Current Affairs The benefits of Brexit Page

[Bruce Wayne]

Shouldn't be in business if they need the government to provide 2/3 of there income.
No other private sector business would get away with that.

Quite probably, but it will translate into either dearer food or farms going bust as food is imported. Not sure either is ideal.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Expect to see and hear ‘I’ve always said we should go for an Australian type deal, I defo voted for it’ from a Brexiter near you...

Australia don’t have a trade deal with the EU like.......classic Dom.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Quite probably, but it will translate into either dearer food or farms going bust as food is imported. Not sure either is ideal.

Smaller poorer farms also. The current subsidies aren’t ideal but they do keep many in business, which then assists many other parts of rural communities. The Eu subsidies also encouraged farmers to create conditions and environments suitable for wildlife. In addition, it helps avoid larger farmers buying up smaller landholders and creating vast
It’s a common misconception that all farmers are rich landowners. Rural poverty is a serious and underreported problem.

 

[summerisle]

Now we're out of the EU, the government will be able to cut the subsidies to farmers that currently makes up 2/3 of their income.

British farmers fret about losing their protection and their subsidies

Many could soon have reason to regret voting for Brexit | Britain

www.economist.com

Surely not :



One even might even say that the chickens are coming home to roost.

Exclusive: Survey reveals 58% of farmers back EU exit - Farmers Weekly

An overwhelming majority of farmers are in favour of the UK leaving the European Union – and intend to vote that way on 23 June – according to new

www.fwi.co.uk

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Smaller poorer farms also. The current subsidies aren’t ideal but they do keep many in business, which then assists many other parts of rural communities. The Eu subsidies also encouraged farmers to create conditions and environments suitable for wildlife. In addition, it helps avoid larger farmers buying up smaller landholders and creating vast
It’s a common misconception that all farmers are rich landowners. Rural poverty is a serious and underreported problem.

Poor mental health and depression and sadly suicide in farming is very high, certainly above the average than other sectors.

Homepage

GLOBALG.A.P launches IFA v6, GRASP v2, and smart farm assurance solutionsMay 4, 2022Meghan Taylor Site expansion completed for Fendt production plantMay 4, 2022Matthew Tilt Cereal Crop Plots – An interview

www.farmbusiness.co.uk

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Surely not :



One even might even say that the chickens are coming home to roost.

Exclusive: Survey reveals 58% of farmers back EU exit - Farmers Weekly

An overwhelming majority of farmers are in favour of the UK leaving the European Union – and intend to vote that way on 23 June – according to new

www.fwi.co.uk

That 58% would be made up largely of rich bigots. Xenophobia and racism are rife

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Poor mental health and depression and sadly suicide in farming is very high, certainly above the average than other sectors.

Homepage

GLOBALG.A.P launches IFA v6, GRASP v2, and smart farm assurance solutionsMay 4, 2022Meghan Taylor Site expansion completed for Fendt production plantMay 4, 2022Matthew Tilt Cereal Crop Plots – An interview

www.farmbusiness.co.uk

Yeah very true. I’ve seen it happen. Can be a lonely and stressful world. Throw in an access to shotguns and archaic ideas about masculinity and you can have a fairly toxic combo

 

[Barnfred 55]

"We no longer pay in to Brussels, we're saving that money for our NHS! Take back control!"

Business Insider - Latest News in Tech, Markets, Economy & Innovation

Business Insider tells the global tech, finance, stock market, media, economy, lifestyle, real estate, AI and innovative stories you want to know.

www.businessinsider.nl

... oh.

Oh well, at least we have blue passports.

This Bloomberg report has been linked in these pages before mate. Here is the response I did last time it was linked.

I wanted to find out if you fully understood the figures and what they represent, because I remember the article you are referring to. It is very misleading, not to mention extremely ambitious as regards what it believes we have missed out on in economic growth over the last 3 years due to uncertainty over Brexit.

The majority of people reading that article, and also reading your post, would assume that what the Government has lost in income from economic growth over the last 3 years is roughly the equivalent of what we have paid into the EU since we joined. Yes? Well actually No. What the article is saying is that the UK has lost out on economic growth of £130bn over the last 3 years. Even if these figures were remotely accurate, the UK governments annual income is roughly about 35% of GDP, so it's income from this "missing" economic growth would only be in the region of £45bn. Compare this to our total "net" contributions to the EU over the last 47 years of around £177bn. By my reckoning that's just over 25%.

Then you ask the question where do they get these figures for loss of growth from and how do they justify them. Just looking at the economic growth rates for 2018 and 2019, the UK grew by 1.3% and 1.4% respectively. During the same time period Germany grew by 1.3% and 0.6%, the USA 2.9% and 2.1%, and France 1.7% and 1.1%. Now if we assume we are missing out on around £45bn growth (£130bn divided by 3) per annum, that would actually increase our annual growth three fold. So our growth would actually be around 4%. It goes on to say that we will lose an estimated £70bn growth this year too which would have our growth rates pushing 6%. How can they justify these sort of figures when our peers are performing much the same as us, if not worse.

There is no doubt that our economy has been held back to a degree due to the uncertainty over Brexit, but the figures being quoted here are much more pie in the sky than the future trade deals you mention, most of which we haven't even begun to negotiate yet.

This is exactly what I refer to when I talk about scaremongering and "project fear".

Even Bruce admitted that this report is flawed. Firstly, it states that we are falling behind our G7 peers since the Brexit vote. Well over the 3 years to 2019 we have grown more than Italy, Japan and Germany, kept pace with France, with only the USA and Canada outgrowing us. In 2019 only the USA had better figures.

Secondly, when you work out what our growth figures would need to be to make their figures accurate, we would have to have grown by more than triple that of our EU peers, and almost double the USA and Canada. How do they justify that level of growth?.

I'm not contesting that we have lost out in economic growth due to the uncertainty of what was happening with Brexit, but nowhere near the levels that report suggests.

It's just another example of articles linked in these threads with no DD given to the contents. If it's ante Brexit it must be true.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Shouldn't be in business if they need the government to provide 2/3 of there income.
No other private sector business would get away with that.

It's another flawed and misleading report that doesn't tell the whole picture mate. I'll give it some scrutiny when I get a chance.

People just throw any old report in here so long as it portrays Brexit in a bad light.

 

[davek]

Now we're out of the EU, the government will be able to cut the subsidies to farmers that currently makes up 2/3 of their income.

British farmers fret about losing their protection and their subsidies

Many could soon have reason to regret voting for Brexit | Britain

www.economist.com

They voted Brexit and Tory.

Laughing me bollox off at them.

 

[Tubey]

This Bloomberg report has been linked in these pages before mate. Here is the response I did last time it was linked.


Even Bruce admitted that this report is flawed. Firstly, it states that we are falling behind our G7 peers since the Brexit vote. Well over the 3 years to 2019 we have grown more than Italy, Japan and Germany, kept pace with France, with only the USA and Canada outgrowing us. In 2019 only the USA had better figures.

Secondly, when you work out what our growth figures would need to be to make their figures accurate, we would have to have grown by more than triple that of our EU peers, and almost double the USA and Canada. How do they justify that level of growth?.

I'm not contesting that we have lost out in economic growth due to the uncertainty of what was happening with Brexit, but nowhere near the levels that report suggests.

It's just another example of articles linked in these threads with no DD given to the contents. If it's ante Brexit it must be true.

It bases it on historical average growth rate with G7 economies.

Sure, it's flawed, but it's one valid way of comparing one with the other, given we don't have parallel timelines to compare 100% accurately.

Look at it this way - there's no way such a study could say Brexit has benefited us, as there are absolutely no figures that could support any such hypothesis. There's a reason for that.

I don't think it's true what that report says, nothing could be 100% true as it is merely a forecast; but I don't think the general gist of it is false either.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

It's another flawed and misleading report that doesn't tell the whole picture mate. I'll give it some scrutiny when I get a chance.

People just throw any old report in here so long as it portrays Brexit in a bad light.

42% of farms would have made a loss between 2014-2017 without the EU CAP subsidy

Source - The National Audit Office.

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/early-review-of-the-new-farming-programme/

But anti Brexit bias or something.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That 58% would be made up largely of rich bigots. Xenophobia and racism are rife

County bumkins.

 

[Barnfred 55]

It bases it on historical average growth rate with G7 economies.

Sure, it's flawed, but it's one valid way of comparing one with the other, given we don't have parallel timelines to compare 100% accurately.

Look at it this way - there's no way such a study could say Brexit has benefited us, as there are absolutely no figures that could support any such hypothesis. There's a reason for that.

I don't think it's true what that report says, nothing could be 100% true as it is merely a forecast; but I don't think the general gist of it is false either.

As I said, I'm not disputing that we have lost out on some economic growth. We must have done as so many business's have said they have held back on investment due to the uncertainty.

But let's be honest, £130bn over the last 3 years and £200bn by the end of this year is pretty headline making. But to do so we would have had to out perform every other G7 country by a considerable amount, and consistently over the 4 years. When was the last time we did that? Not in my memory certainly and I'm no spring chicken. So what makes them so sure? The simple truth is it is a gross over exaggeration; I'm going to stop short of calling it an outright lie, but I'm pretty sure you would have done if it were false information being supplied by the Brexit side.

The problem for me is people will read this and believe it is true. I'm assuming that you yourself did as I'm sure you wouldn't post something in here that you knew to be incorrect.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

We’ll add up the errrrmmm benefits afterwards.