Thinking purely in laymen's terms, is this not the only sensible course of action? You can't decide on the next EU budget when one of your key EU members is on the verge of deciding it's status as an EU member.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)
- Thread starter Rilot
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the explanation - like I say, I don't know much about the industry so I'm looking at this from an entirely different perspective so bear with me
All the information I can find suggests that the change to flat rate will actually benefit the majority of famers; a few will be worse off by the look of things (although the circumstances of this scenario are unclear from the brief research I've done), but the benefit remains overall. It does seem to be different per region and the rationale behind it appears to make sense on the surface of it. I can't see anything that suggests the subsidies are to be removed altogether though - can you provide a source for this?
Surely it's better to continue to receive these subsidies for as long as they are available (if they due to go, for whatever reason) and try and influence better terms within the EU? It is clear that agriculture and environmental policies rank reasonably highly in the pecking order within the EU - contrary to the UK government trends of supporting certain industries (which you'd be subject to should we leave) so that, coupled with the potential for uncompetitive exports and the support from the NFU should, on paper, be a strong case to stay.
in general under the flat rate those that farm good land will be worse off, those that farm poor land (mountains, bogs ect ect) will be better off
would love to say what will happen post 2019 with subs, but no one know as they yet yo make the rules, but with a ever decreasing pot of money and a increasing demand on it, i would say that those of us in the west will get less and less
you would like to think the meat would meet British standards but Horse meat scandal, were Supermarkets imported unsafe meat, and were more than willing to sell it to people for increased profit
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
Yes, they brought it on themselves, that and their refusal to share the wealth we keep hearing is at risk as the World's 5th largest economy in the Eu. Ordinary people now know that whatever the economic situation, boom or bust, it makes no difference as they're always worse off.
Forgive me for pointing this out but why should farmers get payments to help run what is essentially a business like any other ? Rich landowners with thousands of acres of rough moorland get paid thousands of pounds in subsidies, for example :
Over the years, the farm business operating off the country estate part-owned by Duncan Smith's son – with the minister's wife as a trustee – has received well over a million pounds in taxpayer subsidies described by the EU as "income support" for farmers
Over the years, the farm business operating off the country estate part-owned by Duncan Smith's son – with the minister's wife as a trustee – has received well over a million pounds in taxpayer subsidies described by the EU as "income support" for farmers
I agree with you i said as much in a earlier post farm subs should have ended in the late70's early 80's
Seems like the end game is a more even distribution of wealth amongst those who make use of the land they have for farming or agriculture. Presumably those with 'good land' will have a better yield than those with 'poor land' so the subsidies offset the differential in profits made.
So if no one knows what's going to happen to them in three years from now (they could equally stay just as well as reduce or go, I guess) why throw away the money? The UK government is unlikely to hand out anything in the way or similar subsidies and there will clearly be a knock on effect of trade export into the EU.
It does raise a question about the quality of food from other countries but whether we were in or out of the EU, the supermarkets would be still be able to import potentially unsafe meat and the same authorities would be responsible for checking whether it met standards or not. I'm not convinced it has any bearing on the case for remain/leave to be honest.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,222
- Location
- RG8 9
Stop banging on about us being the fifth largest economy.
You do realise that primarily we are the fifth biggest due to services. And these services have expanded by being part of the EU. A lot of these service companies have their European HQ's in the UK. And if we leave the EU they will also leave. And we won't have the fifth largest economy anymore.
Will they? Source?
I *think* big chunks of the financial services sector will have to leave, as a lot of the EU financial business is currently processed in London, the EU rules dictate that all this has to be done in an EU country - so if we left, those functions would have to go also.
It's a reasonable assumption - logically.
If you had a company and your trade was all in the EU, adhered to EU standards, involved EU countries would you have your EU HQ in say, China? Or would it be in one of the economically stronger countries within the EU itself?
The HQ's of worldwide organisations that are dealing with the EU and have set up camp in the UK I think would be less likely to leave altogether since they would still have dealings with the UK eventually. The European HQ would be likely to move though - into the EU. The UK 'branch' would be significantly downsized since it is a smaller market.
There's a difference between "EU rules say x therefore it is likely that y will have to happen" and "of course we will continue to have tariff free trade with the EU after we leave, a thing for which there is no precedent".
Everything is a prediction, some of those predictions have actually been thought through.
Everything is a prediction, some of those predictions have actually been thought through.
So we send £250,000,000 a week to the EU and Cameron can come on TV with a straight face and say pensions might be cut if we leave? How does that work exactly?
As for trade... The UK is a trillion pound economy. No country in their right mind would ever refuse business (import or export) to someone of that size.
I no longer live in the UK, but I hope you guys vote to leave the EU. Seems the most logical choice to me
As for trade... The UK is a trillion pound economy. No country in their right mind would ever refuse business (import or export) to someone of that size.
I no longer live in the UK, but I hope you guys vote to leave the EU. Seems the most logical choice to me
Where did I say it was true? A reasoned argument based on logical thinking is a perfectly valid opinion. Assumptions are all over this thread because we can't see the future.
It's ok if you can't refute the points with an equally considered response - the problem with logical thinking is that it's difficult to argue against.
This has been done to death - nobody is claiming that we won't be trading with the EU after we leave. The issue is that the only evidence that exists for free trade with the EU is from countries that subscribe to the things that people most in favour of Brexit are wanting to leave for.
Okay so we won't lose the ability to trade with the EU if we leave. We might not even lose the free trade agreement. And we'd open up trade with other countries in other sectors that we've been prohibited doing because of EU laws and regulations... How is that a bad thing exactly?
Are there any actual real estimates of what we stand to lose in £ terms trade wise? Or it's just more scare tactics with no actual figures?
Well the Brexit campaign has been focused on sending money to the EU and not getting representation in return, and doesn't like freedom of movement. So voting to leave and having to keep those in place to secure a trade deal would seem like a hollow victory.
Of course there's also the possibility that a free trade agreement is rejected by the post-Brexit government, having been put there on an anti-immigration / "ARE SOVEREIGNTY" platform, at which point we spend years in negotiations and trade is subjected to tariffs.
The idea that we'd want to actively stop free trade with our closest neighbours in favour of trying to open up further ties with countries half way around the world that have other options for trade is a perverse one. Do you have any more information on how we are restricted with trading outside the EU currently? This seems to suggest that the 'we can do better outside' argument isn't a valid one.
To prevent the industry from vanishing.
Ie if we import everything cause its unprofitiable to grow here the industry dies.
Then one day we need it (something happens to change availability etc) it will be much harder to start from scratch again.
So can you provide a reliable estimate of what we actually stand to lose? Just saying it's "a lot" doesn't really help with anything
- Status