|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 16, 2021 7:47:35 GMT
As another day draws to a close I go to bed appalled and disgusted by the British media and the lies and exaggerations about the trade deal with Australia. The use of %s to totally distort the figures to confuse or deliberately mislead the public is shocking. I have become quite used to this with the Guardian and Independent who have reduced their journalism to the level of the gutter right wing press during Brexit, but I am equally appalled today by the BBC and Sky reporting. I don't believe the deal with Australia in itself will be any sort of large boost to the economy, but the way the media belittle it as irrelevant is disgraceful. Plus there are constant references by comparison to anticipated huge loss in trade with the EU, which is just another example of project fear. Trade has declined with the EU recently but there is no clear evidence on whether it is due to Brexit apart from some minor food sales (mainly shellfish and cheese) or the effects of the pandemic. Exports and imports with the EU have dropped since 2019 but are higher than they were before the referendum in 2016 and the UK has actually improved its balance of trade with the EU this year, by imports dropping more (particularly from Germany) than exports. Sky today has published a long article on the UK Australia trade deal comparing todays trade with Australia with the last 170 years! Are they so dumb as not to realise world trade has changed hugely in the last two decades due to the massive growth and trade of China and other BRIC economies. The EU share of the world economy has dropped from a third to less than a fifth over the last four decades, and in steady decline. (Naughty me there I am quoting %s) Then there is the subject of beef. Firstly the UK law remains the same on animal welfare, use of hormones etc. nothing has changed since we left the EU. The quota of beef allowed into the UK from Australia is to increase over 15 years and Sky correctly point out " According to numbers released by the Australian government (.....), the quotas on Australian beef imports into the UK will go up from just under 5,000 tonnes at present to a whopping 35,000 tonnes* immediately after the deal is signed." To put that statement in context the UK beef and veal market is over 900,000 tonnes pa. which includes 250,000 to 275,000 tonnes of imported beef. The UK is just 75% self sufficient in beef. We are not going to be swamped with Australian beef. * which Sky describe as a 7 fold increase on present import quota from Australia. Regarding lamb, or to be more correct sheep meat, the quota increase from 15,000 to 25,000 tonne pa. To put that in context, the UK currently imports 100,000 tonnes of sheep meat which represents a third of what we consume. Much of that 100,000 tonne will be Australian meat already. Having tried to scare the British public with the tonnage figures quoted (with no reference to the actual current stats I have quoted above) Sky then go on to say " On the flip side, all the current food standards which apply in the UK will remain in place: so no hormone-fed beef, for instance. Will that mean Britain will have an immediate influx of Australian beef and lamb? Probably not. Australian farmers are, as things stand, quite happy to focus their attention on closer markets in Asia than sending their products around the world -" Good of them to add a bit of balance! The BBC can hardly be bothered to report the deal and make statement s like "farmers concerned" with some very lame quotes, and make statements like " sacrifices made" with no reference to facts and keep referring to the large amount of trade with the EU as though it is going to disappear. I would suggest if there is anyone worried by this UK deal with Australia it is Irish farmers, who supply the lion's share of UK meat imports. Or perhaps the reality is that the 'sunlit uplands' and 'fantastic opportunities' that Brexit Britain was going to use to forge a bright new future aren't turning out to be what you expected, on a number of levels? In which case, it must be media lies, right? GBNews has just started, surely our equivalent of Fox News is more likely to tell you want you want to hear? However, as far as I can see, few of the details of the deal have been released as yet. Great that we have a deal with Australia, but at what cost to UK farmers and animal health and welfare? Hopefully none, but we won't really know until the details are out and people like the NFU (experts ) have had a chance to scrutinise them.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jun 16, 2021 8:38:17 GMT
An interesting take on the NI Protocol... The protocol may be Boris’s greatest masterstrokeIt is referring to the Article 18 consent clause which means that the Northern Ireland Assembly can vote on the continuation of the trade provisions in 2024. Which isn’t that far away.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 16, 2021 8:39:16 GMT
As another day draws to a close I go to bed appalled and disgusted by the British media and the lies and exaggerations about the trade deal with Australia. The use of %s to totally distort the figures to confuse or deliberately mislead the public is shocking. I have become quite used to this with the Guardian and Independent who have reduced their journalism to the level of the gutter right wing press during Brexit, but I am equally appalled today by the BBC and Sky reporting. I don't believe the deal with Australia in itself will be any sort of large boost to the economy, but the way the media belittle it as irrelevant is disgraceful. Plus there are constant references by comparison to anticipated huge loss in trade with the EU, which is just another example of project fear. Trade has declined with the EU recently but there is no clear evidence on whether it is due to Brexit apart from some minor food sales (mainly shellfish and cheese) or the effects of the pandemic. Exports and imports with the EU have dropped since 2019 but are higher than they were before the referendum in 2016 and the UK has actually improved its balance of trade with the EU this year, by imports dropping more (particularly from Germany) than exports. Sky today has published a long article on the UK Australia trade deal comparing todays trade with Australia with the last 170 years! Are they so dumb as not to realise world trade has changed hugely in the last two decades due to the massive growth and trade of China and other BRIC economies. The EU share of the world economy has dropped from a third to less than a fifth over the last four decades, and in steady decline. (Naughty me there I am quoting %s) Then there is the subject of beef. Firstly the UK law remains the same on animal welfare, use of hormones etc. nothing has changed since we left the EU. The quota of beef allowed into the UK from Australia is to increase over 15 years and Sky correctly point out " According to numbers released by the Australian government (.....), the quotas on Australian beef imports into the UK will go up from just under 5,000 tonnes at present to a whopping 35,000 tonnes* immediately after the deal is signed." To put that statement in context the UK beef and veal market is over 900,000 tonnes pa. which includes 250,000 to 275,000 tonnes of imported beef. The UK is just 75% self sufficient in beef. We are not going to be swamped with Australian beef. * which Sky describe as a 7 fold increase on present import quota from Australia. Regarding lamb, or to be more correct sheep meat, the quota increase from 15,000 to 25,000 tonne pa. To put that in context, the UK currently imports 100,000 tonnes of sheep meat which represents a third of what we consume. Much of that 100,000 tonne will be Australian meat already. Having tried to scare the British public with the tonnage figures quoted (with no reference to the actual current stats I have quoted above) Sky then go on to say " On the flip side, all the current food standards which apply in the UK will remain in place: so no hormone-fed beef, for instance. Will that mean Britain will have an immediate influx of Australian beef and lamb? Probably not. Australian farmers are, as things stand, quite happy to focus their attention on closer markets in Asia than sending their products around the world -" Good of them to add a bit of balance! The BBC can hardly be bothered to report the deal and make statement s like "farmers concerned" with some very lame quotes, and make statements like " sacrifices made" with no reference to facts and keep referring to the large amount of trade with the EU as though it is going to disappear. I would suggest if there is anyone worried by this UK deal with Australia it is Irish farmers, who supply the lion's share of UK meat imports. Or perhaps the reality is that the 'sunlit uplands' and 'fantastic opportunities' that Brexit Britain was going to use to forge a bright new future aren't turning out to be what you expected, on a number of levels? In which case, it must be media lies, right? GBNews has just started, surely our equivalent of Fox News is more likely to tell you want you want to hear? However, as far as I can see, few of the details of the deal have been released as yet. Great that we have a deal with Australia, but at what cost to UK farmers and animal health and welfare? Hopefully none, but we won't really know until the details are out and people like the NFU (experts ) have had a chance to scrutinise them. Or perhaps the reality is: Livestock production is a significant source of global warming and we need to get the world to carbon neutral by 2050 to save the planet. Red meat consumption in the UK has declined by 30% over the last 10 years. Farmers will be encouraged under the new agricultural policy to adopt practices that are less damaging to the environment and nature as we move away from the dreadful CAP. I think all news programmes nowadays are full of spin and biased reporting; some more than others.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 16, 2021 9:22:21 GMT
Or perhaps the reality is that the 'sunlit uplands' and 'fantastic opportunities' that Brexit Britain was going to use to forge a bright new future aren't turning out to be what you expected, on a number of levels? In which case, it must be media lies, right? GBNews has just started, surely our equivalent of Fox News is more likely to tell you want you want to hear? However, as far as I can see, few of the details of the deal have been released as yet. Great that we have a deal with Australia, but at what cost to UK farmers and animal health and welfare? Hopefully none, but we won't really know until the details are out and people like the NFU (experts ) have had a chance to scrutinise them. Or perhaps the reality is: Livestock production is a significant source of global warming and we need to get the world to carbon neutral by 2050 to save the planet. Red meat consumption in the UK has declined by 30% over the last 10 years. Farmers will be encouraged under the new agricultural policy to adopt practices that are less damaging to the environment and nature as we move away from the dreadful CAP. I think all news programmes nowadays are full of spin and biased reporting; some more than others. Haven't we just done a deal with Australia whereby we'll be importing shitloads of their mass produced hormone filled meat, produced at less quality standards than in the EU. Rhetorical question as I know we have. It's all about finding the cheapest possible now to justify Brexit. Fuck the environment.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 16, 2021 9:54:22 GMT
Or perhaps the reality is: Livestock production is a significant source of global warming and we need to get the world to carbon neutral by 2050 to save the planet. Red meat consumption in the UK has declined by 30% over the last 10 years. Farmers will be encouraged under the new agricultural policy to adopt practices that are less damaging to the environment and nature as we move away from the dreadful CAP. I think all news programmes nowadays are full of spin and biased reporting; some more than others. Haven't we just done a deal with Australia whereby we'll be importing shitloads of their mass produced hormone filled meat, produced at less quality standards than in the EU. NORhetorical question as I know we have. NOIt's all about finding the cheapest possible now to justify Brexit. Fuck the environment. NOThere is no evidence of what you suggest. Please read the post I made late last night. Even Sky, who are highly critical of Brexit say there will be little Australian meat and none of it will contain hormones, which will continue to be illegal to sell in the UK until Parliament changes the law.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 16, 2021 11:56:49 GMT
Or perhaps the reality is: Livestock production is a significant source of global warming and we need to get the world to carbon neutral by 2050 to save the planet. Red meat consumption in the UK has declined by 30% over the last 10 years. Farmers will be encouraged under the new agricultural policy to adopt practices that are less damaging to the environment and nature as we move away from the dreadful CAP. I think all news programmes nowadays are full of spin and biased reporting; some more than others. Haven't we just done a deal with Australia whereby we'll be importing shitloads of their mass produced hormone filled meat, produced at less quality standards than in the EU. Rhetorical question as I know we have. It's all about finding the cheapest possible now to justify Brexit. Fuck the environment. The details are not released yet (bit surprising in itself that?) so it's not easy to say what it means yet. However, fucking the environment makes political sense for the government as they know that right-wingers are generally more inclined towards Brexit and less inclined to care about the environment, so the latter doesn't really matter so much in political terms, sadly.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 16, 2021 12:41:16 GMT
Haven't we just done a deal with Australia whereby we'll be importing shitloads of their mass produced hormone filled meat, produced at less quality standards than in the EU. NORhetorical question as I know we have. NOIt's all about finding the cheapest possible now to justify Brexit. Fuck the environment. NOThere is no evidence of what you suggest. Please read the post I made late last night. Even Sky, who are highly critical of Brexit say there will be little Australian meat and none of it will contain hormones, which will continue to be illegal to sell in the UK until Parliament changes the law. Time will tell, but i fear you will be proven wrong on all accounts. The govt need a win and will sacrifice just about anything to get one.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 16, 2021 13:09:00 GMT
There is no evidence of what you suggest. Please read the post I made late last night. Even Sky, who are highly critical of Brexit say there will be little Australian meat and none of it will contain hormones, which will continue to be illegal to sell in the UK until Parliament changes the law. Time will tell, but i fear you will be proven wrong on all accounts. The govt need a win and will sacrifice just about anything to get one. You're correct , time will tell I'm sure you and others will be posting pdq if and when the government bring forward a white paper on the use of hormones in cattle or allow its importation. Personally I have no objection to the importation of beef reared using growth hormone, provided it is clearly marked on the label. It has been used in many countries for over 40 years. The reason the EU are against it is to protect EU farmers from competition. Changing subject, we are into a 14 week consultation period on a trade deal with India. I'm sure you will be making the government aware of your views and signing any petition objecting to a trade deal. No doubt the left wing press are busy now preparing articles on why we shouldn't have a trade deal with India. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/trade-with-india-call-for-inputPersonally, having worked for Tata the largest manufacturing employer in the UK and chaired a Tata worldwide process improvement team, and spent time in India in a consulting capacity, I am extremely enthusiastic about a deal.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 16, 2021 14:21:59 GMT
Time will tell, but i fear you will be proven wrong on all accounts. The govt need a win and will sacrifice just about anything to get one. Personally, having worked for Tata the largest manufacturing employer in the UK and chaired a Tata worldwide process improvement team, and spent time in India in a consulting capacity, I am extremely enthusiastic about a deal. You don't say?.. You've never told us about your past experience or work before. Impressive stuff. Please tell us more.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 16, 2021 14:30:02 GMT
Personally, having worked for Tata the largest manufacturing employer in the UK and chaired a Tata worldwide process improvement team, and spent time in India in a consulting capacity, I am extremely enthusiastic about a deal. You don't say?.. You've never told us about your past experience or work before. Impressive stuff. Please tell us more. Yes I agree impressive stuff I hope he tells us a lot more of his experience of Indian industry We’re never to old to learn something new
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 16, 2021 14:31:29 GMT
You don't say?.. You've never told us about your past experience or work before. Impressive stuff. Please tell us more. Yes I agree impressive stuff I hope he tells us a lot more of his experience of Indian industry We’re never to old to learn something new I'm more intrigued about that committee he chaired and the dealings he had with the German and French cartels. Truly fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 16, 2021 14:39:23 GMT
Yes I agree impressive stuff I hope he tells us a lot more of his experience of Indian industry We’re never to old to learn something new I'm more intrigued about that committee he chaired and the dealings he had with the German and French cartels. Truly fascinating. Yes I throughly enjoy when he points out what a bunch of duplicitous lying bastards most European officials are and exposes the levels of corruption within the Eu Experience is a valuable thing
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 16, 2021 14:44:15 GMT
I'm more intrigued about that committee he chaired and the dealings he had with the German and French cartels. Truly fascinating. Yes I throughly enjoy when he points out what a bunch of duplicitous lying bastards most European officials are and exposes the levels of corruption within the Eu Experience is a valuable thing Yes I too like how he uses his own experience as the ultimate evidence of every thing anti EU. It's just so conclusive. As I said, it really is mind blowing. I just can't wait for the autobiography.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 16, 2021 15:43:08 GMT
Yes I throughly enjoy when he points out what a bunch of duplicitous lying bastards most European officials are and exposes the levels of corruption within the Eu Experience is a valuable thing Yes I too like how he uses his own experience as the ultimate evidence of every thing anti EU. It's just so conclusive. As I said, it really is mind blowing. I just can't wait for the autobiography. I wouldn’t say it’s conclusive It’s just more evidence backing the correct decision made by the sensible majority in the European Union referendum
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 16, 2021 15:51:58 GMT
Yes I throughly enjoy when he points out what a bunch of duplicitous lying bastards most European officials are and exposes the levels of corruption within the Eu Experience is a valuable thing Yes I too like how he uses his own experience as the ultimate evidence of every thing anti EU. It's just so conclusive. As I said, it really is mind blowing. I just can't wait for the autobiography. I'm delighted you like my posts. I'll keep it up if you enjoy them so much. I 'm thinking of doing one of those long posts on the benefits of Brexit for the financial services industry, but I doubt many are interested in banking, insurance, trading, etc. and see little reward in putting in a lot of effort on a subject most seem to despise, only to be chastised for my remarks. I've hard filed all my years of experience and discussed with my step son, who is a retired CEO and more IT competent than me, how I might electronically record it all, but I'm baulking at the work load; life's too short! If you are in need of something to read, here is a government announcement today of developments with Switzerland who fell out with the EU last week. www.gov.uk/government/publications/ukswitzerland-agreement-on-the-mutual-recognition-of-their-authorised-economic-operator-programmes-cs-switzerland-no32021There is a link in the article to all the trade agreements in recent years. Plenty of reading there if you get bored. Just a point of correction on a previous post above, which I only mention because "silence is concurrence". The cartel I repeated refer to was German not French. My experience working for the French for 7 years is, they don't bother following rules generally. This derives from their legal system which is based on the Napoleonic Code, whereby nothing is allowed unless there is a law permitting it. Consequently the French have little respect for regulations, but insist others follow them. Please be aware I am extremely anti EU but like Europe and would love to have a genuine free trade agreement. I supported joining the EEC in the 70s and then thought a small amount of regulation was acceptable price to pay for the benefits of membership. Times change though and opinion is influenced by experiences in life. Must sign off now, Wales are about to KO. Should I include the 5 times/places I have lived in Wales in my autobiography? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 16, 2021 17:31:35 GMT
So the deal making it easier for Australia to sell in the UK is a negative, but making it easier for the UK to sell in the Australia isn't a positive? Even if that were actually proved to be the case, I believe reducing the UK's massive dependence on the EU for our food was a good thing. As I have repeatedly said, what actually happens depends on businesses responding to opportunities presented, which is something the UK is quite good at. Governments don't actually do much trading themselves at all.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 16, 2021 17:57:31 GMT
So the deal making it easier for Australia to sell in the UK is a negative, but making it easier for the UK to sell in the Australia isn't a positive? Even if that were actually proved to be the case, I believe reducing the UK's massive dependence on the EU for our food was a good thing. As I have repeatedly said, what actually happens depends on businesses responding to opportunities presented, which is something the UK is quite good at. Governments don't actually do much trading themselves at all. 😴
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jun 16, 2021 18:10:52 GMT
Yes I too like how he uses his own experience as the ultimate evidence of every thing anti EU. It's just so conclusive. As I said, it really is mind blowing. I just can't wait for the autobiography. I'm delighted you like my posts. I'll keep it up if you enjoy them so much. I 'm thinking of doing one of those long posts on the benefits of Brexit for the financial services industry, but I doubt many are interested in banking, insurance, trading, etc. and see little reward in putting in a lot of effort on a subject most seem to despise, only to be chastised for my remarks. I've hard filed all my years of experience and discussed with my step son, who is a retired CEO and more IT competent than me, how I might electronically record it all, but I'm baulking at the work load; life's too short! If you are in need of something to read, here is a government announcement today of developments with Switzerland who fell out with the EU last week. www.gov.uk/government/publications/ukswitzerland-agreement-on-the-mutual-recognition-of-their-authorised-economic-operator-programmes-cs-switzerland-no32021There is a link in the article to all the trade agreements in recent years. Plenty of reading there if you get bored. Just a point of correction on a previous post above, which I only mention because "silence is concurrence". The cartel I repeated refer to was German not French. My experience working for the French for 7 years is, they don't bother following rules generally. This derives from their legal system which is based on the Napoleonic Code, whereby nothing is allowed unless there is a law permitting it. Consequently the French have little respect for regulations, but insist others follow them. Please be aware I am extremely anti EU but like Europe and would love to have a genuine free trade agreement. I supported joining the EEC in the 70s and then thought a small amount of regulation was acceptable price to pay for the benefits of membership. Times change though and opinion is influenced by experiences in life. Must sign off now, Wales are about to KO. Should I include the 5 times/places I have lived in Wales in my autobiography? What do you think? Search Alstom Siemens cartel on Google. One rule in their eyes for the Franco-German alliance, another for everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jun 16, 2021 18:46:04 GMT
Here's the view on the trade deal from James Rebanks , Lakeland sheep farmer and award-winning author of English Pastoral
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 16, 2021 22:38:15 GMT
Further to the last post, this is an old Independent article written some years ago about the potential benefits of leaving the CAP. I thought I would post it in full. The link: www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/how-could-farming-change-post-brexit-world-a8257876.htmlThe article: Farming – whether you’re rearing sheep or sowing swedes – isn’t easy in the best of times. Price volatility, weather fluctuations, foreign imports and government regulation can make the odds of success look less likely than a lottery win. Toss in Brexit, and even the most stalwart farmer is feeling skittish. The only consensus is that change is on the way. But what change? And do farmers – and we as consumers – have the stomach for it? The future of food and farming in a post Brexit world isn’t straightforward. It involves labour and immigration – who is going to pick the fruit and work in the fields? It means trade deals – who will buy our food and what food will we import and at what cost? It’s also about our overall agricultural policies and regulations once we’re no longer governed by Brussels and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has announced proposed changes to the farming system. Under those plans, the current policy of providing direct payments based on the amount of land owned would be scraped in favour of what is called “public money for public goods” with a greater emphasis on environmental protection and stewardship. Getting it right is critical because farming plays an important role in the economy. British farming puts 60 per cent of the food we eat on our plates and uses 70 per cent of our land. It also supplies the British food and drink industry, which is the largest manufacturing sector in the country, worth over £100bn and employing 3.8 million people, according to a National Farmers’ Union report. "The largest private landowner in the UK is the National Trust and 80 per cent of their land is used for agriculture", says Patrick Begg, outdoors and natural resources director. Farmers are right to be concerned about a future that is far from clear. “ Farming is a long-term business, and that sense of not knowing where the long-term is heading is very destabilising to farmers.” But he’s optimistic that the new approach will benefit farmers and consumers. “ So we’re not saying at all, food production doesn’t remain at the heart of farming. It must and it will, but it can be shifted to provide more of those wider environmental benefits… it will put the health back into our soils, which is very fragile and vulnerable at the moment because of decades of asking our farmers to farm quite intensively.” The National Trust is a member of Greener UK, a coalition of organisations who want to have a say in how farming – and the environment as a whole – is dealt with post Brexit. The RSPB is a member and senior policy advisor Tom Lancaster says it’s not only getting the policies in place, but also ensuring there is the structure in place to enforce them. It’s this “governance gap” that worries him and many other environmental leaders who say we can’t risk further damage to an already fragile environment. “ If you look at the Farmland Bird Index, which is a classic indicator for the health of the wider countryside, that continues to decline – it declined by around 10 per cent between 2010 and 2015,” Lancaster says. The RSPB and other Greener UK members see Brexit as an opportunity to look at how we farm with a fresh eye. But how do you balance the need to maximise food production with the desire to protect the environment? Lancaster thinks the two aren’t mutually exclusive, in fact he thinks they’re mutually beneficial. " We’ve always made the argument that investing in the natural environment can and does have real benefits for farming and for food production, as farming more than any other industry depends upon natural resources like soil and water and pollinators,” he says. “ So it’s not just about this moral case, as important as that is. There’s also a really strong economic case for why you would restore the natural environment, particularly for agriculture but for other sectors of the economy too.” Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones is the founder of The Black Farmer – a company that produces beef, pork, chicken and eggs. He thinks a radical change in farming post Brexit would be a positive step. “ I think anything which is going to shake up the industry will be good for the industry in the long term,” he says. Emmanuel-Jones says we should move away from growing commodity products and instead focus on the premium and speciality market. “We have, for example in this country, a hundred different varieties of apple. So why in God’s name can you only buy four varieties of apples in the supermarket?” he asks. One of the problems is a food system focused on high volume and low margin. You only get that combination, Emmanuel-Jones says, by restricting choice. “ I think what needs to be looked at are the massive companies that have a big stranglehold on our food industry because what those guys want is to commoditise it,” he explains. “ They don’t like the work that’s speciality. They don’t like the work that’s small because it means it then becomes a bit more challenging for them.”
Changing our food system could help farmers in other ways, says Begg at the National Trust. “Lots of people make money out of the food industry. The people who probably don’t make as much as they might proportionately, are farmers.” The retail sector also has a role in educating consumers about where their food comes from and its real cost, since most consumers still buy primarily on price, he adds. With greater transparency, consumers could reliably buy based on where it comes from and how it’s been produced, rather than price alone. Could that change in a post-Brexit world? Could we as consumers take a greater responsibility for what we eat and where it comes from? Might we even discover on supermarket aisles, long forgotten fruits and vegetables? We don’t have long to find out. In the meantime, worries are tempered with hope and a spark of optimism. “ I think the post-Brexit world is going be fantastic,” says Emmanuel-Jones, “ because it’s an opportunity to change the rules.”End of article. My wife and I are members of the National Trust and RSPB and deeply concerned about the damage that has been done to the environment by the CAP. Naturally people are worried and in some cases fear change, but I have supreme confidence that the British people will address the issues facing us, no matter what obstacles are put in the way.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jun 16, 2021 22:55:24 GMT
Hilarious seeing remoaners having the nerve to suggest our agriculture is being outsourced.
On a side note, another great trade deal and yet another example of how brilliant Brexit is.
Is there a sane individual that still thinks Brexit is a bad idea? The pound continues to strengthen against the euro.
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Jun 16, 2021 23:34:42 GMT
People on here once again suggesting Brexit is about ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££. Guess what, Brexit was not about money for many people. It was a national disgrace,the way it played out. Being in the European Union meant belonging to an institution in which peace and prosperity was the goal for all nations included.The European Union offers a vision of a continent united in peace, not riven by strife. Seventy five years (1870-1945) where 3 wars divided Europe. Followed by seventy plus years of peace. Which era has been the best to live in I wonder? Hard Question: Countries at war v Countries at peace. European people at war with each other v Families of different countries living in harmony with each other. Rise of Nationalism v Cooperation and mutual progress. We have ended up with a fiercely divided country, and next to no opportunity for the next generation to live,work,and study inside the European Union as things stand. That last point is a charge I lay against every single Brexit voter, who must have known that their vote would likely diminish the life opportunities of their own children and grandchildren, an opportunity that they had themselves once.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jun 16, 2021 23:42:26 GMT
Q: The best way to stop criminals, is it by being a part of the EU or not?
Q: Has being a part of the EU stopped or decreased drug trade and trafficing of has it increased?
Q: Will being a part of the EU affect migration or not?
These are genuine questions, not answers.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 17, 2021 6:23:01 GMT
Hilarious seeing remoaners having the nerve to suggest our agriculture is being outsourced. On a side note, another great trade deal and yet another example of how brilliant Brexit is. Is there a sane individual that still thinks Brexit is a bad idea? The pound continues to strengthen against the euro. No one's taking the bait you WUM
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 17, 2021 6:58:06 GMT
Further to the last post, this is an old Independent article written some years ago about the potential benefits of leaving the CAP. I thought I would post it in full. The link: www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/how-could-farming-change-post-brexit-world-a8257876.htmlThe article: Farming – whether you’re rearing sheep or sowing swedes – isn’t easy in the best of times. Price volatility, weather fluctuations, foreign imports and government regulation can make the odds of success look less likely than a lottery win. Toss in Brexit, and even the most stalwart farmer is feeling skittish. The only consensus is that change is on the way. But what change? And do farmers – and we as consumers – have the stomach for it? The future of food and farming in a post Brexit world isn’t straightforward. It involves labour and immigration – who is going to pick the fruit and work in the fields? It means trade deals – who will buy our food and what food will we import and at what cost? It’s also about our overall agricultural policies and regulations once we’re no longer governed by Brussels and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has announced proposed changes to the farming system. Under those plans, the current policy of providing direct payments based on the amount of land owned would be scraped in favour of what is called “public money for public goods” with a greater emphasis on environmental protection and stewardship. Getting it right is critical because farming plays an important role in the economy. British farming puts 60 per cent of the food we eat on our plates and uses 70 per cent of our land. It also supplies the British food and drink industry, which is the largest manufacturing sector in the country, worth over £100bn and employing 3.8 million people, according to a National Farmers’ Union report. "The largest private landowner in the UK is the National Trust and 80 per cent of their land is used for agriculture", says Patrick Begg, outdoors and natural resources director. Farmers are right to be concerned about a future that is far from clear. “ Farming is a long-term business, and that sense of not knowing where the long-term is heading is very destabilising to farmers.” But he’s optimistic that the new approach will benefit farmers and consumers. “ So we’re not saying at all, food production doesn’t remain at the heart of farming. It must and it will, but it can be shifted to provide more of those wider environmental benefits… it will put the health back into our soils, which is very fragile and vulnerable at the moment because of decades of asking our farmers to farm quite intensively.” The National Trust is a member of Greener UK, a coalition of organisations who want to have a say in how farming – and the environment as a whole – is dealt with post Brexit. The RSPB is a member and senior policy advisor Tom Lancaster says it’s not only getting the policies in place, but also ensuring there is the structure in place to enforce them. It’s this “governance gap” that worries him and many other environmental leaders who say we can’t risk further damage to an already fragile environment. “ If you look at the Farmland Bird Index, which is a classic indicator for the health of the wider countryside, that continues to decline – it declined by around 10 per cent between 2010 and 2015,” Lancaster says. The RSPB and other Greener UK members see Brexit as an opportunity to look at how we farm with a fresh eye. But how do you balance the need to maximise food production with the desire to protect the environment? Lancaster thinks the two aren’t mutually exclusive, in fact he thinks they’re mutually beneficial. " We’ve always made the argument that investing in the natural environment can and does have real benefits for farming and for food production, as farming more than any other industry depends upon natural resources like soil and water and pollinators,” he says. “ So it’s not just about this moral case, as important as that is. There’s also a really strong economic case for why you would restore the natural environment, particularly for agriculture but for other sectors of the economy too.” Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones is the founder of The Black Farmer – a company that produces beef, pork, chicken and eggs. He thinks a radical change in farming post Brexit would be a positive step. “ I think anything which is going to shake up the industry will be good for the industry in the long term,” he says. Emmanuel-Jones says we should move away from growing commodity products and instead focus on the premium and speciality market. “We have, for example in this country, a hundred different varieties of apple. So why in God’s name can you only buy four varieties of apples in the supermarket?” he asks. One of the problems is a food system focused on high volume and low margin. You only get that combination, Emmanuel-Jones says, by restricting choice. “ I think what needs to be looked at are the massive companies that have a big stranglehold on our food industry because what those guys want is to commoditise it,” he explains. “ They don’t like the work that’s speciality. They don’t like the work that’s small because it means it then becomes a bit more challenging for them.”
Changing our food system could help farmers in other ways, says Begg at the National Trust. “Lots of people make money out of the food industry. The people who probably don’t make as much as they might proportionately, are farmers.” The retail sector also has a role in educating consumers about where their food comes from and its real cost, since most consumers still buy primarily on price, he adds. With greater transparency, consumers could reliably buy based on where it comes from and how it’s been produced, rather than price alone. Could that change in a post-Brexit world? Could we as consumers take a greater responsibility for what we eat and where it comes from? Might we even discover on supermarket aisles, long forgotten fruits and vegetables? We don’t have long to find out. In the meantime, worries are tempered with hope and a spark of optimism. “ I think the post-Brexit world is going be fantastic,” says Emmanuel-Jones, “ because it’s an opportunity to change the rules.”End of article. My wife and I are members of the National Trust and RSPB and deeply concerned about the damage that has been done to the environment by the CAP. Naturally people are worried and in some cases fear change, but I have supreme confidence that the British people will address the issues facing us, no matter what obstacles are put in the way. 10 % decline in farmland birds I wonder what the the percentage increase in sparrow hawks and pergrines are in the same period
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 17, 2021 7:02:49 GMT
People on here once again suggesting Brexit is about ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££. Guess what, Brexit was not about money for many people. It was a national disgrace,the way it played out. Being in the European Union meant belonging to an institution in which peace and prosperity was the goal for all nations included.The European Union offers a vision of a continent united in peace, not riven by strife. Seventy five years (1870-1945) where 3 wars divided Europe. Followed by seventy plus years of peace. Which era has been the best to live in I wonder? Hard Question: Countries at war v Countries at peace. European people at war with each other v Families of different countries living in harmony with each other. Rise of Nationalism v Cooperation and mutual progress. We have ended up with a fiercely divided country, and next to no opportunity for the next generation to live,work,and study inside the European Union as things stand. That last point is a charge I lay against every single Brexit voter, who must have known that their vote would likely diminish the life opportunities of their own children and grandchildren, an opportunity that they had themselves once. 😁 To right it wasn’t about money it was about freedom from European rule It was the chance for my grandchildren to join the world Not trapped in a non democratic corrupt dying cabal
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 17, 2021 8:19:22 GMT
People on here once again suggesting Brexit is about ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££. Guess what, Brexit was not about money for many people. It was a national disgrace,the way it played out. Being in the European Union meant belonging to an institution in which peace and prosperity was the goal for all nations included.The European Union offers a vision of a continent united in peace, not riven by strife. Seventy five years (1870-1945) where 3 wars divided Europe. Followed by seventy plus years of peace. Which era has been the best to live in I wonder? Hard Question: Countries at war v Countries at peace. European people at war with each other v Families of different countries living in harmony with each other. Rise of Nationalism v Cooperation and mutual progress. We have ended up with a fiercely divided country, and next to no opportunity for the next generation to live,work,and study inside the European Union as things stand. That last point is a charge I lay against every single Brexit voter, who must have known that their vote would likely diminish the life opportunities of their own children and grandchildren, an opportunity that they had themselves once. We have had this debate before. I believe you do not have to have political union to ensure peace, economic interdependence will provide peace. The longest period of peace in Europe was under the rule of the Roman Empire, circa 200 years. Are you proposing a EU empire? It would appear so. Most nations in Europe do not want to conquer one another, they want independence. I could go into which nations in Europe are the aggressors, but that might be viewed as racist or xenophobic. Suffice to say, most of the issues in 1870 - 1945 were between two nations. The link attached herald's the virtual 100 years of relative peace after Napoleon was defeated. fee.org/articles/has-the-european-union-maintained-peace-in-europe/Do you propose a South American Union, in place of Mercosur, just in case Venezuela gets out of hand? I believe nationalism should be suppressed by education, economic interdependence, and a spirit of cooperation, not by suppression of individual countries democracy by politicians and bureaucrats who see their role to enforce people like the Basques to be subjected to a greater authority by those who know what is best for them. I do not see Nationalism and Cooperation as mutually exclusive. You are correct, we have become a divided country because most English and Welsh do not want to be subjected to rule by others (as indeed don't the Scots it appears) except of course the minority who do very well out of it. It should speak volumes to you that: (a) the only region of England that voted to remain was Greater London, (b) the only regions of the UK to vote remain were Scotland and Northern Ireland who received the lion's share of EU regional aid in the UK, and (c) if you examine the individual regions, the localities that voted remain were those than are, let us say, are "comfortably off". like Harrogate in Yorkshire. Yes there is a divide between "haves", doing well out of EU membership, and "have nots". As I have repeatedly posted. UK politicians and civil service are flawed, but they are at least our people and the government can be removed at a general election. The UK had no influence on the decisions of the EU Parliament, no influence on the EU Commission, and no influence of the EU Council, as Cameron* found out to his cost when he pleaded to be given "something" to take back to the British people to convince them to stay in the EU. The UK escaped the EU just in time before the pandemic. I am not just referring to the vaccine procurement fiasco, but not getting tied into the massive south EU nation's debt (we have enough of our own!), the fiscal union being created by the EU (pandemic) Recovery Fund, and moves towards an EU army and loss of individual nation's veto on foreign policy. * Bassett, former Irish diplomat:
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 17, 2021 9:56:38 GMT
The media is full today of the drop in application/enquiries for UK jobs from the EU countries., but no mention of pandemic effects of course. Meanwhile the EU Commission puts USA on the green list but not UK. I wonder if the lack of applicants from the EU is because infections are rising in the UK and potential workers are biding their time? On the global front however: www.cityam.com/indeed-global-interest-in-uk-jobs-post-brexit-lifts-to-pre-pandemic-levels/It is anticipated there could be 300,000 Chinese emigrating from Hong Kong to the UK. Personally I think that is an under estimate and I welcome them as they will contribute massively to our economy. 300,000 may seem a lot but we need the workers and it is only a fraction of the millions of Europeans who have settled in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 17, 2021 10:58:40 GMT
People on here once again suggesting Brexit is about ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££. Guess what, Brexit was not about money for many people. It was a national disgrace,the way it played out. Being in the European Union meant belonging to an institution in which peace and prosperity was the goal for all nations included.The European Union offers a vision of a continent united in peace, not riven by strife. Seventy five years (1870-1945) where 3 wars divided Europe. Followed by seventy plus years of peace. Which era has been the best to live in I wonder? Hard Question: Countries at war v Countries at peace. European people at war with each other v Families of different countries living in harmony with each other. Rise of Nationalism v Cooperation and mutual progress. We have ended up with a fiercely divided country, and next to no opportunity for the next generation to live,work,and study inside the European Union as things stand. That last point is a charge I lay against every single Brexit voter, who must have known that their vote would likely diminish the life opportunities of their own children and grandchildren, an opportunity that they had themselves once. You are correct, we have become a divided country because most English and Welsh do not want to be subjected to rule by others (as indeed don't the Scots it appears) except of course the minority who do very well out of it. It should speak volumes to you that: (a) the only region of England that voted to remain was Greater London, (b) the only regions of the UK to vote remain were Scotland and Northern Ireland who received the lion's share of EU regional aid in the UK, and (c) if you examine the individual regions, the localities that voted remain were those than are, let us say, are "comfortably off". like Harrogate in Yorkshire. Yes there is a divide between "haves", doing well out of EU membership, and "have nots". I think it's a bit wider than that! There's been plenty of analysis on who voted what. You could equally say that most Leave voters were associated with older age, white ethnicity, low educational attainment, infrequent use of smartphones and the internet, receiving benefits, adverse health and low life satisfaction. Reference here, just one of many that found the same thing: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268018301320But, you're right, this has been done to death repeatedly, and nearly always provokes someone to react with the usual "we're all thicko racists are we", so let's not go there again!, but let's also not airbrush out some of the other just as pertinent reasons for the current divisions in the country.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jun 17, 2021 11:55:32 GMT
You are correct, we have become a divided country because most English and Welsh do not want to be subjected to rule by others (as indeed don't the Scots it appears) except of course the minority who do very well out of it. It should speak volumes to you that: (a) the only region of England that voted to remain was Greater London, (b) the only regions of the UK to vote remain were Scotland and Northern Ireland who received the lion's share of EU regional aid in the UK, and (c) if you examine the individual regions, the localities that voted remain were those than are, let us say, are "comfortably off". like Harrogate in Yorkshire. Yes there is a divide between "haves", doing well out of EU membership, and "have nots". I think it's a bit wider than that! There's been plenty of analysis on who voted what. You could equally say that most Leave voters were associated with older age, white ethnicity, low educational attainment, infrequent use of smartphones and the internet, receiving benefits, adverse health and low life satisfaction. Reference here, just one of many that found the same thing: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268018301320But, you're right, this has been done to death repeatedly, and nearly always provokes someone to react with the usual "we're all thicko racists are we", so let's not go there again!, but let's also not airbrush out some of the other just as pertinent reasons for the current divisions in the country. Really? You're referencing a paper written by an Italian and three Germans where at least one has worked for the EEC to prove how it's the old, stupid, unwell, unemployed who voted for Brexit? Everybody I know (excluding anybody who posts on here) voted for Brexit and not one of them falls into the stereotypes you've listed apart from my mum & dad (who are old but none of the other categories) and they both voted to join the economic community in 1973. I'm 56 years old and 2016 was my first ever time I was allowed to vote on our membership of the union.
|
|