Sunlit uplands. Are we there yet?

[j.a.]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> j.a. Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > ETA - I will admit, however, to a certain

> amount

> > of cautious optimism at the appointment of

> Truss

> > to run EU negotiations.

> Truss is both bonkers AND thick. She is the bottom

> of the barrel.

Yes, but I wonder if somehow she realises that constant pandering to the Bakers and Moggs of this world won?t move things forward. Her opening gambit has been in that vein.

[JohnL]

I think that Liz Truss is in it for the Selfies.

[diable rouge]

I just hope that the fishing and farming communities remember who it was who sold them down the river for their own political gains, and when someone like Johnson/Gove/Farage rocks up for another photo-stunt, they run them out of town

There were signs with the recent by-election that this is so, for such a Brexity community to then vote for a candidate with uber-remain credentials shows you just how much discontent there must be right now.

Of course there will always be winners and losers in any major economic change of direction, there have even been winners during this pandemic. But Brexit wasn't sold on that premise, quite the opposite in fact for the fishing and farming sectors, as it was all about a chance to 'take back control' and prosper.

I'm sure what now gripes with a lot of people is the casual off-handedness that such 'collateral damage' was always factored in. Claims to being sympathetic to people's plights ring hollow when you remember that they voted knowingly to put them in that plight in the first place...

[diable rouge]

Re. Liz Truss, it's all about positioning herself for a leadership challenge, and that will include pandering to the ERG nutters.

All sounds very familiar and with a predicable outcome when they encounter reality...

[diable rouge]

I tried to copy and paste this article as I know some people don't like clicking on links, but it came up with a copyright warning so you'll have to make do with the link... https://www.ft.com/content/bc0563c8-f6ac-40f0-83d4-943ed08a2d79?shareType=nongift

It's about the thoughts of 3 small UK companies who traded within the EU and continue to do so post-Brexit, and how the first year of Brexit has impacted on them, in particular by creating an 'internal border of red tape'.

It's not sexy and won't show up on any 'balance sheet economist' spreadsheet, merely highlights what it's like at the Brexit coal face for the thousands of similar sized businesses and livelihoods...

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Re. Liz Truss, it's all about positioning herself

> for a leadership challenge, and that will include

> pandering to the ERG nutters.

Maybe she's been handed a poisoned chalice to stop her becoming a viable challenger...?

[TheCat]

j.a. Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > Fair enough J.a.. And I'm not unsympathetic to

> > people doing it tough (despite screeching from

> > some people that I don't care about anything or

> > anyone)

> >

> > But putting the conversation over this deal in

> > context.....agriculture is around 120billion

> > sterling industry in the UK, and according to

> > those stats being bandied around, this deal

> will

> > have a 94m sterling impact on the agriculture

> > sector...so a 0.08percent hit to the farming

> > sector. I'd argue that probably qualifies as 'a

> > bit'. Of course I might not be comparing

> Apple's

> > with apples on those two figures..as this is

> just

> > off the cuff calls, so happy to be told

> otherwise

> > if I should be thinking different numbers. And

> of

> > course am aware that specific impacts will be

> felt

> > more keenly by certain types of farmers than

> > others, it won't be a uniform hit of

> 0.08percetn

> > across the sector.

> >

> > In anycase...as I've said...this deal is small

> in

> > the context of the overall economy...but with

> > positive impacts on the manufacturing sector

> > (around 18percent of British GDP, versus less

> than

> > 1 percent for farming) that's a core reason why

> > the net impact is positive.

> >

> > More broadly, surely if we're talking about

> > impacts on the national economy, we should be

> > considering national impacts. At the individual

> > level someone will always lose out from any

> > decision or agreement to some degree unfort,

> but

> > hopefully on balance positive changes from a

> > national perspective can be the aim.

>

> All of that may well be (probably is) true. But

> consider the following?

>

> Part of how Brexit was sold to us was that we

> could take back control of our fishing and allow

> our farmers to sell around the world. This was a

> large part of what I call the ?emotional?

> arguments in favour of Leave. The idea - and is

> was just an idea, because the ?how? of it was

> never defined - that we could have greater command

> over how fish and meat was reared, butchered and

> sold, theoretically around the world.

>

> So far? I?m sure you?re aware of how hard fishing

> is having it. Meat farming is not doing much, if

> any, better. While on the grand scheme of things

> the numbers may be small, I can assure you it?s

> 100% for those involved.

> Put crudely, what you?re supporting is basically a

> death knell for high-quality, high-welfare animal

> husbandry in this country.

>

> Let us ask what will happen next. Well, once those

> farmers are out of business, those who replace

> them will in all likelihood *not* be so interested

> in maintaining such high standards, because the

> only people in a position to take over will be the

> big conglomerates. We will lose the skill set and

> the desire to raise good-quality and humanely

> cared-for beef, pork, chicken and lamb. The stuff

> coming over from your homeland? I?m sorry, but it

> isn?t always that wonderful - and yes, I really do

> know what I?m talking about. You know how the

> energy market is your area of expertise? This kind

> of thing is mine.

>

> Now, there are those who might feel that if the

> current crop of farmers can?t compete in the

> market as it is, then they should get out of it.

> This is of course a point of view. But I would say

> that people in this country have become

> disconnected from the real cost of what it takes

> to create high-quality food. People want it cheap,

> but they don?t want it bad. Well, when it comes to

> meat and fish, quality costs. If you can?t afford

> it, go veggie or even vegan. But frankly, lower

> your expectations about how little you feel you

> should pay for that leg of lamb.

>

> My point is this - when you focus on results at

> the strategic level then a deal like this seems

> pretty sweet. But zoom down to the actual people

> involved and it becomes apparent there are real

> human costs involved, as well as a literal danger

> to the quality of food we consume. If you?re

> willing to go that route then fine, but what are

> you going to do about the farmers and fishers who

> see their livelihoods evaporate? Because some of

> them are going to put a shotgun in their mouth.

>

> To me this is another example of those mistakes

> made early in the Brexit process about which I

> harp on relentlessly. There?s a *lot* of Leave

> voters for whom control of this kind of thing was

> exactly what they wanted from it. But as you point

> out, there precious little money in it, not many

> votes, so the Tories just sold it down the river.

Thanks for the respectful comment j.a. Makes a nice change on this thread!

I guess I would make a couple of broad pointss (which also address some other posters recent comments as well).

WHAT WAS 'SOLD' DURING THE CAMPAIGN: I've said this a number of times over the years in different ways, but perhaps it bears repeating/rephrasing at this point. Just as you have above, a number of posters on here often respond to some of my pro-brexit arguments with something like 'yes that's fair, but that's not what was promised/how it was sold by leavers/brexiteers prior to the referendum'. Im not really sure how Im supposed to respond to that sort of comment. All im trying to do here is point out some reasons why I personally voted leave, and highlight some potential opportunities that I personally see. As is probably fairly obvious, I didn't work on the Leave campaign:)...and for the most part I actually totally agree with all those criticisms of a very poor campaign. I understand that remain supporters may be angry as they feel sections of the leave voting population might have been misled, and I get that (particularly on this forum) I might often be a lone Leaver voice and its natural that Remainers might want to use me as a target for frustrations at the campaign - but I don't feel a need to justify what the campaign said, or what other people did or didn't expect Brexit to be when they voted - I can only express what I hope(d) it could possibly be. Some may feel the need to now resort to a pithy 'That's not my brexit' type soundbites.....fair enough....if that makes people feel better, but yes, I totally acknowledge that different people have/had different ideas about how brexit might look (one would also think that every Remainers would have also had different ideas (however vague) about how Brexit might look in their head as well...surely that was necessary to feel justified in a decision to vote against it?). So (as regular thread readers will know), when the 'brexit will not have any downside, but will only bring upside' quote is thrown at me, I can only totally agree that it was a ridiculous thing to be said. So all-in-all, if brexit isnt turnng out how some people in deifferent sectors hoped for, after they voted for it....well, thats an issue to take up with the leave campaign I guess.

WINNERS AND LOSERS: As you mentioned, you obviously have some level of connection to/knowledge of farming and agriculture, and that seems evident from the way you speak about it, so I'll defer to your comments which suggest that many farmers are doing it tough, and things like the Aussie trade deal will likely make life very difficult/uncertain for many. I don't wish to see anyone suffering hardship (what type of person would!?), and I think it's purposefully inflamatory/antagonistic when some other posters on here (who don't know me from a bar of soap) want to pick up the cause of people who are doing it tough and suggest that I don't give a 'flying fark' about those people. It sounds like you have a personal connection to farming, and as a result discussion of this sector might be particularly sensitive for you. However (yes..there's a 'but'...so now I can be painted as callous and uncaring!)...as you (and others) have acknowledged, there is a 'strategic level' (as you refer to it); and (again as others have acknowledged) there will be winners and losers from every deal/agreement/policy/regulation. From a top down perspective I would argue that a utilitarian approach (greatest good for the greatest number) sort of needs to take priority - the idea being of course that if the overall economic impact is positive then an economy should be better positioned to be able to support those who lose out as the economy pivots. I understand that this is cold comfort in the short term for those people losing - but I beleive (rightly or wrongly) that a higher productivity economy will create a wealthier nation overall. Now I'm quite sure that to some posters on here this will all seem 'pie in the sky' and 'theoretical', and dismissive of 'real impacts to real people'...perhaps it is....but its the approach I take, and it has rational basis. Did I vote leave specificly knowing that farmers and fishers would be 'screwed'?...no...because I didn't have in my mind the exact terms that would be struck in trade deals for different sectors. But overall, I felt that that regulatory divergence could promote faster growth in fast emerging areas of the economy (which are also areas where the EU is rather slow and lumbering), and controlled immigration could incentivise capital investment in sectors overlly dependent on low cost labour. So all that being said, I do think that some posters rather flippantly say 'yes, there will be losers'....but then in the next breath say 'You dont care about the FARMERS/FISHERS/EXPORTERS ETC ETC?!'...im afrid its always going to be someone. And for anyone that wasnt to criticise and say that 'well it wont be TheCat'...not that it should matter, but ve spoken before about negative Brexit impacts to my own business in the near term, which I hope will improve in coming years.

Of course, all of the above hinges on whether the overall economic impact of brexit in time is positive or negative - as there's very little in the way of winners 1 year in (not entirely suprising personally), so if the longer term impact is not positive, then my overall arguement collapses. To try and put it as concisly as possible....if you beleive things like the long term OBR projections for economic impact, then they say a 4% negative impact to GDP long term (10 years) versus a remain scenario (but still trend grwoth from today)...I've commented before about some of the shortcomings of this analysis, but even if you take it as read, then that's what I would consider to be wtithin the margin for error on a long term forecast - so lets call it wash overall from an economic standpoint. So then the question is 'why bother?'.....well then it really comes down to wehether one thinks there's potential to do better than those long term forecasts through some of the opportunitiess I've previosly mentioned, and wether you think that opportunity is worth the short term pain being suffered by various sectors in the near term (and perhaps for some sectors in the longer term too)......thats a personal judgement call that we each need to make, and no one can know for sure which way that will go (of course much will depend on policy decisions which have yet to be made - so the story on how the brexit impact ends up is far from 'done'). It might have been 'sold' as a magic bullet...but thats total [email protected] that happened on 1 Jan was the chance to start making changes which can creaste positive shifts in the economy, if those positive changes arent made, then (as most posters here complain about) all you have is more barriers to trade with europe - so on that basis I'll agree with many remainers that Brexit in isolation, without subequent progressive policy changes is a bad idea (just as Lord Frost said in his CBI speech recently too)

THE PRICE OF PRODUCE: As aside, I would totally agree with you that consumers dont really understand the cost of quality produce, just as consumers dont understand a lot of things unfort. In my world, its people who want to 'ban mining to save the planet'...without realising that coal mining is only one very small part of 'mining', and without a massive increase in invetsment in certain types of mining we will not even come close to having the materials we need to trasition to a low carbon economy (i.e. you cant just grow a battery for an electric vehicle, or a solar cell, or a wind turbine!).

[TheCat]

Apols for what turned into more of a 'position paper'.....than a response to a comment!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> if you beleive things like the long term OBR projections for economic impact, then they say a 4% negative impact to GDP long term (10 years) ...even if you take it as read, then that's what I would consider to be wtithin the margin for error on a long term forecast - so lets call it wash overall from an economic standpoint.

That's a very breezy approach!

[TheCat]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > if you beleive things like the long term OBR

> projections for economic impact, then they say a

> 4% negative impact to GDP long term (10 years)

> ...even if you take it as read, then that's what I

> would consider to be wtithin the margin for error

> on a long term forecast - so lets call it wash

> overall from an economic standpoint.

>

> That's a very breezy approach!

I was trying to be concise by that point...given I was already circa 1000 words in.....:)

[Seabag]

More succinctly, I?m in the Brexit leave camp on this one. It was definitely worth fuucking the economy for the next 25 years and driving a wedge down the centre of the British people, creating vacuous culture wars and generally loosing the last remnants of respect this country thought it had. Topped by having the pleasure of Boris De Piffle Johnson (or whatever his full name is) as prime-shister.

Winston Churchill once declared that a pint bottle of champagne was the ?ideal size?, calling it ?enough for two at lunch and one at dinner?.

https://apple.news/AAQqZBLJYSfqouQDGfRfzmA

Merry Christmas to you!

[malumbu]

There's a wider point Cat on 'price of produce' as successive governments probably from Thatch's day have championed reduced costs for goods due to neo-liberalism, deregulation, reduced labour costs home and abroad, intensive agriculture. We have been worshiping at the alter of unrestrained consumerism for decades, leading to environmental harm, over-indebtedness and perhaps increased criminality.

Not really specific to Brexit, and one could argue that our leaders are in a better place to reverse this post Brexit. But even with a global plague they wont.

[Sephiroth]

from

https://muckrack.com/cjmckinney

Slipped out on Christmas Eve: government throws in the towel on post-Brexit immigration policy being highly-skilled only. Social care workers are classified as lower-skilled, but can now get Skilled Worker visas if paid ?20,480+.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-visa-boost-for-social-care-as-health-and-care-visa-scheme-expanded

These brexit benefits of taking back control - important. Until they aren't. Still a garbage policy but realism intruding

[Sephiroth]

I note many beleavers, columnists and politicians are spending last couple of days saying 2022 is when Brexit starts to deliver

Bless.

The uk import controls alone from January will be an interesting headwind

[Earl Aelfheah]

@cat - that?s a reasonable post. But ultimately, how is leaving the single market and the customs Union not going to make the country poorer. We?ve made trade with our biggest and closest market more difficult. We are now a solitary nation trying to negotiate trade deals from a position of weakness.

In terms of influence - I don?t see how Brexit can possibly be considered to have made us more highly regarded internationally, or to have increased our power on the world stage. So how one can be said to have more control with less power, less influence and less ability to shape one?s environment, I don?t get. If you can explain it to me, I?m all ears.

And of course there is then the very personal issue of having individual rights and freedoms restricted by the government. It is on any measure, hugely regressive. My sister moved to the EU as a young adult, where she got various jobs and eventually built a career, got married and is now expecting a baby. My own children, growing up today do not have the same opportunities. Of course it won?t effect the wealthy, but many people have had opportunities snatched from them. And for what? To make us poorer, more divided, less influential. If you can tell me how it doesn?t do those things, how we?re going to be richer, more powerful, less divided, and have more individual rights and freedoms resulting from Brexit, again I?m all ears.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Is there anything that would convince you Brexit was a good idea?

[Sephiroth]

bit of a trick question

if you say no, you have a closed mind

if you say yes, you legitimise something that is clearly dumb

(can you not find anything good to say about climate deniers or anti-vaxxers?)

[Sephiroth]

"Is there anything that would convince you Brexit was a good idea?"

A better question would be - when will brexiteers all agree that it was a good idea and show us the benefits? (they can't - it's possible that, for example, Cat's vision of brexit comes to pass, in a manner that he finds acceptable. By definition that will be the ruination of many other types of brexit voter. Or let's say the leave voters who saw Brexit as still being part of single market - if they get their wish then that is a waste of brexit according to other leave voters)

Asking remainers to accept Brexit as a good idea is a folly, when various leave camps can't agree

[malumbu]

It allows the UK to lead by setting higher standards for example on environmental protection and biodiversity. I don't believe that this outweighs the negatives but surely you can see there are some plus sides. I can be cynical about whether we will deliver these changes.

[Sephiroth]

"It allows the UK to lead by setting higher standards for example on environmental protection and biodiversity."

EU sets a minimum - countries are free to set higher standards anyway. Brexit has nothing to do with it (apart from adding pressure to reduce standards to get a deal)

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> (can you not find anything good to say about

> climate deniers or anti-vaxxers?)

No. That's why I don't bother pretending that I'm waiting to be convinced by their arguments or debating the merits of vaccinations online.

[KidKruger]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It allows the UK to lead by setting higher

> standards for example on environmental protection

> and biodiversity. I don't believe that this

> outweighs the negatives but surely you can see

> there are some plus sides. I can be cynical about

> whether we will deliver these changes.

Are the increases in sewage/effluence releases into UK waterways part of those higher standards, or are they evidence that removal of an EU minimum standard is being taken advantage of ?

Any suggestion that Brexit will help increase any kind of standard is surely laughable, when the constraints of EU standards was an argument put forward FOR Brexit.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "It allows the UK to lead by setting higher

> standards for example on environmental protection

> and biodiversity."

>

> EU sets a minimum - countries are free to set

> higher standards anyway.

That's not the whole story - EU member states can't introduce laws that would interfere with intra-EU trade or be anti-competitive. As an obvious example: France wouldn't be permitted to pass a law that only organic food could be grown and sold in France from 2023.

[Sephiroth]

Is that true?

I'm not aware of any EU rule which prevents them - but even if they can the reason they won't is for same reason UK (outside EU) won't - because iI suspect it doesn't have sufficient capacity, or ability to subsidise the extra cost and keep the country fed, whilst also further inhibiting trade with other countries

[malumbu]

KK the point is that government can take the opportunity to go beyond what the EU does in protecting consumers, the environment, welfare etc etc. Whether they choose to do this is a separate matter. Noting that Johnson plays gesture politics and typically there lacks substance, funding or the political will to deliver many promises.

An interesting review by the NGO Client Earth on the Environment Act here https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/news/why-the-uk-environment-bill-matters/