THE BUDGET

[mrcoke]

Nov 2, 2024 11:14:37 GMT bayernoatcake said:

My favourite whine about this budget is the fucking farmers who have whined so much but you didn’t hear a peep from with Brexit which totally took their subsidies away and they were much better in the EU than out of it. Silly fuckers.

When I was younger in the early 2000s I was very anti EU mainly because of the protection it gave farmers and it gave them way too much money. And then when it came to it like other dumb fuckers, the turkeys voted for Christmas.

Your post is incorrect on a number of counts.

Firstly when the UK left the EU farm subsidies continued.

deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/02/12/coverage-of-payments-to-farmers-following-the-uks-exit-from-the-eu/

Secondly the last government introduced new legislation to phase out the dreadful CAP system which was unfair, damaged the environment, and highly inefficient. The CAP is being phased out over 7 years and replaced with a more efficient system to correct the errors of the CAP. The process is being done with extensive consultation with farmers' representatives. The main beef farmers have today is the lack of controls on imports from the EU which the last government were slow to introduce because of the fear of inflation and shortages. Whereas barriers were set up to UK exports to the EU, so farmers are supplying more to the home market and North America.

Apart from destroying ecology the CAP resulted in 80% of the subsidy going to the richest farmers. The main source of river pollution is not sewage but runoff from farms of pesticides and fertilisers plus the discharges from chicken farms that have been booming in recent years.
Getting rid of CAP will be  blessing. 

eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-80-percent-of-the-european-money-for-agriculture-goes-to-the-20-percent-largest-farmers/

It is Reeves cutting the farmers budget
www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/defra-set-to-surrender-100m-elm-underspend-to-treasury

[oggyoggy]

Nov 2, 2024 13:39:14 GMT mrcoke said:

Nov 2, 2024 11:14:37 GMT bayernoatcake said:

My favourite whine about this budget is the fucking farmers who have whined so much but you didn’t hear a peep from with Brexit which totally took their subsidies away and they were much better in the EU than out of it. Silly fuckers.

When I was younger in the early 2000s I was very anti EU mainly because of the protection it gave farmers and it gave them way too much money. And then when it came to it like other dumb fuckers, the turkeys voted for Christmas.

Your post is incorrect on a number of counts.

Firstly when the UK left the EU farm subsidies continued.

deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/02/12/coverage-of-payments-to-farmers-following-the-uks-exit-from-the-eu/

Secondly the last government introduced new legislation to phase out the dreadful CAP system which was unfair, damaged the environment, and highly inefficient. The CAP is being phased out over 7 years and replaced with a more efficient system to correct the errors of the CAP. The process is being done with extensive consultation with farmers' representatives. The main beef farmers have today is the lack of controls on imports from the EU which the last government were slow to introduce because of the fear of inflation and shortages. Whereas barriers were set up to UK exports to the EU, so farmers are supplying more to the home market and North America.

Apart from destroying ecology the CAP resulted in 80% of the subsidy going to the richest farmers. The main source of river pollution is not sewage but runoff from farms of pesticides and fertilisers plus the discharges from chicken farms that have been booming in recent years.
Getting rid of CAP will be  blessing. 

eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-80-percent-of-the-european-money-for-agriculture-goes-to-the-20-percent-largest-farmers/

It is Reeves cutting the farmers budget
www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/defra-set-to-surrender-100m-elm-underspend-to-treasury

The new system is for big farms. Small farms will be utterly screwed over. It’s why farmers have overwhelmingly said how much they regret voting leave.

[mrcoke]

Nov 2, 2024 15:22:08 GMT oggyoggy said:

Nov 2, 2024 13:39:14 GMT mrcoke said:

Your post is incorrect on a number of counts.

Firstly when the UK left the EU farm subsidies continued.

deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/02/12/coverage-of-payments-to-farmers-following-the-uks-exit-from-the-eu/

Secondly the last government introduced new legislation to phase out the dreadful CAP system which was unfair, damaged the environment, and highly inefficient. The CAP is being phased out over 7 years and replaced with a more efficient system to correct the errors of the CAP. The process is being done with extensive consultation with farmers' representatives. The main beef farmers have today is the lack of controls on imports from the EU which the last government were slow to introduce because of the fear of inflation and shortages. Whereas barriers were set up to UK exports to the EU, so farmers are supplying more to the home market and North America.

Apart from destroying ecology the CAP resulted in 80% of the subsidy going to the richest farmers. The main source of river pollution is not sewage but runoff from farms of pesticides and fertilisers plus the discharges from chicken farms that have been booming in recent years.
Getting rid of CAP will be  blessing. 

eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-80-percent-of-the-european-money-for-agriculture-goes-to-the-20-percent-largest-farmers/

It is Reeves cutting the farmers budget
www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/defra-set-to-surrender-100m-elm-underspend-to-treasury

The new system is for big farms. Small farms will be utterly screwed over. It’s why farmers have overwhelmingly said how much they regret voting leave.

www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/agriculture-commissioner-points-finger-at-cap-for-demise-of-small-farms/

It's just the opposite the CAP has devastated small farms across the whole of Europe.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/24/fewer-bigger-more-intensive-eu-vows-to-stem-drastic-loss-of-small-farms

friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/cap-fails-small-farmers-and-the-environment-yet-again/

Welfare for the rich which you support:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/02/farm-subsidies-wrecked-europe-environments-common-agricultural-policy

[Ariel Manto]

Nov 2, 2024 15:22:08 GMT oggyoggy said:

Nov 2, 2024 13:39:14 GMT mrcoke said:

Your post is incorrect on a number of counts.

Firstly when the UK left the EU farm subsidies continued.

deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/02/12/coverage-of-payments-to-farmers-following-the-uks-exit-from-the-eu/

Secondly the last government introduced new legislation to phase out the dreadful CAP system which was unfair, damaged the environment, and highly inefficient. The CAP is being phased out over 7 years and replaced with a more efficient system to correct the errors of the CAP. The process is being done with extensive consultation with farmers' representatives. The main beef farmers have today is the lack of controls on imports from the EU which the last government were slow to introduce because of the fear of inflation and shortages. Whereas barriers were set up to UK exports to the EU, so farmers are supplying more to the home market and North America.

Apart from destroying ecology the CAP resulted in 80% of the subsidy going to the richest farmers. The main source of river pollution is not sewage but runoff from farms of pesticides and fertilisers plus the discharges from chicken farms that have been booming in recent years.
Getting rid of CAP will be  blessing. 

eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-80-percent-of-the-european-money-for-agriculture-goes-to-the-20-percent-largest-farmers/

It is Reeves cutting the farmers budget
www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/defra-set-to-surrender-100m-elm-underspend-to-treasury

The new system is for big farms. Small farms will be utterly screwed over. It’s why farmers have overwhelmingly said how much they regret voting leave.

I’ve explained how that’s not the case and that, moreover, IHT is fair on farmers.

It’s just hysterical bollocks.

[salopstick]

IHT is not fair in some cases

On the one hand passing millions down to your kids keeps the rich rich and continues inequity from birth

On the other hand you work hard, save your money. Buy a house pay taxes on fucking everything and your family could pay tax on your estate. That doesn’t seem fair.

[oggyoggy]

Nov 2, 2024 16:01:55 GMT mrcoke said:

Nov 2, 2024 15:22:08 GMT oggyoggy said:

The new system is for big farms. Small farms will be utterly screwed over. It’s why farmers have overwhelmingly said how much they regret voting leave.

www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/agriculture-commissioner-points-finger-at-cap-for-demise-of-small-farms/

It's just the opposite the CAP has devastated small farms across the whole of Europe.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/24/fewer-bigger-more-intensive-eu-vows-to-stem-drastic-loss-of-small-farms

friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/cap-fails-small-farmers-and-the-environment-yet-again/

Welfare for the rich which you support:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/02/farm-subsidies-wrecked-europe-environments-common-agricultural-policy

Who do I believe? Farmers, or you?
www.fwi.co.uk/news/eu-referendum/analysis-7-years-after-brexit-farmers-count-the-cost

Some quotes from the article are below:

Increased red tape, a worsening economic situation, damaging free-trade deals, a trail of broken promises – it seems that farmers and those working in the ancillary industries are far from satisfied with Brexit.

That is the inevitable conclusion from a new survey by Farmers Weekly into how the agricultural sector now perceives Brexit, seven years on from the historic referendum of 23 June, 2016.

Asked whether they believed Brexit had had a positive or negative effect on the UK economy, the overriding sentiment was negative, with about three quarters of all respondents feeling that way.

And asked about the state of their own businesses due to Brexit, a similar picture emerged, with 69% saying it had been either “fairly negative” or “very negative”.

According to the survey, some 70% of the farmers who grow cereals said Brexit had been negative for their businesses, while 76% of oilseed rape growers felt that way.

Similarly, 68% of farmers with beef cattle, dairy cows or sheep had a negative perception.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the two sectors that were even more negative were those growing vegetables (81%) and those keeping pigs (79%).

Both have been especially hard hit by the reduced availability of pickers and slaughterhouse workers, who used to comprise a significant part of the workforce before Brexit limited their ability to work in the UK.

A third commented: “The EU will retain subsidies, while the UK needs to produce to the same standards to be able to trade with the EU, but with far lower subsidies. We need to be on a level playing field.”

On red tape, a clear majority felt that, despite pre-Brexit promises of a “bonfire of red tape” once the UK had left the EU, the reverse is true.

(This might also explain why 86% of the farmers and industry stakeholders taking part in the survey believed that politicians’ Brexit promises had been broken.)

While 58% of farmers believed paperwork and bureaucracy had become “a bit” worse or “much” worse as a result of Brexit, that figure shot up to 90% for those working in the ancillary sectors.

There was also a high level of scepticism about the free-trade deals the UK government has been so keen to forge since leaving the EU, with 31% saying the deals done so far were “fairly bad” for British farming, and 48% saying they were “very bad”.

It seems everyone is equally dismayed by the trade impact.

Seven years down the line, that seems to have changed significantly. When we asked this time, the survey suggested an 8% swing from “leave” to “remain” if they could vote again.

But the vast majority (83%) said Brexit has been worse than expected. “It is not a good idea to cut ties with the biggest free-trading bloc that’s right on your doorstep,” said one north-west farmer.

There was also a degree of enthusiasm to hold another referendum and rejoin the EU, with just over half (52%) supporting such a move.

Failing that, 70% of farmers surveyed felt that the UK should at least rejoin the single European market – a figure that rose to 85% in the case of those working in the ancillary industries.

In other words, 70% of farmers want CAP back, and 85% of those working in ancillary industries want it back.

Mr Coke, you don’t speak for farmers. Farmers do.

[oggyoggy]

Nov 2, 2024 16:27:40 GMT salopstick said:

IHT is not fair in some cases

On the one hand passing millions down to your kids keeps the rich rich and continues inequity from birth

On the other hand you work hard, save your money. Buy a house pay taxes on fucking everything and your family could pay tax on your estate. That doesn’t seem fair.

House and nil rate band of a couple means tax is only paid on assets over £1M if affairs are organised efficiently. So you have to be pretty rich to incur any tax at all.

[thehartshillbadger]

When farmers stop killing badgers I shall review their plight. Until then they can fuck off😏

[wannabee]

Nov 2, 2024 13:39:14 GMT mrcoke said:

Nov 2, 2024 11:14:37 GMT bayernoatcake said:

My favourite whine about this budget is the fucking farmers who have whined so much but you didn’t hear a peep from with Brexit which totally took their subsidies away and they were much better in the EU than out of it. Silly fuckers.

When I was younger in the early 2000s I was very anti EU mainly because of the protection it gave farmers and it gave them way too much money. And then when it came to it like other dumb fuckers, the turkeys voted for Christmas.

Your post is incorrect on a number of counts.

Firstly when the UK left the EU farm subsidies continued.

deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/02/12/coverage-of-payments-to-farmers-following-the-uks-exit-from-the-eu/

Secondly the last government introduced new legislation to phase out the dreadful CAP system which was unfair, damaged the environment, and highly inefficient. The CAP is being phased out over 7 years and replaced with a more efficient system to correct the errors of the CAP. The process is being done with extensive consultation with farmers' representatives. The main beef farmers have today is the lack of controls on imports from the EU which the last government were slow to introduce because of the fear of inflation and shortages. Whereas barriers were set up to UK exports to the EU, so farmers are supplying more to the home market and North America.

Apart from destroying ecology the CAP resulted in 80% of the subsidy going to the richest farmers. The main source of river pollution is not sewage but runoff from farms of pesticides and fertilisers plus the discharges from chicken farms that have been booming in recent years.
Getting rid of CAP will be  blessing. 

eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-80-percent-of-the-european-money-for-agriculture-goes-to-the-20-percent-largest-farmers/

It is Reeves cutting the farmers budget
www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/defra-set-to-surrender-100m-elm-underspend-to-treasury

You are living in the past Mr Coke, in several ways, quoting Articles several years old in this and your subsequent post.

I could post links to dozens of Articles of the same vintage with Farmers Organizations and Individual Farmers castigating the Governments replacement for CAP1

You are being disengenuous by quoting half truths which you know to be incomplete 

Could you answer one simple question, I don't expect you will but maybe 1000 words of obfuscation 

Did Subsidies to UK Farmers reduce from £3.5Bn to £2.4Bn when UK left EU? Its a very simple question.

Part of your living in the past is that you are discussing CAP1 which ended in 2020 to be replaced by CAP2 Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 which not only increased the Budget, placed a greater emphasis on Wilding with a separate Fund while retaining Direct Payments but also positively favours Small Farmers with the PSF (Payments for Small Farmers)

agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/income-support/additional-schemes/payments-small-farmers_en

[mrcoke]

Nov 2, 2024 17:16:21 GMT wannabee said:

Nov 2, 2024 13:39:14 GMT mrcoke said:

Your post is incorrect on a number of counts.

Firstly when the UK left the EU farm subsidies continued.

deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/02/12/coverage-of-payments-to-farmers-following-the-uks-exit-from-the-eu/

Secondly the last government introduced new legislation to phase out the dreadful CAP system which was unfair, damaged the environment, and highly inefficient. The CAP is being phased out over 7 years and replaced with a more efficient system to correct the errors of the CAP. The process is being done with extensive consultation with farmers' representatives. The main beef farmers have today is the lack of controls on imports from the EU which the last government were slow to introduce because of the fear of inflation and shortages. Whereas barriers were set up to UK exports to the EU, so farmers are supplying more to the home market and North America.

Apart from destroying ecology the CAP resulted in 80% of the subsidy going to the richest farmers. The main source of river pollution is not sewage but runoff from farms of pesticides and fertilisers plus the discharges from chicken farms that have been booming in recent years.
Getting rid of CAP will be  blessing. 

eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-80-percent-of-the-european-money-for-agriculture-goes-to-the-20-percent-largest-farmers/

It is Reeves cutting the farmers budget
www.fwi.co.uk/news/farm-policy/defra-set-to-surrender-100m-elm-underspend-to-treasury

You are living in the past Mr Coke, in several ways, quoting Articles several years old in this and your subsequent post.

I could post links to dozens of Articles of the same vintage with Farmers Organizations and Individual Farmers castigating the Governments replacement for CAP1

You are being disengenuous by quoting half truths which you know to be incomplete 

Could you answer one simple question, I don't expect you will but maybe 1000 words of obfuscation 

Did Subsidies to UK Farmers reduce from £3.5Bn to £2.4Bn when UK left EU? Its a very simple question.

Part of your living in the past is that you are discussing CAP1 which ended in 2020 to be replaced by CAP2 Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 which not only increased the Budget, placed a greater emphasis on Wilding with a separate Fund while retaining Direct Payments but also positively favours Small Farmers with the PSF (Payments for Small Farmers)

agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/income-support/additional-schemes/payments-small-farmers_en

It's you that is out of date:

www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/european-parliament-vote-to-tear-apart-eu-s-agri-policy-is-blatantly-incompatible-with-the-law-clientearth/

It's a bit late for the EU to start supporting small farmers after so many have gone, at least the UK isn't having to pay for it any longer. It only took them 70 years.

What sort of budget would have been if the UK was still in the EU and having to find > £10 billion every year to support other countries economies and subsidise European farmers?

The EU is a despicable undemocratic organization 

www.birdlife.org/news/2024/07/24/press-release-commissions-anti-democratic-cap-revision-escalated-to-eu-ombudsman/

We are best out of it making our own laws and with civil servants answerable to our own  government like the vast majority of countries in the world.

[wannabee]

Nov 2, 2024 17:51:57 GMT mrcoke said:

Nov 2, 2024 17:16:21 GMT wannabee said:

You are living in the past Mr Coke, in several ways, quoting Articles several years old in this and your subsequent post.

I could post links to dozens of Articles of the same vintage with Farmers Organizations and Individual Farmers castigating the Governments replacement for CAP1

You are being disengenuous by quoting half truths which you know to be incomplete 

Could you answer one simple question, I don't expect you will but maybe 1000 words of obfuscation 

Did Subsidies to UK Farmers reduce from £3.5Bn to £2.4Bn when UK left EU? Its a very simple question.

Part of your living in the past is that you are discussing CAP1 which ended in 2020 to be replaced by CAP2 Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 which not only increased the Budget, placed a greater emphasis on Wilding with a separate Fund while retaining Direct Payments but also positively favours Small Farmers with the PSF (Payments for Small Farmers)

agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/income-support/additional-schemes/payments-small-farmers_en

It's you that is out of date:

www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/european-parliament-vote-to-tear-apart-eu-s-agri-policy-is-blatantly-incompatible-with-the-law-clientearth/

It's a bit late for the EU to start supporting small farmers after so many have gone, at least the UK isn't having to pay for it any longer. It only took them 70 years.

What sort of budget would have been if the UK was still in the EU and having to find > £10 billion every year to support other countries economies and subsidise European farmers?

BINGO: I knew it would be impossible for you answer a straight question, so I'll take as correct UK reduced Farm Subsidies by 30% after Brexit.

To be fair you used much less words in obfuscation and diversion than usual

Client Earth, an Environmental Pressure Group are critical of EU, no shit.

I'd assume as a self professed Environmentalist you know that Client Earth are furious with UK Government and have taken them to Court for breaking Environmental Law 😂 .... for the second time, they won the first case.

drillordrop.com/2023/07/07/government-faces-second-legal-challenge-over-unlawful-climate-plans/

[mrcoke]

Nov 2, 2024 18:27:31 GMT wannabee said:

Nov 2, 2024 17:51:57 GMT mrcoke said:

It's you that is out of date:

www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/european-parliament-vote-to-tear-apart-eu-s-agri-policy-is-blatantly-incompatible-with-the-law-clientearth/

It's a bit late for the EU to start supporting small farmers after so many have gone, at least the UK isn't having to pay for it any longer. It only took them 70 years.

What sort of budget would have been if the UK was still in the EU and having to find > £10 billion every year to support other countries economies and subsidise European farmers?

BINGO: I knew it would be impossible for you answer a straight question, so I'll take as correct UK reduced Farm Subsidies by 30% after Brexit.

To be fair you used much less words in obfuscation and diversion than usual

Client Earth, an Environmental Pressure Group are critical of EU, no shit.

I'd assume as a self professed Environmentalist you know that Client Earth are furious with UK Government and have taken them to Court for breaking Environmental Law 😂 .... for the second time, they won the first case.

drillordrop.com/2023/07/07/government-faces-second-legal-challenge-over-unlawful-climate-plans/

You don't get it.

So we change the government and UK citizens elect one of their choosing.

[wannabee]

Nov 2, 2024 18:33:08 GMT mrcoke said:

Nov 2, 2024 18:27:31 GMT wannabee said:

BINGO: I knew it would be impossible for you answer a straight question, so I'll take as correct UK reduced Farm Subsidies by 30% after Brexit.

To be fair you used much less words in obfuscation and diversion than usual

Client Earth, an Environmental Pressure Group are critical of EU, no shit.

I'd assume as a self professed Environmentalist you know that Client Earth are furious with UK Government and have taken them to Court for breaking Environmental Law 😂 .... for the second time, they won the first case.

drillordrop.com/2023/07/07/government-faces-second-legal-challenge-over-unlawful-climate-plans/

You don't get it.

So we change the government and UK citizens elect one of their choosing.

Your opening reply to Oggy:  "Your post is incorrect on a number of counts"

"Firstly when the UK left the EU farm subsidies continued."

Of course they did 30% less but you knew that full well but just chose to be dishonest about it.

[Rednwhitenblue]

Has the pound fallen to $1.08 yet like it did after Truss/Kwarteng?

No? Odd.

[wannabee]

Nov 2, 2024 19:13:13 GMT Rednwhitenblue said:

Has the pound fallen to $1.08 yet like it did after Truss/Kwarteng?

No? Odd.

You're being very generous to Lizzy Red, Sterling went to its lowest in history 1.0327 during her Lettuce Period. It only began to recover when she finally Wilted  resigned

After Reeves Budget Sterling strengthened and pushed through the 1.30 Barrier 

[mrcoke]

Nov 2, 2024 18:42:08 GMT wannabee said:

Nov 2, 2024 18:33:08 GMT mrcoke said:

You don't get it.

So we change the government and UK citizens elect one of their choosing.

Your opening reply to Oggy:  "Your post is incorrect on a number of counts"

"Firstly when the UK left the EU farm subsidies continued."

Of course they did 30% less but you knew that full well but just chose to be dishonest about it.


View Attachment

You are incorrect on two counts:
1. I was replying to Bayern not Oggy.
2. Bayern posted that that Brexit "totally took their subsidies away", which is incorrect as they continued as you well know, albeit in a different form with reduced direct payments being replaced by financial  assistance given in a number ways to help tarmers improve efficient, buy capital goods, change practices, and reduce environmental impact. 

It will not suit all farmers, some just want the government to give tax payers money to produce . Not all the government assistance has been taken up. It is the very richest farmers who have lost most naturally.

But the point you keep missing is a UK Government has introduced a UK system tailored to UK needs and situation administered by UK civil servants. The UK citizens can lobby the government to change policy, there is a consultation process, and ultimately the people can change the government to change policy.

In the EU, French farmers have more influence of legislation than any UK government did, just ask David Cameron, who tried to get the EU to agree to halting ever closer union in the UK's case. French farmers stopped EU regulation in a matter of days.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/10/theyre-drowning-us-in-regulations-how-europes-furious-farmers-took-on-brussels-and-won

I'm sure it will take longer than 7 years to phase out the CAP and develope a better system. It took New Zealand over a decade to get rid of subsidising agriculture.

[mtrstudent]

Nov 2, 2024 19:43:55 GMT mrcoke said:

I'm sure it will take longer than 7 years to phase out the CAP and develope a better system. It took New Zealand over a decade to get rid of subsidising agriculture.

You're right that the UK has more control over some things now, but I don't think Brexit was sold to people on the promise that maybe after a decade of hard work things might then get better.

We've lost influence and will be far poorer than otherwise, but we've gained some direct autonomy.

That said, I think you can have control on paper but you're not free to do anything because that's not how the real world works. You might give up worker rights to get a trade deal, or increase immigration because of the costs of Brexit, for example. The last pro-Brexit government picked higher immigration, which it had every right to do but that should be understood as a good part thanks to Brexit IMO.

Of course, if you really value the principle of being able to make those choices (even if in practice governments won't really have a choice), then that's just gonna be so important to you that I don't think any of the consequences will affect your opinion. Some principles are worth a bit of pain.

[mrcoke]

Nov 2, 2024 22:26:10 GMT mtrstudent said:

Nov 2, 2024 19:43:55 GMT mrcoke said:

I'm sure it will take longer than 7 years to phase out the CAP and develope a better system. It took New Zealand over a decade to get rid of subsidising agriculture.

You're right that the UK has more control over some things now, but I don't think Brexit was sold to people on the promise that maybe after a decade of hard work things might then get better.

We've lost influence and will be far poorer than otherwise, but we've gained some direct autonomy.

That said, I think you can have control on paper but you're not free to do anything because that's not how the real world works. You might give up worker rights to get a trade deal, or increase immigration because of the costs of Brexit, for example. The last pro-Brexit government picked higher immigration, which it had every right to do but that should be understood as a good part thanks to Brexit IMO.

Of course, if you really value the principle of being able to make those choices (even if in practice governments won't really have a choice), then that's just gonna be so important to you that I don't think any of the consequences will affect your opinion. Some principles are worth a bit of pain.

Thank you for your reply. I agree Brexit was not sold on long term benefits. People are not motivated by long term benefits.
Some years ago on page 1,232 (24.10.2020) on the Brexit thread, I spelt out my reasons for leaving the EU.
Sovereignty is the main reason but there are more tangible short term benefits that directly impact on the citizens of the UK.

1. One of the worst impacts on an individual of working age is unemployment:
uk.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/effects-of-unemployment#:~:text=Effects%20of%20unemployment%20on%20an%20individual&text=Unemployment%20can%20have%20a%20significant,disease%2C%20back%20pain%20and%20insomnia.

Inactivity leads many health conditions both physical and mental:
www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/risks-of-physical-inactivity#:~:text=Lack%20of%20physical%20activity%20can,disease%20with%20regular%20physical%20activity.

Apart from ill health, there is little worse than being unable to find gainful employment, which can be sole destroying. So the first major benefit of Brexit on UK society is the reduction in unemployment by stopping the freedom of movement of labour. 
We were told in 2016 during project fear that Brexit would cause huge unemployment.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/21/brexit-could-cost-100bn-and-nearly-1m-jobs-cbi-warns

The opposite is true, the UK is enjoying the lowest period of unemployment since joining the EEC in the 1970s:
tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate#:~:text=Unemployment%20Rate%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20averaged%206.74%20percent%20from,percent%20in%20December%20of%201973.

2. Being made redundant is one of the most stressful experiences that a person can experience, even when compensation is paid. Apart from illness it can lead to the break up of families, loss of home, etc. During the UK's membership of the EEC/EU, UK industry has been decimated and there were millions of people made redundant.

We were told in 2016 that there would be huge job losses during project fear:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/21/brexit-could-cost-100bn-and-nearly-1m-jobs-cbi-warns
Since leaving the EU redundancies are the lowest since records began, for over 3 decades;
www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/redundancies/timeseries/beir/lms

3. Real earnings (wage increase - inflation) have returned to levels not seen since before the 2008 financial crisis apart from during the period of high inflation due to the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.
tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/real-earnings-including-bonuses
This despite is 100,000s immigrants arriving in the UK to fill jobs. This has brought job vacancies down but at over 800,000, UK job vacancies are higher than at any time in our history.
tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/job-vacancies

I could go on but this is not the Brexit thread. The point is there is a huge lot of human misery in the UK due to long term sickness, long waiting times for hospital treatment, an increasing inequality in society, etc. But at least Brexit has brought immediate benefits in less unemployment, less redundancies, more job opportunities, and improved average real earnings.
We went through a recession due to the pandemic but came out of it a lot quicker than we did following the 2008 recession, which I believe is due to Brexit and ending freedom of movement.

It will obviously take a lot longer to correct the chronic issues with the UK economy such as low productivity and huge trade deficit, which can only be solved by much higher investment and improving trade with the rest of the world through new trade agreements.
Regarding immigration, which is very high I would point out there are 7.9 million EU Settlement Scheme applications made since the scheme was launched, so high immigration has been going on for a very long time but hidden by freedom of movement.
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2024/how-many-people-have-been-granted-settlement-via-the-eu-settlement-scheme

The 2008 financial crisis increased government debt substantially and the Tories adopted austerity measures to try and reduce it. The pandemic caused a further surge in government debt including an element of fraud and ineptitude. The Chancellor now has to address that issue without austerity, but at least she is not having to find > £10 billion pa net contribution to the EU.
There are repeated wild claims about the economic damage of Brexit, but no evidence to support the wild claims. In fact the evidence is otherwise. According to the World Bank data, measured in US$, the G7  nations growth from 2016 to 2023 are:

US 46%, Canada 40%, Germany 29%, UK 24%, France 23%, Italy 20%, Japan -16%
Since the UK's last year of EU membership in 2019, the G7 economies growth to 2023 were:
US 27%, Canada 23%, UK 17%, Germany 15%, Italy 12%, France 11%, Japan -18%
tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp#:~:text=GDP%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom,73.23%20USD%20Billion%20in%201960.
tradingeconomics.com/france/gdp#:~:text=GDP%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom,73.23%20USD%20Billion%20in%201960.
tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp#:~:text=GDP%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom,73.23%20USD%20Billion%20in%201960.
tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp

The Chief Economist at the investment bank Panmure Liberum, commented that the UK’s recovery from the Covid crisis is now “increasingly looking middle of the pack among its G7 peers”.
invezz.com/news/2024/08/07/uk-economy-post-pandemic-growth-stronger-than-earlier-estimated-ons-data-shows/
If some of the wild claims about the economic damage were actually true then they would mean that if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, then the UK would have outperformed every other G7 country including the US which I'm sure any sensible person knows is preposterous.

[wannabee]

Nov 2, 2024 22:26:10 GMT mtrstudent said:

Nov 2, 2024 19:43:55 GMT mrcoke said:

I'm sure it will take longer than 7 years to phase out the CAP and develope a better system. It took New Zealand over a decade to get rid of subsidising agriculture.

You're right that the UK has more control over some things now, but I don't think Brexit was sold to people on the promise that maybe after a decade of hard work things might then get better.

We've lost influence and will be far poorer than otherwise, but we've gained some direct autonomy.

That said, I think you can have control on paper but you're not free to do anything because that's not how the real world works. You might give up worker rights to get a trade deal, or increase immigration because of the costs of Brexit, for example. The last pro-Brexit government picked higher immigration, which it had every right to do but that should be understood as a good part thanks to Brexit IMO.

Of course, if you really value the principle of being able to make those choices (even if in practice governments won't really have a choice), then that's just gonna be so important to you that I don't think any of the consequences will affect your opinion. Some principles are worth a bit of pain.

An outstanding summation

An individual may desire his/her Government to have complete autonomy over the decisions which it makes. It is a complete fallacy because all Governments/Countries are compromised to a greater or lesser extent.

Sovereignty in all instances is shared even the pariah North Korea is beginning to understand that.

It is quite quaint that some believe that 650 MPs decide the Moral versus the Economic alternatives presented as representatives of "The People"

The Moral/Economic equation which determines UK Government decisions has already been determined by the grouping it has decided to share Sovereignty with.




 

[roylandstoke]

No fan of Starmer, or this government, but it must be noted that there will not be teacher or NHS strikes this year because they have taken difficult decisions.

[Paul Spencer]

Nov 2, 2024 22:26:10 GMT mtrstudent said:

Nov 2, 2024 19:43:55 GMT mrcoke said:

I'm sure it will take longer than 7 years to phase out the CAP and develope a better system. It took New Zealand over a decade to get rid of subsidising agriculture.

You're right that the UK has more control over some things now, but I don't think Brexit was sold to people on the promise that maybe after a decade of hard work things might then get better.

We've lost influence and will be far poorer than otherwise, but we've gained some direct autonomy.

That said, I think you can have control on paper but you're not free to do anything because that's not how the real world works. You might give up worker rights to get a trade deal, or increase immigration because of the costs of Brexit, for example. The last pro-Brexit government picked higher immigration, which it had every right to do but that should be understood as a good part thanks to Brexit IMO.

Of course, if you really value the principle of being able to make those choices (even if in practice governments won't really have a choice), then that's just gonna be so important to you that I don't think any of the consequences will affect your opinion. Some principles are worth a bit of pain.

Best post on this thread for quite a while. 👌

[Ariel Manto]

Nov 2, 2024 16:27:40 GMT salopstick said:

IHT is not fair in some cases

On the one hand passing millions down to your kids keeps the rich rich and continues inequity from birth

On the other hand you work hard, save your money. Buy a house pay taxes on fucking everything and your family could pay tax on your estate. That doesn’t seem fair.

IHT is totally fair.

We're either all in this together as a country, paying the same rates of tax as each other, or we're not.

It's tax equality.

[iancransonsknees]

Being as we're rabbiting on about CAP, which I had a couple of years involved in administering on the early 2000s at the RPA this is timely and worth a read and maybe simplifies things for the layman by comparison to the dry numbers and figures quoted in some of the posts.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/02/farm-subsidies-wrecked-europe-environments-common-agricultural-policy

It's from the Guardian so won't be readily dismissed by the usual suspects.

[mrcoke]

Nov 3, 2024 11:31:27 GMT iancransonsknees said:

Been as we're rabbiting on about CAP, which I had a couple of years involved in administering on the early 2000s at the RPA this is timely and worth a read and maybe simplifies things for the layman by comparison to the dry numbers and figures quoted in some of the posts.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/02/farm-subsidies-wrecked-europe-environments-common-agricultural-policy

It's from the Guardian so won't be readily dismissed by the usual suspects.

I posted that link yesterday as I did others on the destruction of Europe's ecology by the CAP, but was told I was behind the times.

Here's another "outdated" link:

www.birdlife.org/news/2021/06/25/press-release-bad-cap-deal-kill-nature_25june2021/

The EU has moved on from butter mountains and wine lakes, but as Paul Daniels would have said "Not a lot!"
Today EU tax payers, thankfully no longer UK ones, are paying French wine growers to destroy vineyards due to production exceeding demand.
www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/25/france-fund-destroying-excess-wine-demand-falls
The above was the "outdated" last year, this year "there's more":
www.euronews.com/culture/2024/09/20/france-to-pay-120-million-to-uproot-30000-hectares-of-vineyards#:~:text=France%20plans%20to%20uproot%2030%2C000,wine%20consumption%20continues%20to%20drop.&text=The%20French%20government%20has%20submitted,to%20a%20shrinking%20wine%20sector.

Even that is progress for the EU; some years ago excess Italian tomato production was dumped on West African countries destroying their own tomato farmers businesses.
www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/italian-tomatoes-ruined-my-business-ghana-so-i-tried-to-go-to-italy-migration/

The most powerful lobby group in Brussels is that which promotes the interests of agriculture and food processing. When the Commission do manage to get agreement on reform they end up backtracking due to protests, etc. And EU farmers taking the law into their own hands. Did we have a tomato shortage last year?
www.reddit.com/r/Morocco/comments/1ameleq/spanish_farmers_intercepting_a_truck_loaded_with/

The UK did right to restore sovereignty to the UK Parliament where laws are made by UK elected politicians.

[OldStokie]

And another thing that's gone under the radar. For decades, as the guarantors, the government of the day have taken billions from the Mineworkers' pension scheme but Labour have given them back 1.5 billion and ex-mineworkers have had a 33% rise in their pensions.

OS.

[wannabee]

Nov 3, 2024 11:31:27 GMT iancransonsknees said:

Been as we're rabbiting on about CAP, which I had a couple of years involved in administering on the early 2000s at the RPA this is timely and worth a read and maybe simplifies things for the layman by comparison to the dry numbers and figures quoted in some of the posts.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/02/farm-subsidies-wrecked-europe-environments-common-agricultural-policy

It's from the Guardian so won't be readily dismissed by the usual suspects.

A good article which says "A plague on both your houses"

The most profound comment in the Article for me was "Farmers care about the bottom line"

But we have schemes designed by bureaucrats handed to people who have to work will them.

Farmers, mostly, are no different to any other self employed person. They will work within the rules which gives them the greatest return

Good grief Cokey has piped up trumpeting Britain is Best when the Article he claims to have linked before says the opposite, but that neitherare very good. The only difference after Brexit is that UK pays farmers less for doing more or less the same thing.

[wannabee]

Nov 3, 2024 12:31:55 GMT OldStokie said:

And another thing that's gone under the radar. For decades, as the guarantors, the government of the day have taken billions from the Mineworkers' pension scheme but Labour have given them back 1.5 billion and ex-mineworkers have had a 33% rise in their pensions.

OS.

Now that's a Pension subject definitely worth talking about 

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/31/former-miners-celebrate-win-mineworkers-pension-scandal-budget

[Clayton Wood]

Nov 3, 2024 12:58:50 GMT wannabee said:

Nov 3, 2024 12:31:55 GMT OldStokie said:

And another thing that's gone under the radar. For decades, as the guarantors, the government of the day have taken billions from the Mineworkers' pension scheme but Labour have given them back 1.5 billion and ex-mineworkers have had a 33% rise in their pensions.

OS.

Now that's a Pension subject definitely worth talking about 

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/31/former-miners-celebrate-win-mineworkers-pension-scandal-budget

Unite launches judicial review process over Winter Fuel Payment cut
Unite’s case is built on the belief that the government has acted unlawfully and its action will have a terrible effect on millions of older people in society and will likely cause an increase in cold related deaths.

The pre-action notice was submitted on 29 October. The government has been given until 7 November to respond to the letter and reverse its decision. If it does not reverse its decision then Unite will seek leave of the High Court to mount a full judicial review.

Unite is challenging the removal of the Winter Fuel Payment on several grounds including:

• The government had a legal duty to refer the cut to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Its failure to do so makes the regulations void.

• The government should have gathered considerable evidence about the policy on the impact of the cut, meaning that the decision is irrational.

• Under the Equality Act there is a Public Sector Equality Duty to consider the impact of the decision particularly on the disabled who have higher heating costs.

• The requirement to take into account relevant considerations has been breached, including relating to fuel poverty and financial circumstances of those living just above the pension credit threshold.

• In Wales there is a specific legal duty to consider the full impact of the policy, this was ignored

• The Human Rights Act requires particular areas of vulnerability to be taken into account, which could include the impact of the policy on older people, those with a disability and potentially on race.

What are the thoughts of our learned Counsel on this?

[Rednwhitenblue]

Nov 3, 2024 13:35:28 GMT Clayton Wood said:

Nov 3, 2024 12:58:50 GMT wannabee said:

Now that's a Pension subject definitely worth talking about 

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/31/former-miners-celebrate-win-mineworkers-pension-scandal-budget

Unite launches judicial review process over Winter Fuel Payment cut
Unite’s case is built on the belief that the government has acted unlawfully and its action will have a terrible effect on millions of older people in society and will likely cause an increase in cold related deaths.

The pre-action notice was submitted on 29 October. The government has been given until 7 November to respond to the letter and reverse its decision. If it does not reverse its decision then Unite will seek leave of the High Court to mount a full judicial review.

Unite is challenging the removal of the Winter Fuel Payment on several grounds including:

• The government had a legal duty to refer the cut to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Its failure to do so makes the regulations void.

• The government should have gathered considerable evidence about the policy on the impact of the cut, meaning that the decision is irrational.

• Under the Equality Act there is a Public Sector Equality Duty to consider the impact of the decision particularly on the disabled who have higher heating costs.

• The requirement to take into account relevant considerations has been breached, including relating to fuel poverty and financial circumstances of those living just above the pension credit threshold.

• In Wales there is a specific legal duty to consider the full impact of the policy, this was ignored

• The Human Rights Act requires particular areas of vulnerability to be taken into account, which could include the impact of the policy on older people, those with a disability and potentially on race.

What are the thoughts of our learned Council on this?

Good for Unite.

All governments should be held to account and, if found to have acted unlawfully, be forced to put that right.

I'd like to think this Labour govt will be better than its predecessor which openly admitted to acting illegally, a further step up from unlawfulness, and went ahead anyway! So let's see where this goes and what the govt does if found to have acted unlawfully.

All benefits should only go to those who really need them, universality of receipt based on age is a waste of resources, but that's a tangential point.

[wannabee]

Nov 3, 2024 13:35:28 GMT Clayton Wood said:

Nov 3, 2024 12:58:50 GMT wannabee said:

Now that's a Pension subject definitely worth talking about 

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/31/former-miners-celebrate-win-mineworkers-pension-scandal-budget

Unite launches judicial review process over Winter Fuel Payment cut
Unite’s case is built on the belief that the government has acted unlawfully and its action will have a terrible effect on millions of older people in society and will likely cause an increase in cold related deaths.

The pre-action notice was submitted on 29 October. The government has been given until 7 November to respond to the letter and reverse its decision. If it does not reverse its decision then Unite will seek leave of the High Court to mount a full judicial review.

Unite is challenging the removal of the Winter Fuel Payment on several grounds including:

• The government had a legal duty to refer the cut to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Its failure to do so makes the regulations void.

• The government should have gathered considerable evidence about the policy on the impact of the cut, meaning that the decision is irrational.

• Under the Equality Act there is a Public Sector Equality Duty to consider the impact of the decision particularly on the disabled who have higher heating costs.

• The requirement to take into account relevant considerations has been breached, including relating to fuel poverty and financial circumstances of those living just above the pension credit threshold.

• In Wales there is a specific legal duty to consider the full impact of the policy, this was ignored

• The Human Rights Act requires particular areas of vulnerability to be taken into account, which could include the impact of the policy on older people, those with a disability and potentially on race.

What are the thoughts of our learned Counsel on this?

It would be surprising if Unite weren't given leave to proceed with a Judicial Review considering a Scottish couple,  the Fannings,  were given leave to bring a Judicial Review of the Winter Fuel Payment more than a week ago in the Scottish Courts. The full hearing takes place on 15th January next.

If you asking my opinion I believe it is right it should be tested. The Courts decision will rest solely on whether Government acted within the Law not whether it was right or wrong.