Gouldy
Player Valuation: £1m
I don't think it's hyperbole at all - the current continuation by this Tory govt. of underfunding/selling off of the NHS will collapse it eventually.
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it's hyperbole at all - the current continuation by this Tory govt. of underfunding/selling off of the NHS will collapse it eventually.
I'm afraid it is. If you look at spending per capita on healthcare, the government currently spends roughly 250% more per person than it did in 2000, and significantly more than the apparently halcyon days of New Labour when spending rose so much.
Gwladysstreetlad
Player Valuation: £50m
Tony Blair should learn to keep his mouth shut. He does damage to every cause he supports by pubically supporting it and turning the millions of people who also support it but refuse to associate themselves with him. He must be one if the most delusional men ever and still thinks it's still 1997 and people value his opinion, it's either that or he's a genius and actually wanted Brexit, wants Corbyn to succeed but realises that he's as populer as a does of the clap and thinks the most effective way he can sway voters is to get them to vote against him! I've often wondered since Brexit what the result would of been were it not for the interference of Blair, Major and even Obama (Obama doesn't derserve to be in such company imo but his interference was definitely detrimental to the remain cause).
Gouldy
Player Valuation: £1m
I'm afraid it is. If you look at spending per capita on healthcare, the government currently spends roughly 250% more per person than it did in 2000, and significantly more than the apparently halcyon days of New Labour when spending rose so much.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....pitals-on-brink-of-collapse-say-health-chiefs
And yet despite all of this, it is still underfunded..
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Or some of the funds are used inefficiently to create the semblance of a market, as per Tory dogma.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
So you keep on saying Bruce,even when others remind you that Labour want to remain members of some Euro-wide agencies which would reduce the comparative work load.
Some EU leaders may be prepared to be flexible on the free movement of people to help Britain stay in the single market, Tony Blair has said.
He told the Today programme one option was for Britain "staying within a reformed EU."
The ex-PM said he would not disclose conversations he had had in Europe but that he was not speaking "on a whim".
The government insists Brexit will give the UK greater control of its borders.
Mr Blair said the situation in Europe was different to how it had been a year ago.
"Europe itself is now looking at its own reform programme. They will have an inner circle in the EU that will be part of the eurozone and an outer circle."
"They will make reforms that I think will make it much more comfortable for Britain to fit itself in that outer circle," he said.
I think the powers in the EU see this as a chance they wouldn't otherwise had pre-brexit to toughen up their porous borders.
Free Movement was OK, but that was then and the whole game has changed
He told the Today programme one option was for Britain "staying within a reformed EU."
The ex-PM said he would not disclose conversations he had had in Europe but that he was not speaking "on a whim".
The government insists Brexit will give the UK greater control of its borders.
Mr Blair said the situation in Europe was different to how it had been a year ago.
"Europe itself is now looking at its own reform programme. They will have an inner circle in the EU that will be part of the eurozone and an outer circle."
"They will make reforms that I think will make it much more comfortable for Britain to fit itself in that outer circle," he said.
I think the powers in the EU see this as a chance they wouldn't otherwise had pre-brexit to toughen up their porous borders.
Free Movement was OK, but that was then and the whole game has changed
Yet remains the best health service in the world. The Americans spend twice what we do, yet their health system is a mess. Money is undoubtedly important, but historically healthcare has succumbed to Baumol's law, and any increases in funding has gone purely on higher wages, so spending more money isn't always the answer.
I think the public hugely underestimate just how integrated Britain was in the EU, and how much work will be involved to simply stand still. One or two agencies will undoubtedly help, but it still leaves an enormous amount of work, and importantly uncertainty for the economy. Business dislikes uncertainty more than anything else, so lumping renationalisation of industries and all manner of other industrial tinkering on top of Brexit would be terrible for the economy imo. These sorts of things are best done during times of stability, not uncertainty.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
May, et al, certainly do, or perhaps it's a created pretext for enabling poorly-scrutinised legislation that they want via the Henry powers.
But like I stated, Labour want to sensibly remain co-operating with a lot of the Euro bodies, hence reducing expenditure and skilled manpower, relative to the Spiv's.
You'll also find that a lot of the Nationalisation you're making a hue and cry about are, as per Euro law, tendered out on a periodic basis, so enacting that part of Labour's manifesto would be staggered, and as we publicly employ/subsidise most of these to a certain degree, the resources required probably won't be too demanding.
But like I stated, Labour want to sensibly remain co-operating with a lot of the Euro bodies, hence reducing expenditure and skilled manpower, relative to the Spiv's.
You'll also find that a lot of the Nationalisation you're making a hue and cry about are, as per Euro law, tendered out on a periodic basis, so enacting that part of Labour's manifesto would be staggered, and as we publicly employ/subsidise most of these to a certain degree, the resources required probably won't be too demanding.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Stung by some of the recent criticism of the media, I have decided to be more patriotic about Brexit. I had not previously thought I was being otherwise but when Britons of the stature of Andrea Leadsom and Liam Fox tell you that you are letting the country down, well, you have to sit up and take notice.
It came as something of a shock, I admit, to discover that having even a twinge of doubt about the competence of the crack team of political strategists that is the May cabinet might place someone on the treason spectrum. But you can see the point the Tories are making here. Britain is standing alone against a hostile continent. Careless talk costs lives. We don’t want Johnny European finding out that he’s up against the diplomatic equivalent of Dad’s Army. (Oh, sorry, bit disloyal there.)
I suppose I could counter that raising concerns that the great dream of Brexit-minded MPs is being mishandled might actually be seen as doing one’s civic duty, but frankly I now recognise that this is not good enough. Leadsom and Fox are right. At a time of great national crisis, we do all need to pull together. Not that I’m saying this is a time of great national crisis, obviously, because that would be unpatriotic. And I’m sure they didn’t mean to suggest it either. (Sorry, did it again.)
Probably all they meant was that at times like this, it is not the role of the media to question our heroic government and independence movement. Stirring doubt in the populace is bad for morale and we could be accused of talking down the economy or the country. (Although, I’ve never entirely understood how you talk down an economy. Can you hurt the feelings of a Gross Domestic Product?)
My initial response, particularly in the face of — how can I put this? — nagging doubts about the effectiveness of some of our team, was a little defeatist, I admit, but now I’m totally on board with the patriotic Pollyannas and ready to recognise the outcome of our negotiations as the greatest British victory since Dunkirk. Truly, I am directing my feet to the sunny side of the street.
So now I’m digging for victory and encouraging other journalists to do the same. After all, the way things are going so far we may need to be self-sufficient in several products. (Sorry, me and my mouth, eh?)
We in Her Majesty’s loyal media need to do our bit. We need to help build the things our new country will need. Like a new nuclear regulatory regime, for example. We in the press have done nothing to help develop a new strategy for radioactive isotopes. I admit that my own knowledge of atomic material is, shall we say, cursory, but it’s all media hands to the pump in the new Britain.
Incidentally, as part of the new loyal media, I’d just like to say what a bang-up job Boris Johnson is doing; that I can’t think of anyone I’d rather was leading the country at this time than Theresa May. Michel Barnier must be quaking in his foreign boots.
In fact, I’ve become so persuaded by this new positive patriotic approach that I have decided to import it into our household. For some time I have been putting up with what I now realise is the domestic equivalent of deeply unpatriotic dissent from the spawn.
Just the other day, the boy traitorously refused to unload the washing machine until he had finished watching Love Island. Perhaps even more analogously, the girl has been highly critical of my policy of texting while driving when she clearly needs to stop talking down my motoring skills. I know there are those who don’t believe in texting while driving but frankly she now needs to stop going on about its risks and get behind the driver. Fox has said some journalists would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed, and it’s the same in this case. You have to wonder if the spawn would not rather see me crash than send the text successfully.
I’m not sure if compliant offspring are any more likely than a compliant media. But, anyway, I do see the Tory point. Life is much easier when you don’t have to put up with difficult questions.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com;
@robertshrimsley
It came as something of a shock, I admit, to discover that having even a twinge of doubt about the competence of the crack team of political strategists that is the May cabinet might place someone on the treason spectrum. But you can see the point the Tories are making here. Britain is standing alone against a hostile continent. Careless talk costs lives. We don’t want Johnny European finding out that he’s up against the diplomatic equivalent of Dad’s Army. (Oh, sorry, bit disloyal there.)
I suppose I could counter that raising concerns that the great dream of Brexit-minded MPs is being mishandled might actually be seen as doing one’s civic duty, but frankly I now recognise that this is not good enough. Leadsom and Fox are right. At a time of great national crisis, we do all need to pull together. Not that I’m saying this is a time of great national crisis, obviously, because that would be unpatriotic. And I’m sure they didn’t mean to suggest it either. (Sorry, did it again.)
Probably all they meant was that at times like this, it is not the role of the media to question our heroic government and independence movement. Stirring doubt in the populace is bad for morale and we could be accused of talking down the economy or the country. (Although, I’ve never entirely understood how you talk down an economy. Can you hurt the feelings of a Gross Domestic Product?)
My initial response, particularly in the face of — how can I put this? — nagging doubts about the effectiveness of some of our team, was a little defeatist, I admit, but now I’m totally on board with the patriotic Pollyannas and ready to recognise the outcome of our negotiations as the greatest British victory since Dunkirk. Truly, I am directing my feet to the sunny side of the street.
So now I’m digging for victory and encouraging other journalists to do the same. After all, the way things are going so far we may need to be self-sufficient in several products. (Sorry, me and my mouth, eh?)
We in Her Majesty’s loyal media need to do our bit. We need to help build the things our new country will need. Like a new nuclear regulatory regime, for example. We in the press have done nothing to help develop a new strategy for radioactive isotopes. I admit that my own knowledge of atomic material is, shall we say, cursory, but it’s all media hands to the pump in the new Britain.
Incidentally, as part of the new loyal media, I’d just like to say what a bang-up job Boris Johnson is doing; that I can’t think of anyone I’d rather was leading the country at this time than Theresa May. Michel Barnier must be quaking in his foreign boots.
In fact, I’ve become so persuaded by this new positive patriotic approach that I have decided to import it into our household. For some time I have been putting up with what I now realise is the domestic equivalent of deeply unpatriotic dissent from the spawn.
Just the other day, the boy traitorously refused to unload the washing machine until he had finished watching Love Island. Perhaps even more analogously, the girl has been highly critical of my policy of texting while driving when she clearly needs to stop talking down my motoring skills. I know there are those who don’t believe in texting while driving but frankly she now needs to stop going on about its risks and get behind the driver. Fox has said some journalists would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed, and it’s the same in this case. You have to wonder if the spawn would not rather see me crash than send the text successfully.
I’m not sure if compliant offspring are any more likely than a compliant media. But, anyway, I do see the Tory point. Life is much easier when you don’t have to put up with difficult questions.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com;
@robertshrimsley
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
The Observer view on how the tide is turning against deceitful and incompetent hard Brexiters
Observer editorial
The country will not tolerate having so much put at risk for a few jingoistic illusions.
7,183
Comments
448
Sunday 16 July 2017 00.05 BST
What next from the lords of misrule, the Tory hard Brexiters who seem to be enjoying playing party political games with our futures while the world looks on bemused, if not baffled? Day after day, they stumble on, deaf to warnings on every side and blind to hard, objective facts – that delusions and jingoistic illusions do not a plan make. How did we get here? Is this the best Britain can do? The four Brexiters charged with plotting our political, economic and cultural future – Theresa May, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox – cheered on by an undistinguished group of backbenchers, could hardly have had a less impressive three months since triggering article 50.
Barely a news cycle passes without another deflating blow to their hard Brexit fantasy. Here is a report by the non-partisan Office for Budget Responsibility, warning that public finances are in worse shape than before the 2008 financial crash. Rising debt, plummeting tax revenues and funding cuts loom, rendered more difficult by Brexit uncertainties. And here is the National Audit Office, the UK’s spending watchdog, predicting a “horror show” if Britain leaves the EU customs union without its own fit-for-purpose customs system in place.
Next come figures from Eurostat showing Britain at the bottom of the 28-nation EU growth league, performing worse even than Greece. Consumers already know the truth of rising prices in the shops, attributable to a devaluing pound. Wage earners already feel the pain of falling real incomes and eroding living standards. Then there’s the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, reporting declining house values and sales, a reversal of the natural order for generations of Britons who bank on property to bolster their financial security.
The Confederation of British Industry, not a body known for rabble-rousing, produces another cautionary tale. It is impossible, it says, that a credible trading relationship with the EU, from outside the single market, can be agreed by the deadline of March 2019. An open-ended transition is required. And no deal is not better than a bad deal. It’s worse than anything you can imagine. Then come two of Germany’s biggest industry organisations, including those supposedly all-powerful car makers, warning there will be no special treatment for Britain. Protecting the integrity of the 27-nation single market trumps concerns about falling exports. Pop goes another hard Brexit shibboleth.
But it isn’t just about how hard Brexit might affect Britain – it’s clear that it already has. See what Ucas says about foreign student applications: down by 25,000 or 4% year on year. The drop mirrors an even bigger decline in EU student applicants and in desperately needed foreign nurses. An NHS crippled by staff shortages? Higher fees for British university students? Japanese businesses moving to Europe? City jobs migrating to Frankfurt and Paris? A minimum wage economy spurned by our departing best and brightest? We are starting to get a glimpse of the hard Brexit future – it seems a very long way from the promise of £350m extra funding a week for the NHS.
Still, those responsible for these alternative facts of a year ago continue to treat the British public, and the European body politic, as fools. Not even the wake-up call of the election seems to have alerted them that they are being found out. No one more so than our foreign secretary. Boris Johnson, whose stock as a serious politician was never high, seems intent with each week to reduce it further. Last Wednesday, he said the EU can “go whistle” if it thinks Britain will pay for a divorce. But wait 24 hours and it transpires that the government has conceded it must agree a “fair settlement”. The EU is seeking upwards of €80bn. It is not in bargaining mood. Why should it be? It is adamant that cash must be forthcoming if tomorrow’s resumed negotiations in Brussels are to advance.
If our chief Brexiters are variously characterised by arrogance (Davis), weakness (May), buffoonery (Johnson) and irrelevance (Fox), then they are faced with a team led by the resolute and impressive Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. In reply to Johnson’s juvenility, he said: “I am not hearing any whistling, just a clock ticking.” Barnier’s unflappable, intensely well-briefed, logical approach presents an uncomfortable contrast with the bar-stool bragging of David Davis. It is true that Brexit is not the only cause for worry over Britain’s future prosperity and security. Political uncertainty after last month’s inconclusive election is a factor. But for that, too, hard Brexiters must take the lion’s share of blame. May said the election was all about her Brexit agenda and demanded a national mandate. Instead, she was roundly rebuffed. Not that you’d notice.
Despite promises to change her ways, May shows little sign of grasping that the broader, consensual approach espoused by many in her party, and increasingly forcefully by Labour, is the only sensible way to go. Attempts to portray her bridge-burning, chaotic retreat from Europe as some kind of modern Dunkirk are fatuous. There is no armada of little ships this time around. No rescue is coming.
Remarks last week by Vince Cable, the incoming Liberal Democrat leader, expressing doubt that Brexit will ever actually happen, are not as fanciful as they might seem. The longer May sticks to her impractical, unbending and damaging course – rejecting the single market, the customs union, the European court of justice (ECJ), undiluted citizens rights and freedom of movement – the more likely it is that a Brexit deal in any shape or form will prove unobtainable. The closer the prospect that Britain will crash out of the EU without any agreement, the greater will be public and political resistance.
The Brexit polls are shifting. A big majority, eyeing the negative economic impact with deepening unease, favours a co-operative, cross-party approach. Confidence in May to get it right by herself has plunged since the election. There has been a slump in the proportion of people who believe the government is doing a good Brexit job – down from 40% in April to 22%, according to YouGov. Most people are resigned to Brexit (although the numbers favouring a second referendum on any final deal are rising). But the British instinct, as ever, is for fair-minded compromise. By rejecting compromise, May and the hard Tory Brexiters may ultimately ensure there is no Brexit at all. How deeply ironic that outcome would be.
Since the referendum turned hypothesis into impending fact, Brexit has become an extended lesson in home truths. It has turned into a self-examination and learning process, not only for the electorate, many of whom were misinformed or deliberately misled prior to last year’s referendum, but also for the British government and its institutions, the civil service and the political, business and media establishment as a whole. What is made clearer each day is a picture of incapacity, incompetence, self-deception, dishonesty, partisanship and harmful confusion. As Gus O’Donnell, former cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, writes in these pages today, the challenges are epic in scale and the work has not begun well.
Our European partners cry out with rising incredulity: what is it that Britain wants? What is crystal clear is what we in these columns have been saying for more than a year: there is no workable plan, no realistic, realisable vision and no way to deliver on the false dawns and fantasies conjured by the hard Brexiters. They have been making it up as they go along. Slowly but surely, they are being found out.
This is not to say that by March 2019, the country will not have come to a settled, collective view. As this learning process works its way through the national consciousness, it seems likely that the centre of gravity, in terms of public and political opinion, will come to rest on creating the closest possible relationship with Europe, compatible with the national interest, measured primarily in economic and human terms. Practically speaking, that could mean a Norway-style, European Economic Area-Efta deal, allowing access to the single market in return for broad acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction and freedom of movement principles.
Whatever the eventual outcome, it must and will not be that prescribed by May and the hard Brexiters. They need to understand one basic fact: the country will not tolerate its prosperity, its children’s futures and its standing in the world being continuously jeopardised by absurdly unrealistic negotiating positions, internal Tory party faction fights and the daily mounting evidence of blind incompetence. These people do a great disservice to Britain.
Observer editorial
The country will not tolerate having so much put at risk for a few jingoistic illusions.
7,183
Comments
448
Sunday 16 July 2017 00.05 BST
What next from the lords of misrule, the Tory hard Brexiters who seem to be enjoying playing party political games with our futures while the world looks on bemused, if not baffled? Day after day, they stumble on, deaf to warnings on every side and blind to hard, objective facts – that delusions and jingoistic illusions do not a plan make. How did we get here? Is this the best Britain can do? The four Brexiters charged with plotting our political, economic and cultural future – Theresa May, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox – cheered on by an undistinguished group of backbenchers, could hardly have had a less impressive three months since triggering article 50.
Barely a news cycle passes without another deflating blow to their hard Brexit fantasy. Here is a report by the non-partisan Office for Budget Responsibility, warning that public finances are in worse shape than before the 2008 financial crash. Rising debt, plummeting tax revenues and funding cuts loom, rendered more difficult by Brexit uncertainties. And here is the National Audit Office, the UK’s spending watchdog, predicting a “horror show” if Britain leaves the EU customs union without its own fit-for-purpose customs system in place.
Next come figures from Eurostat showing Britain at the bottom of the 28-nation EU growth league, performing worse even than Greece. Consumers already know the truth of rising prices in the shops, attributable to a devaluing pound. Wage earners already feel the pain of falling real incomes and eroding living standards. Then there’s the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, reporting declining house values and sales, a reversal of the natural order for generations of Britons who bank on property to bolster their financial security.
The Confederation of British Industry, not a body known for rabble-rousing, produces another cautionary tale. It is impossible, it says, that a credible trading relationship with the EU, from outside the single market, can be agreed by the deadline of March 2019. An open-ended transition is required. And no deal is not better than a bad deal. It’s worse than anything you can imagine. Then come two of Germany’s biggest industry organisations, including those supposedly all-powerful car makers, warning there will be no special treatment for Britain. Protecting the integrity of the 27-nation single market trumps concerns about falling exports. Pop goes another hard Brexit shibboleth.
But it isn’t just about how hard Brexit might affect Britain – it’s clear that it already has. See what Ucas says about foreign student applications: down by 25,000 or 4% year on year. The drop mirrors an even bigger decline in EU student applicants and in desperately needed foreign nurses. An NHS crippled by staff shortages? Higher fees for British university students? Japanese businesses moving to Europe? City jobs migrating to Frankfurt and Paris? A minimum wage economy spurned by our departing best and brightest? We are starting to get a glimpse of the hard Brexit future – it seems a very long way from the promise of £350m extra funding a week for the NHS.
Still, those responsible for these alternative facts of a year ago continue to treat the British public, and the European body politic, as fools. Not even the wake-up call of the election seems to have alerted them that they are being found out. No one more so than our foreign secretary. Boris Johnson, whose stock as a serious politician was never high, seems intent with each week to reduce it further. Last Wednesday, he said the EU can “go whistle” if it thinks Britain will pay for a divorce. But wait 24 hours and it transpires that the government has conceded it must agree a “fair settlement”. The EU is seeking upwards of €80bn. It is not in bargaining mood. Why should it be? It is adamant that cash must be forthcoming if tomorrow’s resumed negotiations in Brussels are to advance.
If our chief Brexiters are variously characterised by arrogance (Davis), weakness (May), buffoonery (Johnson) and irrelevance (Fox), then they are faced with a team led by the resolute and impressive Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. In reply to Johnson’s juvenility, he said: “I am not hearing any whistling, just a clock ticking.” Barnier’s unflappable, intensely well-briefed, logical approach presents an uncomfortable contrast with the bar-stool bragging of David Davis. It is true that Brexit is not the only cause for worry over Britain’s future prosperity and security. Political uncertainty after last month’s inconclusive election is a factor. But for that, too, hard Brexiters must take the lion’s share of blame. May said the election was all about her Brexit agenda and demanded a national mandate. Instead, she was roundly rebuffed. Not that you’d notice.
Despite promises to change her ways, May shows little sign of grasping that the broader, consensual approach espoused by many in her party, and increasingly forcefully by Labour, is the only sensible way to go. Attempts to portray her bridge-burning, chaotic retreat from Europe as some kind of modern Dunkirk are fatuous. There is no armada of little ships this time around. No rescue is coming.
Remarks last week by Vince Cable, the incoming Liberal Democrat leader, expressing doubt that Brexit will ever actually happen, are not as fanciful as they might seem. The longer May sticks to her impractical, unbending and damaging course – rejecting the single market, the customs union, the European court of justice (ECJ), undiluted citizens rights and freedom of movement – the more likely it is that a Brexit deal in any shape or form will prove unobtainable. The closer the prospect that Britain will crash out of the EU without any agreement, the greater will be public and political resistance.
The Brexit polls are shifting. A big majority, eyeing the negative economic impact with deepening unease, favours a co-operative, cross-party approach. Confidence in May to get it right by herself has plunged since the election. There has been a slump in the proportion of people who believe the government is doing a good Brexit job – down from 40% in April to 22%, according to YouGov. Most people are resigned to Brexit (although the numbers favouring a second referendum on any final deal are rising). But the British instinct, as ever, is for fair-minded compromise. By rejecting compromise, May and the hard Tory Brexiters may ultimately ensure there is no Brexit at all. How deeply ironic that outcome would be.
Since the referendum turned hypothesis into impending fact, Brexit has become an extended lesson in home truths. It has turned into a self-examination and learning process, not only for the electorate, many of whom were misinformed or deliberately misled prior to last year’s referendum, but also for the British government and its institutions, the civil service and the political, business and media establishment as a whole. What is made clearer each day is a picture of incapacity, incompetence, self-deception, dishonesty, partisanship and harmful confusion. As Gus O’Donnell, former cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, writes in these pages today, the challenges are epic in scale and the work has not begun well.
Our European partners cry out with rising incredulity: what is it that Britain wants? What is crystal clear is what we in these columns have been saying for more than a year: there is no workable plan, no realistic, realisable vision and no way to deliver on the false dawns and fantasies conjured by the hard Brexiters. They have been making it up as they go along. Slowly but surely, they are being found out.
This is not to say that by March 2019, the country will not have come to a settled, collective view. As this learning process works its way through the national consciousness, it seems likely that the centre of gravity, in terms of public and political opinion, will come to rest on creating the closest possible relationship with Europe, compatible with the national interest, measured primarily in economic and human terms. Practically speaking, that could mean a Norway-style, European Economic Area-Efta deal, allowing access to the single market in return for broad acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction and freedom of movement principles.
Whatever the eventual outcome, it must and will not be that prescribed by May and the hard Brexiters. They need to understand one basic fact: the country will not tolerate its prosperity, its children’s futures and its standing in the world being continuously jeopardised by absurdly unrealistic negotiating positions, internal Tory party faction fights and the daily mounting evidence of blind incompetence. These people do a great disservice to Britain.
Surprise, surprise, we seem ill equipped to cope with the changes to our food supply:
"
The report, by leading food policy specialists Professor Erik Millstone (University of Sussex), Professor Tim Lang (City, University of London) and Professor Terry Marsden (Cardiff University), concludes that leaving the European Union poses serious risks to consumer interests, public health, businesses and workers in the food sector.
Its authors claim that this is because there is no Government vision for UK food or agriculture, yet prices, quality, supply and the environment will all be adversely affected even with a 'soft' Brexit.
They warn that British consumers have not been informed about the "enormous" implications for their food, a third of which comes from within the European Union.
The 86-page report is the first major review of the ways leaving the EU will have an impact on UK food and farming.
Professor Millstone said: "In the EU, UK consumers and public health have benefited from EU-wide safety standards, without which there will be a risk of the UK having less safe and nutritious products."
Professor Lang said: "UK food security and sustainability are now at stake. A food system which has an estimated three to five days of stocks cannot just walk away from the EU, which provides us with 31 per cent of our food. Anyone who thinks that this will be simple is ill-informed."
The report examines available industry and government data, policies and literature on a wide range of issues including production, farming, employment, quality, safety standards and the environment. It highlights 16 key issues that must be addressed by the Government in its negotiations with the EU.
Among the 16 issues which the paper urges Ministers to address are needs for:
It warns that a "Food Brexit" is of unprecedented importance and is happening at a time when the UK food system is already vulnerable, with self-sufficiency also in decline.
Professors Millstone, Lang and Marsden say their report is a wake-up call to the public and a Government that has little experience of food negotiations and has failed to warn consumers of the disruptions ahead.
The report makes detailed recommendations for each of the 16 key issues explored. They call on the public, civil society and academics to put pressure on Government and MPs to:
Professor Millstone said: "Since the Brexit referendum UK food and agricultural policy has been in chaos. Not only have ministers yet to develop a strategy or make decisions, they have not even grasped the issues about which urgent decisions are needed. Unless things change rapidly, and in line with our recommendations, the UK will not only have policy chaos, the food system itself will become increasingly chaotic."
Professor Lang said: "At least the UK entered World War Two with emergency plans. No-one has warned the public that a Food Brexit carries real risks of disruption to sources, prices and quality. There is solid evidence about vulnerabilities ranging from diet-related ill-health to ecosystems stress.
"Food is the biggest slice of EU-related regulations and laws, yet so far the Government has only sketchily flagged a new Agriculture Act and Fisheries Act in the Queen's Speech.
"British consumers spend £201 billion on food a year, with the entire food chain contributing about £110 billion gross value added (GVA). Of this, agriculture accounts for less than £9 billion GVA, and fisheries £0.7 billion GVA.
"The Government has provided next to no details on agriculture and fisheries, and there has been total silence on the rest of the food chain where most employment, value adding and consumer choice are made. With the Brexit deadline in 20 months, this is a serious policy failure on an unprecedented scale. Anyone would think they want a drop into the World Trade Organisation abyss."
"
- Severe problems with the UK food system are likely unless issues are addressed, according to latest expert report
- The retail industry is predicting price rises of up to 22 per cent in imported goods, if the UK opts for a 'hard Brexit'
- Report prepared by three of the UK's leading food and agricultural policy analysts.
The report, by leading food policy specialists Professor Erik Millstone (University of Sussex), Professor Tim Lang (City, University of London) and Professor Terry Marsden (Cardiff University), concludes that leaving the European Union poses serious risks to consumer interests, public health, businesses and workers in the food sector.
Its authors claim that this is because there is no Government vision for UK food or agriculture, yet prices, quality, supply and the environment will all be adversely affected even with a 'soft' Brexit.
They warn that British consumers have not been informed about the "enormous" implications for their food, a third of which comes from within the European Union.
The 86-page report is the first major review of the ways leaving the EU will have an impact on UK food and farming.
Professor Millstone said: "In the EU, UK consumers and public health have benefited from EU-wide safety standards, without which there will be a risk of the UK having less safe and nutritious products."
Professor Lang said: "UK food security and sustainability are now at stake. A food system which has an estimated three to five days of stocks cannot just walk away from the EU, which provides us with 31 per cent of our food. Anyone who thinks that this will be simple is ill-informed."
The report examines available industry and government data, policies and literature on a wide range of issues including production, farming, employment, quality, safety standards and the environment. It highlights 16 key issues that must be addressed by the Government in its negotiations with the EU.
Among the 16 issues which the paper urges Ministers to address are needs for:
- An urgent need for a clear integrated plan for UK food - the UK government currently has no UK food policy
- Clarification on food crossing borders, particularly from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland
- New legislation to replace 4,000 pieces of EU law relating to food
- Scientific and regulatory infrastructure, replacing at least 30 EU-based bodies
- Farm viability and subsidies to replace the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
- Fishing policies that are more than rejecting the 1964 pre-EU London Convention
- Food labour - 35 per cent of food manufacturing labour is from the EU; more in parts of catering and horticulture
- Some idea of from where UK food will come - as only around 54-61 per cent is currently UK-sourced
- Tariffs - retail industry says tariffs could raise imported food prices by 22 per cent post-Brexit
- Prices, which are already rising and likely to rise more, will become more volatile, especially harming poor consumers
- Quality standards throughout supply chains, which are currently set by the EU, may well decline, and may do so abruptly.
It warns that a "Food Brexit" is of unprecedented importance and is happening at a time when the UK food system is already vulnerable, with self-sufficiency also in decline.
Professors Millstone, Lang and Marsden say their report is a wake-up call to the public and a Government that has little experience of food negotiations and has failed to warn consumers of the disruptions ahead.
The report makes detailed recommendations for each of the 16 key issues explored. They call on the public, civil society and academics to put pressure on Government and MPs to:
- Publish policy commitment to a low-impact, health-oriented UK food system
- Create a new statutory framework for UK food, which authors term "One Nation Food"
- Commit to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris climate agreement in any new food framework
- Establish a new National Commission on Food and Agriculture to provide oversight and review, and to be a source of advice trusted by the British public.
Professor Millstone said: "Since the Brexit referendum UK food and agricultural policy has been in chaos. Not only have ministers yet to develop a strategy or make decisions, they have not even grasped the issues about which urgent decisions are needed. Unless things change rapidly, and in line with our recommendations, the UK will not only have policy chaos, the food system itself will become increasingly chaotic."
Professor Lang said: "At least the UK entered World War Two with emergency plans. No-one has warned the public that a Food Brexit carries real risks of disruption to sources, prices and quality. There is solid evidence about vulnerabilities ranging from diet-related ill-health to ecosystems stress.
"Food is the biggest slice of EU-related regulations and laws, yet so far the Government has only sketchily flagged a new Agriculture Act and Fisheries Act in the Queen's Speech.
"British consumers spend £201 billion on food a year, with the entire food chain contributing about £110 billion gross value added (GVA). Of this, agriculture accounts for less than £9 billion GVA, and fisheries £0.7 billion GVA.
"The Government has provided next to no details on agriculture and fisheries, and there has been total silence on the rest of the food chain where most employment, value adding and consumer choice are made. With the Brexit deadline in 20 months, this is a serious policy failure on an unprecedented scale. Anyone would think they want a drop into the World Trade Organisation abyss."
- Status