UK Politics - a new thread for the new board

[Chaircat Meow]

Jeremy Corbyn is a much bigger one.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Maltaran said:

I doubt it - he's said he won't share a platform with Farage or Galloway and he won't debate against other Tories.

To be fair, to get three egos that size on the same stage would take some sort of lifting equipment and a number of sturdy trusses.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The UK has been dependent on food imports for ages, going back into the nineteenth-century. View was/is the UK produced other stuff and just bought the food elsewhere. I tend to subscribe to the view that British liberalism's infatuation with free trade was quite a bad thing (and responsible for some of our industrial decline, wrt Germany, and the USA) but I don't really see what this has to do with Brexit.   

Thanks for the low down on Boris - I can't be bothered following Tory internal shenanigans much myself.  

The fact that Brexit could lead to the collapse of what's left of the British agricultural sector is not a relevant issue?

Farmers, food suppliers, wholesalers, retailers and customers might disagree with you.

[Chaircat Meow]

You are completely off the planet with all this stuff. UK agriculture is not going to collapse because of Brexit.

[ab aeterno]

It'll be interesting to see which way the NFU falls. That could cause complications for one set of Tory MPs or the other.  

[Chaircat Meow]

http://ca1-fml.edcdn.com/downloads/WCF-Brexit-18.01.16-pdf.pdf?mtime=20160207094708

Report on the impact of Br on our agriculture, if people are interested.

[SeanF]

You are completely off the planet with all this stuff. UK agriculture is not going to collapse because of Brexit.

These days, no one makes a good living from farming unless they own or rent a lot of land. Agricultural subsidies benefit people who are very well off, in the main. I don't think it's unreasonable that people who are in that bracket should be expected to compete in the open market, without the subsidies that are currently paid.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

You are completely off the planet with all this stuff. UK agriculture is not going to collapse because of Brexit.

Incorrect.

Well, to the point that 90% of farms would be in danger of going bust without the EU subsidies, but that is assuming the UK government would not introduce something to replace them. Of course, the UK government has made zero cast iron assurances that they would do anything to replace them. Both the report you link (which concludes that a severe period of instability and the risk of collapse would follow Brexit) makes an assumption that they would, to the tune of maybe 25% of current levels at best, but this would not be sustained over the long term. An enforced market shift would therefore have to take place to make the situation tenable, but the report is vague on how that should be achieved.

The Economist has an interesting assessment of the financial situation. They point out that the EU charges what are effectively membership fees to access the single market. This leaves a nation like Norway paying 90% of what Britain does in order to access the market, and there are signs that Britain would have to pay a similar amount to access the market after we leave. So the net financial gain of us leaving the EU could be a mere 10% of what we pay right now. In return for which we lose and all of our ability to debate, set and influence policy. The Economist also makes an excellent point about how discussions of the EU budget which dominated the Brexit argument a few years ago are now nowhere to be seen, because Britain actually forced the EU to back down and carry out a reduction of the EU budget over the next few years.

Quote

These days, no one makes a good living from farming unless they own or rent a lot of land. Agricultural subsidies benefit people who are very well off, in the main. I don't think it's unreasonable that people who are in that bracket should be expected to compete in the open market, without the subsidies that are currently paid.

Is your assertion that all or most British farmers are all very well off and don't require additional funds to survive? Because I know a few who would quite happily argue the point with you.

The state of our farming industry is pretty straightforward. The supermarkets and wholesalers fix the prices, locking the farmers out. If the farmers try to band together to fix the prices at a level they can sustain (i.e. not taking a loss on milk) then immediately they are accused of price-fixing and held hostage by the big supermarkets who can then go abroad instead (to the heavily subsidised farms in mainland Europe).

I agree that agriculture should play fairly on a level playing field without any need for subsidies of any kind, but that field is certainly not fair due to the power exerted by retailers to keep prices at below a sustainable level. Even if we stay in Europe that situation is unsustainable and needs to be fixed (pretty much right across the continent, not just for us). But Brexit will not help the situation very much.

Quote

 

The UK has been dependent on food imports for ages, going back into the nineteenth-century

 

True. We haven't been self-sustaining in all food since before 1850, dropping to an all-time low (30%) in the 1930s. However, as of 2008 (thanks to a DEFRA report) we were self-sustaining to the tune of 60% from all foods and 74% of foods that can be produced in this country (i.e. 14% is stuff we can't grow or make here in the first place). Some of that is actually down to EU regulations: Germany can produce twice as much milk as we can despite only having a moderately larger population. So in the wake of Brexit, the farms left standing would be able to increase output considerably. However, whilst a reasonable argument in favour of Brexit, it's also the case that a lot of these restrictions ease off after 2015 anyway, which reduces that issue considerably.

[Chaircat Meow]

I think I'll take the considered judgment of a Professor of agricultural development over an article in the Guardian.

The report also makes the point that a withdrawal of the subsidies (assuming the UK did do this) will not necessarily reduce farming incomes over the long term as rents are also liable to fall in such a circumstance.  

On the % of food we import, which is how I began this, I don't see why you are so bothered about this. We weathered the American Civil War and two World Wars with massive dependency on foreign food. Do you think we'd have done better if more of the population had worked in agriculture in those period (?)s, because it is not clear to me that we would.

[williamjm]

8 hours ago, Maltaran said:

I doubt it - he's said he won't share a platform with Farage or Galloway and he won't debate against other Tories. IMO this move is mostly positioning himself for the leadership contest after Cameron resigns.

If there are debates (I don't know if any are planned) I wonder who would be chosen to debate against Cameron if Boris isn't going to do it? I'm sure Farage would volunteer but I imagine most of the Tories would prefer one of their own.

[Squab]

9 minutes ago, williamjm said:

If there are debates (I don't know if any are planned) I wonder who would be chosen to debate against Cameron if Boris isn't going to do it? I'm sure Farage would volunteer but I imagine most of the Tories would prefer one of their own.

Daniel Hannan

[Maltaran]

3 minutes ago, Squab said:

Daniel Hannan

Except nobody knows who he is - it'd likely be Gove or IDS.

[Chaircat Meow]

Using IDS would be a disaster for Leave.

[SeanF]

I doubt it - he's said he won't share a platform with Farage or Galloway and he won't debate against other Tories. IMO this move is mostly positioning himself for the leadership contest after Cameron resigns.

If there are debates (I don't know if any are planned) I wonder who would be chosen to debate against Cameron if Boris isn't going to do it? I'm sure Farage would volunteer but I imagine most of the Tories would prefer one of their own.

Gove or Hannan, probably, but I doubt if Cameron would agree to a debate.

[The BlackBear]

I'm pretty much convinced that Gove is the Tories go to guy for being disliked (with the possible exception of Jeremy Hunt.) They needed a senior cabinet member to go Leave, so as to not split the party too much, but not one that is a threat to Cameron. In steps Michael Gove, a man who resembles a deep water fish, with the charisma to match.

[The Marquis de Leech]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

Yes, this is the fault of successive Tory and Labour governments going back generations for not doing more to promote and protect British agriculture. It's something that should have been fixed years ago and no-one could be bothered to do it. Exactly why people who want independence from Europe have actively made us more dependent on food imports and and why now they want to make us completely dependent on food imports is yet something else Brexiters have failed to address, at all. Curious, as it seems to be diametrically opposed to their stated viewpoint of greater independence for the UK.

Put it this way. Up until 1973, we were Britain's farm. Then you went and joined the EEC (screwing us completely, and conveniently coinciding with the oil shocks). Then in the mid-1980s, we got rid of farm subsidies altogether. And, yet, despite all that, we are still a major agricultural producer.

If we can learn to go our own way, so can Britain's farmers. All three of them. 

(I'm also puzzled as to why you think Brexit is about a desire for economic autarky. It isn't. It's much more about distaste for what the European Project has become).   

[The Anti-Targ]

A quick and dirty scan of the global trade atlas tells me the UK has a negative trade balance on agricultural commodities of about $49BN (NZD) so ~25BN GBP?. These are the top 9 countries for whom the UK is a net importer.

Denmark -1,876,430,235

Poland -2,271,875,698

Ireland -2,367,919,155

Belgium -3,636,797,088

Spain -4,197,193,070

Italy -4,365,401,095

France -5,507,466,079

Germany -5,666,546,690

Netherlands -9,763,485,868

Would the Brexit change that? I doubt it. The UK isn't suddenly going to put up trade barriers to all of Europe as that would create major problems for them in the WTO. And then the Brexiters would soon see exactly how much sovereignty the UK doesn't have whether inside or outside the EU. Not to mention life would become miserable in the UK if all that trade came to a stop. 

Could British agriculture scale up to produce turn ag production around to having a positive trade balance? Unlikely. And why would you want to? You generally get a positive balance from importing food (among other ag products) and having your workforce do/make things that have a higher export margin than being involved in growing and producing food.

 

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

A quick and dirty scan of the global trade atlas tells me the UK has a negative trade balance on agricultural commodities of about $49BN (NZD) so ~25BN GBP?. These are the top 9 countries for whom the UK is a net importer.

Denmark -1,876,430,235

Poland -2,271,875,698

Ireland -2,367,919,155

Belgium -3,636,797,088

Spain -4,197,193,070

Italy -4,365,401,095

France -5,507,466,079

Germany -5,666,546,690

Netherlands -9,763,485,868

Would the Brexit change that? I doubt it. The UK isn't suddenly going to put up trade barriers to all of Europe as that would create major problems for them in the WTO. And then the Brexiters would soon see exactly how much sovereignty the UK doesn't have whether inside or outside the EU. Not to mention life would become miserable in the UK if all that trade came to a stop. 

Could British agriculture scale up to produce turn ag production around to having a positive trade balance? Unlikely. And why would you want to? You generally get a positive balance from importing food (among other ag products) and having your workforce do/make things that have a higher export margin than being involved in growing and producing food.

 

I don't think many Brexiters are keen to reduce trade with other European countries (obviously, there will be some who favour autarky, but that's a minority view).

Why I'll be voting Leave is on political grounds.  Most people in the UK want the EU to be just a trading relationship, and British politicians have sold EU membership to the public as being only that.  Most continental politicians, outside of Scandinavia, and parts of Eastern Europe, really do wish to create full political union, and are up-front about that.  Their reasons for doing so are honourable, namely, they never want to see their countries go to war with each other again.  But, I don't think that these two philosophies are compatible, so I think it's best for both sides if we part, and then develop in different directions.

[Werthead]

Quote

(I'm also puzzled as to why you think Brexit is about a desire for economic autarky. It isn't. It's much more about distaste for what the European Project has become).

To the 1% and the rich, independently wealthy people leading the Brexit campagin yes, I imagine that the economic repurcussions of Brexit are not at the forefront of their minds. In fact, they've told us this. Numerous Brexit campaigners have said that they predict a "period" of economic hardship for Britain following departure but in the "long run" we'd be better off. Neither term has been quantified. Farage has gone a step further and, at least with honesty, said that he would rather see Britain impoverished than remain part of the European Union.

However, whilst these wealthy individuals (in Farage's case, who got wealthy from working in the EU) don't give a flying shit about the economic argument, the people of Britain very much do. The 2008 crisis is still relatively fresh in everyone's mind, the recovery is extremely fragile and people are concerned about having enough money to live on. So, regardless of whether the Brexit camp want to or not, they are going to have to make the economic case for leaving. And the pro-Brexit economic argument is thin to the point of being ephemeral.

This is why we are seeing the Brexit arguments being framed around, for want of a better term, nationalism and the idea of "taking back control" without really defining what that means or how that will improve things for the average British person, for whom the differences between being ruled by a wealthy elite in London or a wealthy elite in Brussels are academic.

Well, academic apart from what Simon Sweeney identified in a letter to The Guardian:
 

Quote

 

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.

All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed. It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980. Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

 

 

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Why I'll be voting Leave is on political grounds.  Most people in the UK want the EU to be just a trading relationship, and British politicians have sold EU membership to the public as being only that.  Most continental politicians, outside of Scandinavia, and parts of Eastern Europe, really do wish to create full political union, and are up-front about that.  Their reasons for doing so are honourable, namely, they never want to see their countries go to war with each other again.  But, I don't think that these two philosophies are compatible, so I think it's best for both sides if we part, and then develop in different directions.

Isn't this why Cameron got the exemption of the UK from the commitment to ever-closer union? I guess you think that's insufficient.