the fabric of our countryside.

Your reply is too absolute. I see no need to both subsidise British farmers and tax foreign ones. This means more expensive and worse choice for British consumers.

We are not going to get blockaded so I am ambivalent to being self-sufficient.

If you want to have an idealistic way in which the countryside should look then I am sure many would argue that it should be returned to native woodland rather than pasture. Being realistic doing it my way will only lead to a small % of farmers going bust.

On the plus side the jams and the left behinds will have cheaper food and the metro elite will be able to gorge on world class beef from the likes of Argentina. At the same time we will get favourable trade terms in the areas that count becuase the mugs we are negotiating with are hung up on emotional industries.

We already have cheaper meat than we did in 1988. In the case of chicken significantly so.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/11/heres-how-our-food-prices-compare-to-30-years-ago-and-you-might-be-surprised/

No idea why you have this thing about Argentinian beef. South American cattle are all European imports so if you are interested in 'returning' Britain to some semi-mythical past, exporting the problem to a continent with no native bovine species is perverse. Why not go the whole hog and recreate the aurochs?

The bit that really makes no sense in this FTA negotiation is that Australia has relatively little to offer and lots to gain, but we're seemingly ready to agree to all their asks in return for... what exactly?

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

The LCC appeared before the NI Affairs Committee today

Went well I thought

https://twitter.com/AndrewEQuinn/status/1394947149083942914?s=19

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

The LCC appeared before the NI Affairs Committee today

Went well I thought

https://twitter.com/AndrewEQuinn/status/1394947149083942914?s=19

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

In this instance the loyalists have lost out and the IRA have gained - so why would the IRA resort to violence?

Brexit has massively screwed the loyalist cause.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

I'm not sure anyone was marketing the IRA as simply defending a peace treaty.

I think that's a huge overreach

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

I'm not sure anyone was marketing the IRA as simply defending a peace treaty.

I think that's a huge overreach

Let me rephrase it. Throughout the Brexit negotiations there was the idea there could be no border north-south due to the threat of violence. Now the loyalists are threatening violence due to issues with the sea border. It seems to be that the original position was marketed as upholding the peace whereas this is about a threat of terrorism.

elbowloh

The loyalists did say they didn't want a sea border as it separates them from the rest of the UK.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

I'm not sure anyone was marketing the IRA as simply defending a peace treaty.

I think that's a huge overreach

Let me rephrase it. Throughout the Brexit negotiations there was the idea there could be no border north-south due to the threat of violence. Now the loyalists are threatening violence due to issues with the sea border. It seems to be that the original position was marketed as upholding the peace whereas this is about a threat of terrorism.

I think most people are clear the distinction of warning of a potential return to violence and threatening to return to violence

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

I'm not sure anyone was marketing the IRA as simply defending a peace treaty.

I think that's a huge overreach

Let me rephrase it. Throughout the Brexit negotiations there was the idea there could be no border north-south due to the threat of violence. Now the loyalists are threatening violence due to issues with the sea border. It seems to be that the original position was marketed as upholding the peace whereas this is about a threat of terrorism.

I think most people are clear the distinction of warning of a potential return to violence and threatening to return to violence

Weren't there threats made against any infrastructure on the north/south border?

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

I'm not sure anyone was marketing the IRA as simply defending a peace treaty.

I think that's a huge overreach

Let me rephrase it. Throughout the Brexit negotiations there was the idea there could be no border north-south due to the threat of violence. Now the loyalists are threatening violence due to issues with the sea border. It seems to be that the original position was marketed as upholding the peace whereas this is about a threat of terrorism.

I think most people are clear the distinction of warning of a potential return to violence and threatening to return to violence

Weren't there threats made against any infrastructure on the north/south border?

Yeah, by dissident republican groups.

And no one marketed them as defending the GFA or upholding the peace.

surrey_commuter

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

I'm not sure anyone was marketing the IRA as simply defending a peace treaty.

I think that's a huge overreach

Let me rephrase it. Throughout the Brexit negotiations there was the idea there could be no border north-south due to the threat of violence. Now the loyalists are threatening violence due to issues with the sea border. It seems to be that the original position was marketed as upholding the peace whereas this is about a threat of terrorism.

I think most people are clear the distinction of warning of a potential return to violence and threatening to return to violence

Interesting, to me I assumed it was a barely disguised threat.

A bit like if you park outside the wrong house and the owner predicts that if you don’t move it your tyres will get slashed.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

so Liz Truss is closing in on a deal with Australia but George Eustice is unhappy as it proposes zero tariff for Oz farmers which he fears will wipeout Brit farmers.

She has reassured him that it will make no difference as they are on the other side of the planet

It's entirely possible they are both right.

So she famously thinks that importing some of our cheese is an OuTrAge, but is happy to import all our meat. Obviously. Gove is apparently siding with Eustice as he can see that it will lose them what support they have in Wales and Scotland, and lose them seats in rural England. All for two fifths of f*** all in international trade terms.

Again it is all choices peeps. Get yourself down the butchers and buy British where possible and you will find that farmers will be unaffected. We already import a fair whack of New Zealand lamb however there are still plenty of sheep round the hills near me. Frozen meat is already being imported from around the world and I don't think this is what UK farmers are primarily competing with.

Australia is a bit like the USA in that it also has a large amount of arable crops that we don't have the land to grow or climate so this is a useful trade deal in terms of food supply. It is not all about beef albeit some people seem to have beef with the trade deal.

So why is Gove, who is as Brexity as they come, set against the deal?

I suspect it's his time at Defra giving him a bit of an insight on the impact of dropping the barriers.

I know that SC is a member of the Fvck Inefficient British Farmers Party, but that stance places absolutely no value on having domestic food production capacity (i.e., if it can be imported more cheaply, why should we bother grow it here), or places any value on how farming profoundly shapes virtually every inch of the British landscape, even the remotest parts of places like Dartmoor, as much as the places that are more obviously farmed.

I suspect that even Gove recognises the profound effect that such a trade deal would have on the fabric of our countryside.

Your reply is too absolute. I see no need to both subsidise British farmers and tax foreign ones. This means more expensive and worse choice for British consumers.

We are not going to get blockaded so I am ambivalent to being self-sufficient.

If you want to have an idealistic way in which the countryside should look then I am sure many would argue that it should be returned to native woodland rather than pasture. Being realistic doing it my way will only lead to a small % of farmers going bust.

On the plus side the jams and the left behinds will have cheaper food and the metro elite will be able to gorge on world class beef from the likes of Argentina. At the same time we will get favourable trade terms in the areas that count becuase the mugs we are negotiating with are hung up on emotional industries.

I realise we're not going to agree on this one, and also that I'm not going to persuade you that your "small %" is a long way from what would actually happen, given that truly vast swathes of the British countryside is uneconomic in world terms... also that it would be replaced by lovely woodland. What we have is actually a very delicate balance, at (I would argue) relatively little cost, especially if you consider how much less the average household spends on food, in historical terms.

It also ignores the devastating environmental and animal welfare impact in this and other countries that chasing the goal of ever-cheaper food produces. Rainforest beef on the menu? Well, at least it's cheap...

You might not have time for British farming, but it's pretty benign, in world terms, and at least something we have a degree of influence over. And at a time when we ought to be reducing our reliance on shipping stuff around the world, reducing domestic production simply for monetary cheapness seems to be a backwards step.

In terms of food I probably buy British far more than the average

Nothing personal against farmers, I just don't, as a rule, agree with Govt interference and I aee escaping CAP as one of the only benefits of Brexit. I will be genuinely shocked if we do the deal with Australia on those terms.

Rename the tariffs as food tax and see how popular they will be

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

I'm not sure anyone was marketing the IRA as simply defending a peace treaty.

I think that's a huge overreach

Let me rephrase it. Throughout the Brexit negotiations there was the idea there could be no border north-south due to the threat of violence. Now the loyalists are threatening violence due to issues with the sea border. It seems to be that the original position was marketed as upholding the peace whereas this is about a threat of terrorism.

I think most people are clear the distinction of warning of a potential return to violence and threatening to return to violence

Interesting, to me I assumed it was a barely disguised threat.

A bit like if you park outside the wrong house and the owner predicts that if you don’t move it your tyres will get slashed.

I think you've missed the significance of who was giving the warning in each instance.

tailwindhome

surrey_commuter said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

The marketing does seem to characterise the loyalists as terrorists whilst the IRA are simply defending a peace treaty.

I'm not sure anyone was marketing the IRA as simply defending a peace treaty.

I think that's a huge overreach

Let me rephrase it. Throughout the Brexit negotiations there was the idea there could be no border north-south due to the threat of violence. Now the loyalists are threatening violence due to issues with the sea border. It seems to be that the original position was marketed as upholding the peace whereas this is about a threat of terrorism.

I think most people are clear the distinction of warning of a potential return to violence and threatening to return to violence

Interesting, to me I assumed it was a barely disguised threat.

A bit like if you park outside the wrong house and the owner predicts that if you don’t move it your tyres will get slashed.

Who do you think the 'owner' is?

morstar

Both parties were in complete agreement there would be no land border so it is a moot point.

One party couldn’t care less about a sea border as it does not affect them.

The party that is affected by a sea border was lied to by its own government. They are understandably frustrated but conversely seemed happy to buy into the whole idea of Brexit despite the promises made clearly being irreconcilable with reality.

A=B
B=C
A<>C

pblakeney

The surprising thing is that this surprises people. 🤔
We've pretty much known this situation outcome for 5 years.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

The surprising thing is that this surprises people. 🤔
We've pretty much known this situation outcome for 5 years.

It was one of the unicorn aspects of the Brexit prospectus, highlighted numerous times on Cake Stop. One can only assume that the unicorn believers hoped it would just go away if they closed their eyes long enough and kept on chanting about their belief in unicorns.

tailwindhome

morstar said:

One party couldn’t care less about a sea border as it does not affect them.

This is just wrong

morstar

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

One party couldn’t care less about a sea border as it does not affect them.

This is just wrong

I mean ideologically, not practically.
A sea border does not negatively impact the aim of a united Ireland.

kingstongraham

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

One party couldn’t care less about a sea border as it does not affect them.

This is just wrong

Why do you say that? How many votes are there for the Conservative party in it?

tailwindhome

Frost now arguing the deal was done under duress

tailwindhome

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

Frost now arguing the deal was done under duress

It was, wasn't it?

pblakeney

By definition, everything done to a time schedule is done under duress. Anything can be designed to perfection given enough time. We never get enough time as an example.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

Frost now arguing the deal was done under duress

It was, wasn't it?

Of our own making?

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

Frost now arguing the deal was done under duress

It was, wasn't it?

What's the definition of "under duress"?