Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Good
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (124 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Media reports of a memo to Tory MPs that a deal is done and Mogg will call the house back in next Monday and Tuesday
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Standard practice of leaking things to the press to see what people think
tisza
Well-Known Member
Current proposed Tory policy will cause large problems for UK agriculture as subsidy schemes will move away from production to environmental. No effective policy in place past 2022 for farmers to actually know what income they might receive
UK food prices will rise as imports from less regulated producers will replace domestic supply. Agricultural exports will fall as won't be competitive.
Tory plan to reduce agricultural carbon footprint is just to shift it to other countries less worried about carbon footprints.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Lets hope so.
Look forward to the thread continuing for another 1400 pages with people arguing if its a better deal than we had as an EU member.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Same here. I actually argued the opposite and cited CAP as my main peeve with the EU.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The Leave voter's guide to who to blame for Brexit
BREXIT’S going tits-up, and it can’t be your fault because you voted Leave. Wayne Hayes explains who to point the finger at for undermining our sovereignty.
www.thedailymash.co.uk
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Won’t be an argument of course it won’t be
Astute
Well-Known Member
So that is your personal view then. Not exactly accurate though.
So farmers know what their income is now but won't in the future?
Prices are artificially high now but you say will be higher in the future?
Our prices will be too high in the future to export? Strangely enough we need to import to survive at current rates. Too many landowners paid a fortune not to grow anything on their land. The more grown the lower the price.
The biggest problem could be in the rest of Europe. We will be free to buy from who and where we like without tariffs. It will benefit those who grow in poorer countries. Those in Europe with artificially high prices could be left with food they won't be selling here. What will happen to it? Will the EU pay even more billions each year to grow even less to keep the prices up? If so where will it come from?
If they don't there will be a food glut. Back to the food mountains of the past. Us older ones remember it well. On the news all the time how many millions of tons of each food type that had built up. Butter mountains. Grain mountains. The reason a very large amount of billions of euros goes each year to keep quantity of foodstuffs low and prices high.
Nobody knows what will happen next. It will mainly depend on what plans are put in place. And all these plans will have to be paid for.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Previously we were not allowed to make trade deals around the world. Depending on what sort of deal we sign up to we should be able to.
Without tariffs buying from the EU is a decent price. If tariffs come into it we could buy much cheaper elsewhere. So we would. Better terms? Again we could buy cheaper elsewhere.
We have reached the stage I have spoken about for the last few years. Make a deal, keep tied in while continuing talks or walk away. This is both sides. Now it is reality. Now talks will get serious. If we are going to be leaving the only decent thing Boris has done all the way is say there is a deadline and keep to it. Trade on decent terms or we will go elsewhere. You don't want decent terms like you offer other countries? OK. Explain to fishing communities why they are out of a job. Risk millions of jobs tied to selling in the UK. Risk an uprising against the EU.
We all know that the best thing we can do is keep a relationship with the EU. But most on here love to ignore that the best thing the EU can do is keep a relationship with the UK.
I continued to say this would happen when the whole world was saying no deal. And I still say it now. It was only a couple of days ago when Fern said his usual 'nonsense'. And that has been the most polite reply to my thoughts on the matter for a few years.
Is there anyone with a few working braincells no matter how biased they are think a no deal is the best way to go for any side?
Agreed. On a trade only basis Id imagine a majority, if not all, of the EU member states (and certainly the companies/citizens they represent) will want a deal. It’s whether this breaches idiological positions of the EU ‘organisation’ though
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's not an ideological position. A deal, in isolation, is better. A deal in a context that negatively affects the current arrangements with other nations, is worse. Better to let us sail off into the sunset in that case.
We, however, seem to think we, as one nation, are more important than many nations.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
This one nation will be divided into 2 or 3 within a decade
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It’s already divided into two. We’ve put a border in the Irish Sea and handed over more sovereignty to the EU in Northern Ireland than the rest of the U.K. will have gained from the EU.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I’m no Brexiteer.
But, the EU has a vested interest in being obstructionist because if Brexit goes well, it strengthens Euroscepticism on the continent.
The EU obviously wants to maintain the integrity of its single market and customs union so will make demands of UK alignment to the EU. Whereas, the UK wants to be independent of those regulations.
Frankly, a no deal scenario might be what’s needed for both sides to make headway in reconciling their differences.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
No deal will be a disaster for this country, both in the literal sense of the word and in future negotiations. It will seriously weaken our hand in negotiations. The simple fact is we have one set of shoulders to carry the burden of no deal and the EU has 27.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So, how does that go against what I said?
The needs of the many will outweigh the needs of the few. It's a pragmatic decision where there's zero other alternative. The best trade deal is the one that keeps the many happiest.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Just insane British exceptionalism.
We will always trade more with Europe. Good luck getting fresh food in from fucking China or Australia. Every country trades the most with its geographical neighbours. Goods take time to move through space. Unless BoJo has found designs for a teleporter that will still apply post Brexit.
The U.K. wants to enter trade deals, a scenario about negotiating how much independence to give up for economic gain, not wanting to give away any independence. Can you not spot the glaring error here?
And again, yes, in negotiations both sides have goals. This is not news. How the EU would be likely to act didn’t need a crystal ball and if everyone “knew what they were voting for” none of this should be a surprise. You can whine about the world or you can put your big boy pants on and engage with it as it is.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The UK argument is that they want a deal similar to Canada, with 0-tariffs and 0-quotas.
The EU rebuttal is that because they trade with the UK more than Canada, they want more market alignment from Britain than it does from Canada.
The EU has a point. Similarly, from a UK perspective, it’s a valid point to say there’s a double standard being applied.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
That’s a very woolly comment.
What is the best agreement that keeps the ‘many’ happiest? In 2016, they wanted out of the EU, for a period of time, ‘no deal’ was the most popular outcome from polls. Was ‘no deal’ the best deal then?
I don’t want us to leave without a deal on the 1st Jan. Equally, it’s up to the Government to decide what’s best for country and not sign up to what they consider a bad deal. If they do badly, then we get to elect a new set of people to renegotiate the relationship on our behalf.
The whims of the many changes with the wind.
When I say ideological reasons, I mean what they consider to be the essence of the EU (‘the club’) and the fact they trying to protect this.
I cant see how what (I understand) is being proposed negatively effects current arrangements with other nations ? Hence me saying a trade deal on its own makes sense for the EU as well as us for the reasons previous stated ie any nation/bloc who is exporting more to another country and has aligned regs, rights etc should, on the face of it, want to have free trade deal with that nation. However, I guess they’re concerned that this may impact the integrity of the EU/the club which is why there are issues.
I honestly don’t consider that we’re more important and doubt many/any people who voted leave do either (however I/they might be portrayed). I just try to apply logic to most things and on that basis a free trade deal should work best for both sides (until you bring the other stuff in)
Let’s hope for everyone’s sake they can find a sensible agreement that works for everyone
tisza
Well-Known Member
I'll declare an interest upfront in that I have an varying degrees of ownership in 6 agricultural companies farming around 22.000 hectares across Eastern Europe, North & West Africa and the UK. Production is predominantly arable but also includes livestock, dairy and vegetables.
The UK sides of those businesses will not know their future income streams until a deal is or is not concluded with the EU and then the UK govt sets out in detail what its plans are. But large amounts of certain key inputs like fertilizer come from EU and Africa so tariffs there will increase prices. UK govt has set out a policy theme for switching subsidies from production to environmental & welfare schemes but without financial numbers or detail on how this is to be achieved.
People aren't paid a fortune not to farm land. That system disappeared years ago. People receive money for land that is in production or maintained for production. There isn't a vast "land bank" of agricultural land that can be thrown back into producing food, Production isn't going to shoot up because subsidies are shifted from production to environmental and then ultimately removed. Production increases would need to come from either increased inputs (not environmentally friendly), economies of scale or a move to the likes of GM crops.
majority of UK farmland is farmed in small units by family businesses. Average UK farm size is only around 80 hectares. Many are too small to be viable without support. Dairy in particular suffers from this where the market is suppressed by the buying power of the producers and supermarkets. So then you end up with more and more land being bought up by corporations who can farm on larger economies of scale.
There are around 12-13 million more people to feed in the UK from the times of the food gluts in a handful of products.
Talk about benefitting poorer countries is slightly misplaced. Increased agricultural production in these areas is almost exclusively financed and controlled by large foreign corporations and companies almost exclusively for export.
Whilst the EU talks about environmental improvements it continues to enable environmental abuse in these poorer countries. Who is cutting down the Amazon rainforest? Multinationals are stripping that land for beef and feed crops that are exported around the world. EU imported over 600 million worth of beef from Brazil last year alone. The steakhouse chains and burger companies etc. are funding that. Or pop into your local supermarket and check the labels on your vegetables. This time of year (primarily for climate reasons) nearly everything is being imported from Southern Europe, Africa and latin America. Work out the air miles and carbon footprint impact of that.
EU just shifting environmental issues to other parts of the world.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I mean, we aren’t Canada. We’re sat just off the coast of Europe so it’s a bit of a disingenuous argument, but again you’re missing the point. The EU could ask we paint all our cats green if they want, we’ll only have to accept it if they’ve got something f we want more than non green cats.
All this cry whining about “fairness” is just childish in trade negotiations. We knew how big the EU were, we knew they would likely want to make it hard for us to maintain the strength of their Union. We took the decision to Brexit knowing all of this but with the claim that it wouldn’t matter because we were going to pretend they needed us more “German cars” etc etc etc.
Sorry this is Sisu all over again. You can’t cry that third parties aren’t looking out for you, you need to manage and predict reactions to your behaviour. Other independent actors exist.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
A decent and well balanced article.
www.independent.co.uk
Brexit will be a slow economic puncture and it may take a while to notice the harm
The simple causal story that 'Brexit has made us poorer' may be harder to tell than many Remainers think
www.independent.co.uk
Astute
Well-Known Member
Only America buys more from the EU than the UK does. So we are more important than most
Astute
Well-Known Member
Whine? Had to stop laughing before I could reply. It is yourself and others that have had a constant whine for over 4 years now.
Crystal ball? Most of my predictions have been correct. But they have been rubbished all the way through.... you included. And by the same lot who rubbished what I said about if we kept Corbyn for both general elections.
So why is it that you bunch of mainly school teachers, ex school teachers or partners of school teachers be so wrong so many times yet still keep agreeing with each other and trying to change everyone's perception.
Yes I understand you are mainly mad lefties. Those who keep destroying the Labour Party with mad ideas that the rest of the world can see through. But one day you will have to have a reality check. Constantly agreeing with each other doesn't make you right.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Astute
Well-Known Member
Absolutely spot on. But certain people on here who are supposed to be intelligent will try and argue against it to make a point.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Who said trade deals should be fair?
By their very nature they're not for all sorts of reasons.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I also have shares all over the world....but mainly in America. I have a good idea of what goes on with these companies but this is all. Just like yourself.
OK. I will humor you. So how much do farmers know what they will make presently.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Disingenuous argument?
So we are less important than the rest of the world but our importance because of our location is important when you need it to be?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Those of us that have been balanced all the way through agree with much of it. It is those like yourself who have been anything but balanced all the way through that needs education on the subject.A decent and well balanced article.
Brexit will be a slow economic puncture and it may take a while to notice the harm
The simple causal story that 'Brexit has made us poorer' may be harder to tell than many Remainers think
Astute
Well-Known Member
If they don't benefit both sides they don't get signed.
Yes a thousand tonnes of grain will take longer to get here from further afield. So it would be ordered earlier than usual. The price won't have been kept artificially high by paying untold billions each year to the rich and putting high tariffs on other producers from elsewhere. We can continue to buy like this..... or have a free trade deal that helps keep your pyramid scheme in place.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Do you have some kind of problem with teachers?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not at all. But look on this thread. Look in the Corbyn thread. You have mainly hard left ideals. They are not appreciated by the vast majority but you don't seem to notice.
I have a couple of good friends who are teachers. One is the nicest person you could ever meet. But her political thoughts are similar to yours although it has been changing recently.