The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[Hairyloon 10]

Are you really defending the CAP?

 

when we leave the EU, British governments will be able to make their own decisions as to the extent and focus of farming subsidies.

 

And who do you think those decisions are likely to favour: struggling hill farmers or those who tend the grouse moors?

[NigelFargate 10]

Still working fine for me this morning, from a different computer/web connection, so perhaps check your browser filters and add-ons?

 

It's a recent tweet from the EEP, "If the UK tries to endanger the Irish Good Friday Agreement we´ll not give our support to an agreement @ManfredWeber on #Brexit", posted in reply to a re-tweet of the original GFA relevance/analysis by John Bruton (which -at a guess- SF have been recirculating afresh after the Art.50 letter went in).

 

This is silly scare mongering. There is no way that the British government will put the good Friday Agreement in danger. What is likely to happen is that necessary adjustments will be made to any forthcoming legislation in order to keep the agreement intact, de facto and also de jure.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2017 at 10:27 ----------

 

And who do you think those decisions are likely to favour: struggling hill farmers or those who tend the grouse moors?

 

I suggest you find out more about where CAP subsidies end up. Most of the money goes to rich landowners, like the Duke of Westminster, and to mega farms on the continent, rather than to poor hill farmers. Much of these subsidies are no longer about farming at all, but about stewardship of the land. The CAP is, and always was, a monstrosity serving the interests of a few member states and their vested interests.

Edited April 5, 2017 by NigelFargate

[Hairyloon 10]

The CAP is, and always was, a monstrosity serving the interests of a few member states and their vested interests.

 

This, I believe is true. I will accept the Common Agriculture Policy as a reason lo leave the EU, unless the Remain camp can provide appropriate rebuttal.

 

However, I do not expect this government to do any better with it.

[L00b 441]

This is silly scare mongering. There is no way that the British government will put the good Friday Agreement in danger. What is likely to happen is that necessary adjustments will be made to any forthcoming legislation in order to keep the agreement intact, de facto and also de jure.

There's no scaremongering, simply a causes-and-consequences explanation pertaining May's self-declared, intended political path of exiting the ECHR.

 

A path that gets clearer time and again, as she cosies up post-haste to Trump, Erdogan, the Saudis, <...> and whenever Fox says anything.

 

It's no different to the many causes-and-consequences explanations, provided both pre-referendum and since, about the de jure effects of Brexit, in particular those which cannot be accommodated with 'necessary adjustments made to any forthcoming legislation' (refer my numerous posts about the European IP system in that context, by way of non-limitative example)

 

Since you are apparently familiar with de jure principles, surely I need not explaining those to you?

 

If you think it's too gloomy, you can always lob that one into the Project Fear mental placebo.

Edited April 5, 2017 by L00b

[Blackbeard 10]

The editor of the Daily Mail does very well out of the EU https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/paul-dacre-eu-subsidies-hypocrisy-daily-mail-euro-lies

[L00b 441]

The editor of the Daily Mail does very well out of the EU https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/paul-dacre-eu-subsidies-hypocrisy-daily-mail-euro-lies

So does Nigel Farage and, unlike Paul Dacre, most people know it, and some even applaud him for it.

 

But then, (justified-) outrage at gravity-defying levels of hypocrisy is so old fashioned in 2017.

[NigelFargate 10]

The editor of the Daily Mail does very well out of the EU https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/paul-dacre-eu-subsidies-hypocrisy-daily-mail-euro-lies

 

I don't see this as hypocrisy. It would be if he was advising others not to claim whilst doing so himself. Since he favours leaving the EU, you might argue that he is working against his best economic interests, because he will no longer be able to claim these subsidies after Brexit. The same might be said of UKIP MEPs.

[unbeliever 10]

EU money is everywhere. It's just taxpayers' money which has passed through the EU. I expect my research group has has some at some point. The EU is everywhere.

[chalga 10]

I don't see this as hypocrisy. It would be if he was advising others not to claim whilst doing so himself. Since he favours leaving the EU, you might argue that he is working against his best economic interests, because he will no longer be able to claim these subsidies after Brexit. The same might be said of UKIP MEPs.

 

It's double standards,his rag is full of anti migrant fearmongering when they come to work in the UK,as the free movement rule allows them to do,so it works for them,but he's no second thoughts about feathering his own nest when an EU rule works in his favour.

UKIP are applying the same double standards,indeed,Farages recent remarks about Carswell,when he is quoted as saying Carswell was preventing UKIP becoming a radical anti immigration party shows the true face of UKIP,when they were campaigning in EU and general elections,they,and their supporters claimed that they were not anti immigration,they just wanted controlled immigration,now,there is no doubt.

Edited April 5, 2017 by chalga

[NigelFargate 10]

UKIP are applying the same double standards,indeed,Farages recent remarks about Carswell,when he is quoted as saying Carswell was preventing UKIP becoming a radical anti immigration party shows the true face of UKIP,when they were campaigning in EU and general elections,they,and their supporters claimed that they were not anti immigration,they just wanted controlled immigration,now,there is no doubt.

 

UKIP is not anti-immigration per se.

It is against mass immigration, of the kind the UK has experienced in recent years. What Farage was saying was that immigration ought to be a prominent issue on the political agenda, whereas Carswell was not interested in it.

 

As for feathering one's own nest with EU money, many remainers do this in one form or another as well. Vested interests are everywhere. If Dacre did not take this money, someone else would.

 

some accuse Polly Toynbee of a form of hypocrisy, in that she sees herself as a champion of the downtrodden whilst having a villa in Tuscany. It doesn't bother me. I am more interested in policy issues.

[apelike 10]

If it means that it also means hillfarmers all over the UK will stop farming because they can't make a decent living any more.

 

The problem is that a great deal of those farmers also voted leave especially in Wales and knew that the CAP subsidies would also stop, and those subsidies had already been declining for them anyway. Its the big landowners and farms here and also France and Germany that benefit mainly from them.

[chalga 10]

UKIP is not anti-immigration per se.

It is against mass immigration, of the kind the UK has experienced in recent years. What Farage was saying was that immigration ought to be a prominent issue on the political agenda, whereas Carswell was not interested in it.

 

As for feathering one's own nest with EU money, many remainers do this in one form or another as well. Vested interests are everywhere. If Dacre did not take this money, someone else would.

 

some accuse Polly Toynbee of a form of hypocrisy, in that she sees herself as a champion of the downtrodden whilst having a villa in Tuscany. It doesn't bother me. I am more interested in policy issues.

 

Ok then,Radical Anti Immigration doesn't mean you are against immigration.