Current Affairs The benefits of Brexit Page

[Disgruntledgoat]

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.

There is something of an inelastic demand for food, however.

 

[Barnfred 55]

True this.

Economically, they're not important, but being able to supply a large part of your own food makes political and ( quite often ) ecological sense. To be fair to him, though, on the face of it, his email seems barmy, he's probably been encouraged to "think outside the box".

There's plainly room for a programme which is a cross of Yes Minister and The Office with Leunig starring as himself.

The guy shouldn't be anywhere near our government is my argument. Dominic Cummings has far too much clout in shaping the manner in which we carry out government policy. Normally the people in here would be decrying anything Cummngs has his fingers in, but because what this Leunig guy is saying can be construed as anti Brexit, we should suddenly all be taking note. Bit of hypocrisy going on here I think.

It's far too simplistic to say that in fiscal terms our agricultural and fishing industries are irrelevant. Our farmers and fisherman are at the very bottom of the food chain (no pun intended) in fiscal terms. By the time their product reaches our plates the cost is probably 4 or 5 times the value, and considerably more if purchased in our restaurants.

But when have we ever let purely fiscal terms dictate government policy in such important matters? Never is the answer and neither should we. There are approximately 500,000 people working directly in farming and fishing in the UK not to mention the millions more in linked industries. Having our own sustainable food supply is also massive politically, just ask the French if you have any doubts on this.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

In fairness it's a bit of a nothing article with absolutely zero substance to it. It's irrelevant to what is happening at the moment and hopefully none of our farmers or fishermen will lose any sleep over it, and see it for what it is. The ravings of a total weirdo boffin.

Firstly let's look at the contents. How on earth can you compare an island state like Singapore with the UK?. It is a fraction of the size, less than 10% of the population, zero farmland and little fishing grounds. There is no reason whatsoever to assume what works for Singapore can work for the UK too.

Moreover, Britain has the best fishing grounds in Europe and some of the best worldwide. We also have some of the best farmland and weather for farming. UK produce is amongst the finest in the world. Why on earth would you even think of giving that up. It's like having gold and diamond reserves and not using them.

In addition, the government has completely removed themselves from the leaked emails saying that they were his personal opinions and not in line with any government policy.

Secondly let's look at the credentials of this certain Mr Leunig, not somebody completely alien to crackpot views sadly. There was the one about ignoring the North of England completely and investing all of our time and infrastructure on expanding the South East, because that was where people wanted to live. Seriously. And the other one about converting one carriage on all of our trains to standing only, and just charge a £1 fare, so that people like him could get seats in the normal carriages. FFS why not make people just sit on top of the trains like they do in India.

This guy is just a crank and I've no idea why he is being given such a high profile job advising the government. He is only on secondment from the LSE so he is probably one of Cummings's weirdo's. He certainly fits the bill.

The issue here Bruce, is that I imagine you would normally not give this guy the time of day, but because this particular issue fits with your agenda of discrediting everything Brexit, you decided to post it anyway, notwithstanding the fact that it has zero substance to it.

I'd not give it the time of day if he wasn't advising the government. But he is.

 

[Catfish Blues]

The guy shouldn't be anywhere near our government is my argument.

Oh, I agree on that, but, putting the politics to one side, there's not much wrong with the logic of what he said on the value of the industry to the economy.

Taking that forward by considering binning off our own food production and importing everything is pretty barmy, but it's an email he's sent, the context of which we don't know, so I'm struggling to get overly worked up about it.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I'd not give it the time of day if he wasn't advising the government. But he is.

OK

Firstly, the article states that the emails that have been seen were personal e-mails. Not official e-mails addressed to somebody in the Treasury. It went on to say that he was NOT acting in his role as advisor to the treasury.

Secondly, a government spokesperson subsequently distanced themselves from the leaked e-mails and stated that they do not follow official government policy.

Despite the above, and the fact that the article author had never seen the actual leaked emails, just a second hand report on them from a rival newspaper, The Guardian decided to run a story that the government are going to desert the farming and fishing communities at the upcoming trade negotiations with the US and EU. And you picked up on the fact that more farmers and fisherman voted leave than remain, and are now using the article as a stick to beat them with.

I stand by what I said earlier, people in here would normally be totally against this guy because he is one of Cummings's cranks, and rightly so. That they aren't is purely because his comments have been construed to be ante Brexit by this article.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

OK

Firstly, the article states that the emails that have been seen were personal e-mails. Not official e-mails addressed to somebody in the Treasury. It went on to say that he was NOT acting in his role as advisor to the treasury.

Secondly, a government spokesperson subsequently distanced themselves from the leaked e-mails and stated that they do not follow official government policy.

Despite the above, and the fact that the article author had never seen the actual leaked emails, just a second hand report on them from a rival newspaper, The Guardian decided to run a story that the government are going to desert the farming and fishing communities at the upcoming trade negotiations with the US and EU. And you picked up on the fact that more farmers and fisherman voted leave than remain, and are now using the article as a stick to beat them with.

I stand by what I said earlier, people in here would normally be totally against this guy because he is one of Cummings's cranks, and rightly so. That they aren't is purely because his comments have been construed to be ante Brexit by this article.

Tell me, do you really believe Truss' comments this morning that the government would gladly walk away from a trade deal with the EU and/or US? Given the fuss they made about Brexit making things better, that seems highly unlikely to me. They could walk away from one, but not both, and if they do walk away from one then it gives the other added importance, which will mean more giveaways to the bigger trading partner.

Of course the government are not going to say they're going to betray those who voted for them, do you really expect them to? Equally, do you really trust Johnson to be a man of his word? Someone is going to get thrown under the bus. It's just a case of who it is.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Oh, I agree on that, but, putting the politics to one side, there's not much wrong with the logic of what he said on the value of the industry to the economy.

Taking that forward by considering binning off our own food production and importing everything is pretty barmy, but it's an email he's sent, the context of which we don't know, so I'm struggling to get overly worked up about it.

Not getting worked up about it mate. The guys views are a total joke, and so is the Guardian article for trying to make an ante Brexit theme out of them. I'd laugh them off normally.

But I get annoyed when people use articles like this, with no substance to them, as a stick to beat Brexit with. They don't even need to, there's enough genuine material out there

 

[Tea_drinker]

May as well send any run of the mill brexit voter over to do the negotiations cos they all knew what they were voting for and therefore things should be wrapped up very quickly.

 

[roydo]

Not getting worked up about it mate. The guys views are a total joke, and so is the Guardian article for trying to make an ante Brexit theme out of them. I'd laugh them off normally.

But I get annoyed when people use articles like this, with no substance to them, as a stick to beat Brexit with. They don't even need to, there's enough genuine material out there

I agree there mate. I said the same when every single bad news story since the vote was pinned on Brexit. The reality will start to unveil itself in the coming months, now all parties have to sit down and sort out trade deals.

I still think it was a folly to believe the tripe that persuaded enough folk to vote Leave, but I hope that the promises made will be more than the flannel served up 3 years ago. But I doubt it. Sadly.

 

[JammyP]

Nowhere.... I'M off this thread now its like the institutionalist of the EU still dominate the thread.....

It must be easy enough to set out, say, your 5 best benefits of Brexit? It's going to happen now. It would be good to know the tangible gains. Or is it more about a feeling, about "taking control" for example?

 

[Groucho]

I voted remain, and I would again.

Regardless of this though, why on Earth does anyone care what colour passport you have?

Has anyone thought of a positive anyway?

I see we’re taking no notice of the European pandemic advice.

Brexit means infexit.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Tell me, do you really believe Truss' comments this morning that the government would gladly walk away from a trade deal with the EU and/or US? Given the fuss they made about Brexit making things better, that seems highly unlikely to me. They could walk away from one, but not both, and if they do walk away from one then it gives the other added importance, which will mean more giveaways to the bigger trading partner.

Of course the government are not going to say they're going to betray those who voted for them, do you really expect them to? Equally, do you really trust Johnson to be a man of his word? Someone is going to get thrown under the bus. It's just a case of who it is.

I honestly don't know what to believe mate. I'm hoping that there is just a lot of penis jousting going on at the moment, and that people will see sense when it get's down to the actual negotiations. Both with the EU and the US.

What I don't understand is why people think we have to have totally comprehensive free trade deals. As regards the EU, there are some key industries (like motor and aerospace) where it should be so simple just to say yes let's do it. Even if we can't agree on things like food and agriculture, we can still sign off on others.

There's scope within UK waters fishing rights for some negotiations. At the moment, 70% of the fish from our waters is fished by European boats, but that's mainly down to the larger allocations taken by our Scottish and North Sea fleets. Down in Cornwall and the South Coast the quotas are closer to 10%, so low that on successful trips many fish are often thrown back (already dead) because the quotas for that fish for that specific boat has been exceeded. That's madness.

There is scope to negotiate as I said, but that would mean both sides conceding on their positions. I would say perhaps with a 50/50 split, a deal can be done. I'm sure UK fisherman would go along with this because a lot of what we sell goes to Europe, and they won't want tariffs in place. But I saw a news piece this morning saying Danish fisherman are not prepared to give up any of their quotas, and I'm frightened to think what the French fishermen are saying. The EU are also saying at the moment that no deal on fishing rights means no trade deal full stop. So who knows how much of this is just posturing.

What we do know is that unless we come to some agreement on European boats fishing our waters, then it would be absolutely devastating for those fleets based on the northern coasts of Western Europe. So once again you have to hope that common sense will come into play.

Similarly with the US, there are many industries whereby it makes sense to just cut tariffs as both countries would benefit, aerospace, car manufacture, pharmaceuticals, refined oil etc. We buy lots of airplanes from the US and sell them lots of cars and high spec engineering products for example. Stuff where there are mutual benefits should just be rubber stamped.

Then we come to negotiations on other goods and that's where both sides need to make concessions. Whilst I want our own industries, especially farming, to be protected as much as possible, I don't believe there should be just a blanket ban on the likes of farm produce. I don't buy the headline making chloride washed chickens for example. I'm sure there are a lot of posters on here, like me, who have been to the US on a number of occasions and eaten and enjoyed some of the chicken, ribs and steaks available there. I've no objection to the import of high quality foodstuffs, either from the US or elsewhere. What we need to ensure is that we don't allow cheap inferior products to saturate our markets, putting at risk our own farm produce that have been produced to the highest standards. So we need to have restrictions in place surrounding the production process including animal welfare issues. The government have said this will be the case, but haven't yet committed to that in their new agricultural bill.

Trade deals don't have to be set in stone. They could, and arguably should be moveable feasts that you can add to or change at any time in the future once certain conditions or standards have been met. Just because we can't agree on dairy products immediately, for instance, shouldn't prevent you agreeing free tariffs on the motor industry, which would save money and protect jobs on both sides of the channel.

The other issue I have is can I trust the government to get the job done properly?. I look at the blueprint for the proposed immigration bill an it doesn't fill me with confidence. Some of it is OK, such as finally they are doing away with immigration targets. But there are also some glaring holes, mainly to do with the low skilled manual jobs. I'd rather there was no minimum salary, or at the very least have this reduced to maybe £15k outside of London and the South East. Also there needs to be some sort of provision for short term visas for seasonal jobs. I'm on board with the argument that, as a Nation, we are effectively exploiting low paid immigrants, but the notion that this could be resolved before the end of this year is quite simply ridiculous.

So, do I believe trade deals CAN be agreed without throwing anybody to the wolves? Absolutely yes. Do I believe they WILL be?. I'm not sure, because it needs common sense to be applied by all parties and I'm not totally convinced everybody is capable of that. Being an optimistic chappie I'd probably put odds of 60/40 in favour for a EU agreement and maybe 70/30 in favour for a US agreement.

Sorry for the long winded answer Bruce but I know people in here like to see reasoning.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I honestly don't know what to believe mate. I'm hoping that there is just a lot of penis jousting going on at the moment, and that people will see sense when it get's down to the actual negotiations. Both with the EU and the US.

What I don't understand is why people think we have to have totally comprehensive free trade deals. As regards the EU, there are some key industries (like motor and aerospace) where it should be so simple just to say yes let's do it. Even if we can't agree on things like food and agriculture, we can still sign off on others.

There's scope within UK waters fishing rights for some negotiations. At the moment, 70% of the fish from our waters is fished by European boats, but that's mainly down to the larger allocations taken by our Scottish and North Sea fleets. Down in Cornwall and the South Coast the quotas are closer to 10%, so low that on successful trips many fish are often thrown back (already dead) because the quotas for that fish for that specific boat has been exceeded. That's madness.

There is scope to negotiate as I said, but that would mean both sides conceding on their positions. I would say perhaps with a 50/50 split, a deal can be done. I'm sure UK fisherman would go along with this because a lot of what we sell goes to Europe, and they won't want tariffs in place. But I saw a news piece this morning saying Danish fisherman are not prepared to give up any of their quotas, and I'm frightened to think what the French fishermen are saying. The EU are also saying at the moment that no deal on fishing rights means no trade deal full stop. So who knows how much of this is just posturing.

What we do know is that unless we come to some agreement on European boats fishing our waters, then it would be absolutely devastating for those fleets based on the northern coasts of Western Europe. So once again you have to hope that common sense will come into play.

Similarly with the US, there are many industries whereby it makes sense to just cut tariffs as both countries would benefit, aerospace, car manufacture, pharmaceuticals, refined oil etc. We buy lots of airplanes from the US and sell them lots of cars and high spec engineering products for example. Stuff where there are mutual benefits should just be rubber stamped.

Then we come to negotiations on other goods and that's where both sides need to make concessions. Whilst I want our own industries, especially farming, to be protected as much as possible, I don't believe there should be just a blanket ban on the likes of farm produce. I don't buy the headline making chloride washed chickens for example. I'm sure there are a lot of posters on here, like me, who have been to the US on a number of occasions and eaten and enjoyed some of the chicken, ribs and steaks available there. I've no objection to the import of high quality foodstuffs, either from the US or elsewhere. What we need to ensure is that we don't allow cheap inferior products to saturate our markets, putting at risk our own farm produce that have been produced to the highest standards. So we need to have restrictions in place surrounding the production process including animal welfare issues. The government have said this will be the case, but haven't yet committed to that in their new agricultural bill.

Trade deals don't have to be set in stone. They could, and arguably should be moveable feasts that you can add to or change at any time in the future once certain conditions or standards have been met. Just because we can't agree on dairy products immediately, for instance, shouldn't prevent you agreeing free tariffs on the motor industry, which would save money and protect jobs on both sides of the channel.

The other issue I have is can I trust the government to get the job done properly?. I look at the blueprint for the proposed immigration bill an it doesn't fill me with confidence. Some of it is OK, such as finally they are doing away with immigration targets. But there are also some glaring holes, mainly to do with the low skilled manual jobs. I'd rather there was no minimum salary, or at the very least have this reduced to maybe £15k outside of London and the South East. Also there needs to be some sort of provision for short term visas for seasonal jobs. I'm on board with the argument that, as a Nation, we are effectively exploiting low paid immigrants, but the notion that this could be resolved before the end of this year is quite simply ridiculous.

So, do I believe trade deals CAN be agreed without throwing anybody to the wolves? Absolutely yes. Do I believe they WILL be?. I'm not sure, because it needs common sense to be applied by all parties and I'm not totally convinced everybody is capable of that. Being an optimistic chappie I'd probably put odds of 60/40 in favour for a EU agreement and maybe 70/30 in favour for a US agreement.

Sorry for the long winded answer Bruce but I know people in here like to see reasoning.

I just posted this in the EU thread, but it's fairly standard in democracies around the world for activity to fall significantly in election periods, and what activity remains to be highly partisan and geared towards securing re-election (rather than what is sensible). The United States is in that period as we're hoping to secure a trade deal with them, so there isn't a hope in hell that Trump will be doing anything that isn't geared towards him being re-elected. Not a chance. Similarly, Germany has its presidential elections next year, so you can be sure they will be making their feelings known in any trade negotiation with the EU.

We've seen this in action here, as the Tories were doing all sorts of silly things purely to get elected, as that's all they exist to do.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I just posted this in the EU thread, but it's fairly standard in democracies around the world for activity to fall significantly in election periods, and what activity remains to be highly partisan and geared towards securing re-election (rather than what is sensible). The United States is in that period as we're hoping to secure a trade deal with them, so there isn't a hope in hell that Trump will be doing anything that isn't geared towards him being re-elected. Not a chance. Similarly, Germany has its presidential elections next year, so you can be sure they will be making their feelings known in any trade negotiation with the EU.

We've seen this in action here, as the Tories were doing all sorts of silly things purely to get elected, as that's all they exist to do.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with your point Bruce, but I'm guessing that you see trade negotiations as a negative thing that both Germany and Trump would want to put on the back burner.

I'm not sure I agree with you in that. The UK is Germany's biggest trading partner, certainly as regards exports, and I think that most German people will be keen to see a trade deal agreed with the UK as soon as possible. As regards Trump, it's fair to say that people in the US either love him or hate him. If Trump tells the US people that he's agreed a terrific new trade deal with the UK, then those that are going to vote for him anyway will believe him.

 

[sbbefc]

The UK seems to be snookered on pretty much everything. If we ever "get our waters back" the continental Europeans will stop buying our fish.