[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Sheep-outlook-Iss-4-Oct-18.pdf
maybe this might ease Watford blokes obsession with Lamb
regards
DR

45% on Lamb, 53% on Pork, 92% on Whole Beef - never mind people on benefits near Newhaven and everywhere else, how do you think farmers will get on with those tariffs in a no deal scenario?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

45% on Lamb, 53% on Pork, 92% on Whole Beef - never mind people on benefits near Newhaven and everywhere else, how do you think farmers will get on with those tariffs in a no deal scenario?

While I accept tarrifs may not be ideal, I do question why lamb for example is so expensive in the UK. We have thousands of the little buggers running around the South Downs ( I could go and chuck one in my car right now ) yet we export most of it AND then pay inflated prices for imported lamb. It makes no sense.

 

[WATFORD zero]

While I accept tarrifs may not be ideal, I do question why lamb for example is so expensive in the UK. We have thousands of the little buggers running around the South Downs ( I could go and chuck one in my car right now ) yet we export most of it AND then pay inflated prices for imported lamb. It makes no sense.

The master of the understatement

I do think though, with 82 days left, it may be a little late to start questioning the way the whole British meat industry operates

I don't know the figures, but I do know that within the EU free market a lot of meat is often exported between countries, processed and then imported back. So with import tariffs being applied twice you can see this my be 'less than ideal' to use your parlance

(And exactly the same for any manufacturing/assembly type operations).

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The master of the understatement

I do think though, with 82 days left, it may be a little late to start questioning the way the whole British meat industry operates

I don't know the figures, but I do know that within the EU free market a lot of meat is often exported between countries, processed and then imported back. So with import tariffs being applied twice you can see this my be 'less than ideal' to use your parlance

(And exactly the same for any manufacturing/assembly type operations).

Then stop exporting (under very poor EU conditions) and keep everything here.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Then stop exporting (under very poor EU conditions) and keep everything here.

I'm guessing that most 'no deal' Brexiteers are hoping to stop all imports and exports as it is probably the best way 'no deal' would work

But seriously you can see how any business in manufacturing, assembly, food processing, clothing etc etc who imports and exports would be totally f*****.

*edit*

The trouble is, each time you try and work a 'no deal' scenario through with details and facts, this is what you come up against

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I'm guessing that most 'no deal' Brexiteers are hoping to stop all imports and exports as it is probably the best way 'no deal' would work

But seriously you can see how any business in manufacturing, assembly, food processing, clothing etc etc who imports and exports would be totally f*****

Putting aside the anti-EU stuff ..... you do have to question how environmentally friendly the export and then re-import policies are. Destroying the planet would be my summary.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Putting aside the anti-EU stuff ..... you do have to question how environmentally friendly the export and then re-import policies are. Destroying the planet would be my summary.

Totally agree. But when has business ever been interested in the environmental impact of profit ?

The one I particularly love is tankers of tomatoes, exported to Italy from China, packed into tins/cartons, exported to UK and hey presto - Italian pasata and puree. (After all, who would want to eat Chinese tomatoes ?)

However, as i edited above, each time you take a real 'no deal' scenario, in any area and use details and facts to try and work it through, it just doesn't work (save changing whole industries, changing the basis of our economy, or in your example above, stopping importing and exporting of goods not available locally).

I think we have to accept that we live in the 21st century and consequently 'no deal' is just not going to happen is it ?

 

[ManOfSussex]

While I accept tarrifs may not be ideal, I do question why lamb for example is so expensive in the UK. We have thousands of the little buggers running around the South Downs ( I could go and chuck one in my car right now ) yet we export most of it AND then pay inflated prices for imported lamb. It makes no sense.

When it comes to Lamb - It's complicated, it always is, that's just the way it goes - as Kelly Rowland once sang.

Prohibitive tariffs, no deal, lamb, all that jazz - I appreciate you don't have a silver framed photo on your mantelpiece of him, but Brexit backing Michael Gove, who you've stated on this thread has embraced his brief at DEFRA masterfully with aplomb and admire him for doing so, is the man and he understands only too well these complications that Kelly Rowland sang of. (Can you believe 'When Love Takes Over' will be 10 years old later this years?! Unreal!) He and his new super best friends at The NFU know full well that no deal basically means British farming is ******. Admittedly when you're succeeding the likes of Owen Paterson, Liz Truss and Andrea Leadsom who are complete freakoids in a office of state, you're gonna look good, sound good and really look like you know where it's at, but you're also sure as hell not going to let a no deal happen on your watch, are you? Micheal Gove is just another reason why any deal is better than no deal, hence why it's a non-runner, despite these faux going's on in Ramsgate - and I'm not talking about their 90th minute winner at Haywards Heath Town in in The Bostick South East yesterday either.

 

[Baldseagull]

It’s pathetic posts from so many which make any debate pointless and the refusal to accept facts.

People saying that this is what we voted for (TMs deal). No it’s not - I hate the deal and want it voted down. The good thing is that her deal won’t get through, so the default position is a clean Brexit. Anything else needs legislation to go through the HoC and that looks unlikely.

Remainers won’t accept that the key players in the Brexit negotiations have been May, Robbins and Hammond. All remainers. Statements such as the leavers ran away, etc. David Davis resigned due to being bypassed by May/Robbins. Borris Johnson was never involved on the discussions. Nigel Farage was never in parliament to be involved.

Accusation of leave voters being thick, racist, xenophobic, etc. The constant use of gammon as an insult.

The refusal by remainers to accept that both sides lied during the campaign, but it was only the leave side who benefitted from these lies. Remainers want to complain about the overspend by the leave side, but refuse to accept that the government spent £9m advocating leave, which far exceeds to leave total spend.

Any negative economic news is treated as the fault of Brexit. The refusal to accept that the economy has done OK since the vote in spite of the predictions otherwise. In fact Germany had growth of -0.2% in Q3 2018 - imagine if that had been the UK. New bedsheets all around I fear.

You yourself go on about WTO, but there are many people who have written articles who have stated that the disruption risk is being vastly overplayed. And yes I do accept that after 40 years on close integration there will be some sectors which could suffer more initially. But remainers refuse to accept that this will be transitory.

For example, Roger Bootle has said WTO is not to be feared.
An article (which I pasted on here a couple of days ago as it was paywalled) by a civil servant actively working on preparations for a WTO Brexit stated that preparations are well advanced but are not being made public for political reasons.
I read another article by the head of UK ports (or something like that - apologies if I don’t remember his exact position/title), who stated that ports were more than capable of handling extra goods on WTO terms.

The EU has stated that is is preparing to ensure disruption is as limited as possible. ROI/EU have stated that there won’t be a hard border in NI.

So I don’t accept your premise that I’ve been proven wrong. Nothing has been proven either way yet. That will happen post March 2019 (but you may be proven wrong then, as you have stated that we won’t leave without a deal and that’s looking more likely than it was).

And on that note - I’m back out of here before the usual insults start. Add to that, that for 2 years on this thread, not one person has changed their viewpoint that I am aware of. So what’s the effing point of constantly posting as it gets nowhere.

There has been one person that has changed their mind that I am aware of, there may be others.

Roger Bootle may not fear WTO, but he certainly would prefer an FTA with the EU, and expects trade to drop off significantly if we do not have one, and I assume he envisaged that if that is where we go, that we would do it in an organised way.
His belief is that the EU constrains growth, mostly because of issues with the Euro, and fears that we would not be able to stay out of the Euro for much longer. The other issue for him is the regulations and the cost of implementing them.
If we decide to maintain the same standards we currently have, then there is no economic argument from him for Brexit, other than a fear that we would join the Euro at some point. I don't know if he is as aware of our rights within the EU as he should be, but there is no way we can be forced to join the Euro, and that if any UK Government tried to take us into the Euro, it would require a referendum to give assent to it.
He advocates striking as many FTA's with as many countries as possible, yet Brexit immediately takes us out of a large number of FTA's, and whilst some might be easy to replicate, they cannot be seen to be a benefit of being out, just a mitigation of the loss.

The EU and ROI are committed to no hard border, this is why they have insisted on the backstop in the Withdrawal agreement, it is a fallacy to think that a border will not go up if no one wants it, without having an agreement not to create conditions that would require it.

You say the worst effects will be transitory, that may be true economically, it would be interesting to know if you mean the 50 year transition that Mogg thought might be reasonable, or something a bit swifter though. But we will permanently lose the right to live, work and retire anywhere in the EU, permanently lose the collective sovereignty and the extra power that wields, permanently lose the right to sell services within the EU and permanently lose the ability to influence the direction of the EU, which we will remain very much influenced by, due to it's size and proximity.

Ask yourself this, why would the UK government want to keep it's comprehensive and well advanced plans for handling a no deal situation on the 29th March 2019 under wraps?
If it would show that there is no problem at all in leaving without a deal, surely this would be better out in the open, where it would be useful to wave under the noses of the EU to gain some concessions, TM has said fairly often that no deal is better than a bad deal, if she had some evidential support for this, I would think she would want it out there, especially as she is trying to get some concessions from the EU over the Backstop.
If it would show that it will cost us massively, that we may have to impose rationing, or other uncomfortable measures, it is probably best off kept in the dark somewhat.
On the other hand, the plan might just be to revoke A50, which I guess would play into the hands of remainers, and remove any reluctant remain MP's support for her deal.
I suppose that in the minds of some people that voted Leave, it is possible that revealing the plan would show that No Deal is no big deal, and then the Leave loving MP's would reject her remainers version of Brexit deal. But that really is the only place it is possible, in the mind.

You may find some other reason for keeping it hidden, but if extensive plans exist, I strongly suspect they involve quite a lot of expense and quite a few special measures involving deployment of armed forces.

 

[Baldseagull]

Then stop exporting (under very poor EU conditions) and keep everything here.

Sounds a bit like North Korean policy to me.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Sounds a bit like North Korean policy to me.

Hardly. So explain why we export so much lamb yet import so much lamb ..... it's nothing short of stupid.

 

[Stat Brother]

T'is a shame nobody will be prepared to read this whole thread:-

[tweet]1081836120617439233[/tweet]

 

[Rodney Thomas]

Hardly. So explain why we export so much lamb yet import so much lamb ..... it's nothing short of stupid.

Presumably because we can make money that way?

 

[Two Professors]

When it comes to Lamb - It's complicated, it always is, that's just the way it goes - as Kelly Rowland once sang.

Prohibitive tariffs, no deal, lamb, all that jazz - I appreciate you don't have a silver framed photo on your mantelpiece of him, but Brexit backing Michael Gove, who you've stated on this thread has embraced his brief at DEFRA masterfully with aplomb and admire him for doing so, is the man and he understands only too well these complications that Kelly Rowland sang of. (Can you believe 'When Love Takes Over' will be 10 years old later this years?! Unreal!) He and his new super best friends at The NFU know full well that no deal basically means British farming is ******. Admittedly when you're succeeding the likes of Owen Paterson, Liz Truss and Andrea Leadsom who are complete freakoids in a office of state, you're gonna look good, sound good and really look like you know where it's at, but you're also sure as hell not going to let a no deal happen on your watch, are you? Micheal Gove is just another reason why any deal is better than no deal, hence why it's a non-runner, despite these faux going's on in Ramsgate - and I'm not talking about their 90th minute winner at Haywards Heath Town in in The Bostick South East yesterday either.

Always preferred 'Love is Gone',the freaky Transformers car ad put Guetta on my playlist,but 'Love takes Over' is a close second.

 

[Two Professors]

Sounds a bit like North Korean policy to me.

The EU seem to have a real fetish about re-exporting stuff time and time again.Without all those trucks from Eire,and keeping our own beef for Maccy D,our carbon footprint should be massively reduced.Even more so if the EU ban our flights when we Leave with No Deal!Happy Days are nearly here again.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Always preferred 'Love is Gone',the freaky Transformers car ad put Guetta on my playlist,but 'Love takes Over' is a close second.

That 'aint bad, but nothing beats this for me by David Guetta. The featured artist is what wins it - Kelly Rowland is the thinking man's Beyonce.

 

[Springal]

Shock horror links now found between Seabourne owner and Theresa May husband & Andy Wigmore

http://twitter.com/jdpoc/status/1081951955470204929

 

[WATFORD zero]

Shock horror links now found between Seabourne owner and Theresa May husband & Andy Wigmore

http://twitter.com/jdpoc/status/1081951955470204929

Unlikely

Pay a patsy to claim something is happening that isn't - standard political practice

Pay a mate to pretend something is happening that isn't - naive

And front bench politicians don't tend to be naive.

But we'll see

 

[portslade seagull]

Don't fancy addressing any of the facts then?

I thought not

What facts, do you mean scare stories as a means to an end from the remain side. If anything its hardening peoples view from both sides to just get out

 

[Dave the OAP]

45% on Lamb, 53% on Pork, 92% on Whole Beef - never mind people on benefits near Newhaven and everywhere else, how do you think farmers will get on with those tariffs in a no deal scenario?

Could be great for the vegan vote