Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

30 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Where? 

 

Where do they take into consideration that UK businesses might make new supply chains outside of the eu? 

 

They don't, which is my point.

 

It beggars belief that, as businessmen, they haven't taken it into consideration. The fact that they don't even mention it implies that it's been discounted as a viable alternative.

[Alf Bentley]

11 hours ago, Strokes said:

How did we farm before the EU, it’s a wonder we are even alive.

 

2 hours ago, MattP said:

No one had anything to eat before the EU, everyone starved.

 

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Harvesting was always labour-intensive - before the EU, we still had loads of foreign workers coming over for seasonal work in the fields.

 

Is that true, Buce (genuine question)? It doesn't tally with my experience. I did a lot of seasonal fruit/veg picking in the late 70s/early 80s and don't remember meeting any foreign workers. 

I vaguely remember hearing about some teams coming to do long-term winter work on farms - and French grape-picking was quite international when I went over there, but my UK experience was.....

- Strawberries (summer, Kent & Norfolk): English housewives, students & gypsies

- Apples (early autumn, Kent): English housewives & students

- Potatoes (winter, Kent & Norfolk): Unemployed or under-employed local men

 

I presume the answer to "how did we farm before free movement" is: a lot more local labour, higher food prices in real terms, less spare cash for consumers to spend on other stuff (i.e. lower living standards) & lower profits/dividends for the big supermarkets and their shareholders. We also imported less food and had a less varied diet.

 

I've no idea whether it would be economically viable for the UK to close down its farming sector and depend on foreign imports as some Brexiteers seem to want. But I can certainly see disadvantages: mass job losses (suppliers, not just farmers); lost expertise & local produce; lost focus for rural communities; vast tracts of land abandoned or sold off; big increase in transport congestion; increase in global warming; climate change making crops less reliable in Africa etc.

 

As Buce, says, though, food security is a big issue. Not being self-sufficient is one thing, but choosing to depend entirely on foreigners to supply our food is on another scale. I've never heard anyone in any country ever suggest such a thing before you Brexit nutters - and in times of global volatility. I think you've got intoxicated by obsessions with free markets and the all-importance of the consumer and have gone insane. The country needs people to be producers as well as consumers, otherwise they have no cash to buy anything, however cheap your imports might be - or are all the farmers going to be running high-tech start-ups or working in burger bars? And if we're not going to bother about food security, why bother about energy security or defence security? We could lose all the expensive home-produced energy and rely on Russia or Saudi to provide the consumer with cheap energy imports. We could completely eliminate the defence budget, give everyone a tax cut and rely on Trump for defence....

 

Alternatively, we could NOT close down the country's agriculture sector and could NOT accept zero food security and total dependence on foreign imports. Instead, we could make sure that agricultural labour pays a decent wage and that jobs are available to locals. That might mean consumers accepting some increase in food prices, but there are many ways of managing that to avoid major problems. It might also mean the big supermarkets and their shareholders accepting some lost profits - often earned by screwing farmers (I'm sure some farmers have millions in the bank, Matt, but most don't - and most depend on EU payments for half their income, despite often working very hard).

 

A few questions for you Tory Brexit nutters....

- Why are British farmers so dependent on foreign labour, what have the Tory Govt done to remedy that and what are they going to do, given the outflow of EU labour?

- As some agricultural labour is short-term seasonal work, what could the Govt do to encourage/help Brits to access such work - and what is it doing?

- How will farmers and those employed by suppliers or spin-offs make a living (e.g. fertiliser plants, tractor/tool manufacturers, livestock/crop traders, local food producers/processors)? 

- What should happen to the vast tracts of farmland if you close down the UK agriculture sector? Wilderness? Development of new commuter towns?

- What would you do if we were dependent on Africa or the US for food and supplies stopped for political, economic or natural reasons (e.g. Africa is increasingly subject to drought, US is currently a politically unpredictable nationalist state)?

 

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Is that true, Buce (genuine question)? It doesn't tally with my experience. I did a lot of seasonal fruit/veg picking in the late 70s/early 80s and don't remember meeting any foreign workers.

 

1

 

Well, the total sum of my experience was two months in the summer of '76 (so, yeah, not a lot) but the majority of the other pickers were from abroad (mostly Aussies and Kiwis, with a smattering of French, Dutch and Germans).

 

Based on your greater experience, perhaps that was an anomaly or a dying trend.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

So whilst my link covers all areas, yours covers food costs from the eu. 

 

 

Your link is also from a web site run by an ultra-Thatcherite think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies.......so hardly a neutral source.

 

Can't pursue the debate at length as I've got to do some work to earn a crust (whether the crust is home-grown or imported!).

 

But have a look at your article. It's all about consumers. Yet, even ignoring all the food security arguments, we need to be producers, employers and workers, too. If we're just consumers, enjoying cheap imports, where does our cash come from?

That article has nothing to say about us as producers, employers or workers, apart from dismissing such roles as "special interests". Because Thatcherite believers in unrestrained free markets believe in magical solutions. If we import everything, how do we pay for imports, even cheap imports?

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Well, the total sum of my experience was two months in the summer of '76 (so, yeah, not a lot) but the majority of the other pickers were from abroad (mostly Aussies and Kiwis, with a smattering of French, Dutch and Germans).

 

Based on your greater experience, perhaps that was an anomaly or a dying trend.

 

.....or maybe my experience was untypical. Would be interesting to see some stats on that, but I don't have time to search now.

 

There's a certain logic to it maybe being a "dying trend". Working in the fields while travelling was a bit of a Beatnik/Hippie concept, probably dating from the 50s or 60s, but still influential later.

Similarly, a lot of young people used to hitch-hike then, but few do that now....and all the Aussie/Kiwi travellers seem to work in London pubs!

 

I don't hear of young people going off to pick grapes in France these days either (and that's not just down to mechanisation).

Do students still go and pick fruit and veg in summer in this country? That was quite common when I was young. Maybe a cultural change - though I'd find work in the fields preferable to work in a burger joint, clearing tables or whatever

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

I think your definition is fairly spot on, but class doesn't come into it.

 

Mental how wound up people are getting about it. Imagine being fvcked off being being called a snowflake or a gammon FFS, let alone claiming it's racist.

Certainly agree that it's not racist and people should grow a thicker skin, I do think there is a class element to it though, a quick scroll through Twitter and you see the ones throwing it almost always appear to be middle class university educated youngsters and the victim always appears to be a working class guy from a Northern/Midland town on Question Time.

 

Despite what the EDL etc try to claim, the racism from the modern left isn't actually aimed a white people aside from a few nutters, it's towards Jewish people and the worst of it is often aimed at non-white Conservatives, the insults of "Uncle Tom" and "Coconut" etc aimed at people like Sajid Javid and James Cleverly are very disturbing, to the point that black people should be owned by one political side, the attention should be on put on that rather than childish insults like Gammon.

Edited 17 May 2018 by MattP

[Innovindil]

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Your link is also from a web site run by an ultra-Thatcherite think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies.......so hardly a neutral source.

 

Can't pursue the debate at length as I've got to do some work to earn a crust (whether the crust is home-grown or imported!).

 

But have a look at your article. It's all about consumers. Yet, even ignoring all the food security arguments, we need to be producers, employers and workers, too. If we're just consumers, enjoying cheap imports, where does our cash come from?

That article has nothing to say about us as producers, employers or workers, apart from dismissing such roles as "special interests". Because Thatcherite believers in unrestrained free markets believe in magical solutions. If we import everything, how do we pay for imports, even cheap imports?

Nobody has said we don't need to be producers and workers too. I've already touched on farmers adapting their foodstuffs to remain competitive by switching from handpicked goods to a more technological driven crop. 

 

Again, and for the 9 billionth time, I don't, and have not, ever said we should be switching to completely unrestrained free markets. I'm just not under the strange belief that what we have now is the best we could ever get. 

[Innovindil]

54 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Doesn't mention transport costs. It doesn't matter if steak is retailed $10 cheaper per kilo when the additional transport costs are much higher than that. I don't know what the exact costs would be but wouldn't expect to get much change out of ten quid for sending a normal 1kg parcel to the US. Big companies would benefit from economies of scale but then these would be rapidly perishable goods in need of flawless refrigeration throughout, it's going to cost a fair whack isn't it lets be honest.

 

Also while I get the free market arguments about not protecting UK farmers (although your earlier post about the asparagus farmer was riddled with defamation since there's no evidence he "exploits" anyone beyond the level of exploitation already built in to the UK minimum wage and workers rights), we do also have to consider food security. If we become completely reliant on say the US and Africa for our food, and they know it, what do you think happens to prices? The free market works (When it does work) because of wide ranging and open competition, reducing the level of local competition isn't likely to end well for consumers.

 

How much bigger does it get than the world? 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Certainly agree that it's not racist and people should grow a thicker skin, I do think there is a class element to it though, a quick scroll through Twitter and you see the ones throwing it almost always appear to be middle class university educated youngsters and the victim always appears to be a working class guy from a Northern/Midland town on Question Time.

 

Despite what the EDL etc try to claim, the racism from the modern left isn't actually aimed a white people aside from a few nutters, it's towards Jewish people and the worst of it is often aimed at non-white Conservatives, the insults of "Uncle Tom" and "Coconut" etc aimed at people like Sajid Javid and James Cleverly are very disturbing, to the point that black people should be owned by one political side, the attention should be on put on that rather than childish insults like Gammon.

 

I've never interpreted the users/recipients of the term as being that. I've usually seen it as being aimed at Middle England Daily Mail readers more than anything. Hey ho.

[Buce]

 

 

Irish PM warns UK could crash out of EU without Brexit deal if no progress soon

EU ‘yet to see anything that remotely approaches’ a solution to Irish border issue, taoiseach says

 

The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has raised the prospect of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal if UK government infighting continues over the next few weeks.

With the Brexit negotiations stalling and Theresa May failing to offer any further solutions to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the republic, Varadkar made his growing concern clear before meeting the UK prime minister at an EU summit in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia.

The taoiseach said next month’s European council summit would be a key moment for the talks, despite attempts by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, and others in the UK government to play down suggestions of a “deadline”.

 

The European council president, Donald Tusk, is also due to meet the prime minister in Sofia.

The disagreements within May’s cabinet at this late stage of negotiations have been described by sources as “shocking”.

Varadkar said that the EU and Dublin had “yet to see anything that remotely approaches” a way out of the current impasse.

“By June we need to see substantial progress as the tánaiste [Varadkar’s deputy, Simon Coveney] and I have said on many occasions. The European council will review progress in June. The deadline of course for the withdrawal agreement is October, but if we are not making real and substantial progress by June then we need to seriously question whether we’re going to have a withdrawal agreement at all.”

The UK government has vowed to find an arrangement that will avoid the need for border checks between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to table a “backstop” solution involving regulatory alignment with the EU.

 

Varadkar said: “We need to have that backstop because that gives us the assurance that there will be no hard border on our island. So we stand by our position that there can be no withdrawal agreement without that backstop.

“If the UK wants to put forward alternatives … we’re willing to examine that. But we need to see it written down in black and white and know that its workable and legally operable. And we’ve yet to see anything that remotely approaches that.”

EU leaders are due to meet on 29 June, after which it is hoped in London that Brussels will start drafting a political declaration on a future trade deal. The UK government this week promised to produce a 100-page white paper on the future trading relationship. But the paper could be largely ignored at the summit unless the Irish question is solved to the satisfaction of Dublin and Brussels.

Last month, Davis dismissed the June deadline as a negotiating tactic. “One of the things that happens in negotiations is people try to set up deadlines, sometimes artificial deadlines, to put pressure on one element of the negotiation which they think is in their favour,” he said.

[Rogstanley]

25 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

How much bigger does it get than the world? 

I knew you'd pick up on that and ignore the other points to be fair. Can't be arsed to debate with people who just ignore reality. Have a great day

Edited 17 May 2018 by Rogstanley

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Nobody has said we don't need to be producers and workers too. I've already touched on farmers adapting their foodstuffs to remain competitive by switching from handpicked goods to a more technological driven crop. 

 

Again, and for the 9 billionth time, I don't, and have not, ever said we should be switching to completely unrestrained free markets. I'm just not under the strange belief that what we have now is the best we could ever get. 

 

Your article was all about consumers and was dismissive about producers, when mentioned at all. Some of your fellow Brexit posters (not you, fair enough) seemed happy to sacrifice the whole agriculture sector for cheap imports, but did not suggest what the producers and workers in agriculture and associated work would do instead. The unstated assumption was that magical free markets would sort it all out.

 

What do you mean by "more technological driven crops"? Are you talking about arable crops harvested mechanically and not manually - or something else?

Do you know that such crops would be feasible (e.g. suitable land/climate) or that there would be a viable market for them?

Surely, if it was feasible and financially viable, then many farmers would be switching to such crops already in order to increase their income? Even I believe in the market enough to imagine that would happen...

 

Oh, and for the 5967 zillionth time (I trump your exaggeration ), I've never said that what we have now is the best we could ever get. In my longer post, I suggested improvements (e.g. better pay for agricultural labour & better access for local workers, even if it means higher food prices - and less ability for big corporations like the supermarkets to screw farmers by paying non-viable rates in pursuit of low consumer prices and high corporate profits). That corporate bullying is effectively subsidised by us as taxpayers, anyway, through public farm subsidies paid by the EU, and maybe by the UK Treasury post-Brexit.

 

Despite Thatcherite ideology, we are not merely consumers in a magically perfect market. We are people in a society. Back in the 80s, when we were all told that we had to view everyone, even colleagues, as "customers", I loathed the ideology behind that - and I still do.

[Bellend Sebastian]

21 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I've never interpreted the users/recipients of the term as being that. I've usually seen it as being aimed at Middle England Daily Mail readers more than anything. Hey ho.

I often find them roaming Morrisons of a Saturday morning, their lovely deep pink complexion complemented as often as not by a moustache, flat cap and what I understand those in the know call a 'gilet'. I'm not sure working class people wear gilets.

 

They always have a copy of the Daily Mail in their trolley, which I find odd as why don't they have it delivered? Perhaps it's a special Saturday treat.  I tend to go for profiteroles, things like that.

 

It's the demographic most likely to ask you all about those Indians when you encounter them literally anywhere other than Leicester and they find out you're from there

 

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I often find them roaming Morrisons of a Saturday morning, their lovely deep pink complexion complemented as often as not by a moustache, flat cap and what I understand those in the know call a 'gilet'. I'm not sure working class people wear gilets.

 

They always have a copy of the Daily Mail in their trolley, which I find odd as why don't they have it delivered? Perhaps it's a special Saturday treat.  I tend to go for profiteroles, things like that.

 

It's the demographic most likely to ask you all about those Indians when you encounter them literally anywhere other than Leicester and they find out you're from there

 

 

Yup, them's the ones alright...

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

Irish PM warns UK could crash out of EU without Brexit deal if no progress soon

EU ‘yet to see anything that remotely approaches’ a solution to Irish border issue, taoiseach says

 

The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has raised the prospect of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal if UK government infighting continues over the next few weeks.

With the Brexit negotiations stalling and Theresa May failing to offer any further solutions to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the republic, Varadkar made his growing concern clear before meeting the UK prime minister at an EU summit in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia.

The taoiseach said next month’s European council summit would be a key moment for the talks, despite attempts by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, and others in the UK government to play down suggestions of a “deadline”.

Let's be quite frank, Varadkar will do whatever the EU tells him to do, we saw the evidence of that in December.

[Guest MattP]

Peak Guardian surely? Surely? 

 

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Your article was all about consumers and was dismissive about producers, when mentioned at all. Some of your fellow Brexit posters (not you, fair enough) seemed happy to sacrifice the whole agriculture sector for cheap imports, but did not suggest what the producers and workers in agriculture and associated work would do instead. The unstated assumption was that magical free markets would sort it all out.

 

What do you mean by "more technological driven crops"? Are you talking about arable crops harvested mechanically and not manually - or something else?

Do you know that such crops would be feasible (e.g. suitable land/climate) or that there would be a viable market for them?

Surely, if it was feasible and financially viable, then many farmers would be switching to such crops already in order to increase their income? Even I believe in the market enough to imagine that would happen...

 

Oh, and for the 5967 zillionth time (I trump your exaggeration ), I've never said that what we have now is the best we could ever get. In my longer post, I suggested improvements (e.g. better pay for agricultural labour & better access for local workers, even if it means higher food prices - and less ability for big corporations like the supermarkets to screw farmers by paying non-viable rates in pursuit of low consumer prices and high corporate profits). That corporate bullying is effectively subsidised by us as taxpayers, anyway, through public farm subsidies paid by the EU, and maybe by the UK Treasury post-Brexit.

 

Despite Thatcherite ideology, we are not merely consumers in a magically perfect market. We are people in a society. Back in the 80s, when we were all told that we had to view everyone, even colleagues, as "customers", I loathed the ideology behind that - and I still do.

The producers and workers in agriculture make up less than 1% of Britain's workforce. Like when any sector becomes unviable, the ones that don't adapt will go on to other jobs. 

 

As for the more technological driven crops, I'm talking robots. I remember reading an interesting piece in the FT last year about how a large British agriculture business had already invested in a university to develop further a robot called thor-somethingorother. So I'd say there's at least an interest in using less human labour. 

 

On the feasibility or affordability of it, I have no idea. Though I'd expect the benefits would be hard pressed to outweigh having temporary minimum wage workers on demand, which could be why we've not really seen this innovation until there's been a decline in workers. 

 

On better pay for agricultural workers, how much would they have to pay you to get you in a field picking Asparagus? I'd say for me to get out there you're looking at about £30/hr. That's some expensive Asparagus.

 

Yes yes. People in a society where we defend farmers who don't actually care about us, but expect us to care about them. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

3 labour policies enacted by the government in two days wow JC is basically the prime minister

[Milo]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

A few questions for you Tory Brexit nutters....

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

How much bigger does it get than the world? 

Which bits of the world can we currently not import from?

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Which bits of the world can we currently not import from?

Without tariffs? Maybe a couple. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Without tariffs? Maybe a couple. 

But we don't have free trade deals in place with any of the countries upon which the EU does place tariffs.

Whilst you might say we COULD have free trade deals with them but:

- you have no idea if anybody - on either side - is planning worldwide free trade, you just hope they are

- the average trade deal takes over 4 years to implement

- the UK doesn't really have any history of trade deals recently as they've been done at EU level. We're seeing now how useless we are at negotiating, why would you believe - not hope, but actually believe - that we have the knowledge and expertise to agree and implement deals across the globe quickly?

- the US has long been talked up as the 'anti-eu' deal Brexiters want yet the recent Harvard deeper made clear that it's very unlikely there will actually be a deal as there's no real reason for the US to pursue one and it's likely what they'd want would be politically unacceptable here.

- why do you believe (again, not just hope but actually believe) that it is possible to end up with better trade relationships than we currently have despite every significant trade organisation saying we won't?

 

[Alf Bentley]

39 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The producers and workers in agriculture make up less than 1% of Britain's workforce.

I've already commented on food security, land use (agriculture certainly accounts for more than 1% of UK land) and on agriculture not existing in a vacuum but having important ties to suppliers, local communities & quality of life.

Even 1% of our workforce shouldn't be sacrificed on the altar of laissez-faire, but food/land/agriculture is bigger than that. What % of the population is in the armed forces? Would you sacrifice them in the same way?

 

Like when any sector becomes unviable, the ones that don't adapt will go on to other jobs. 

That's what happened with other "unviable" industries, did it? When the mines, steelworks and shipyards closed down, and the govt adopted an "adapt or die" Thatcherite response, offering little assistance with adaptation?

Everyone went on to other jobs, no lives were ruined and no long-term social problems created? Or maybe people and society do not matter so long as capital maximises profit?

 

As for the more technological driven crops, I'm talking robots. I remember reading an interesting piece in the FT last year about how a large British agriculture business had already invested in a university to develop further a robot called thor-somethingorother. So I'd say there's at least an interest in using less human labour.

Automation could work for some crops and on some types of land, I'm sure. But there'd still need to be demand for those crops. Plus, it would be a major investment so I'm guessing that it would only be viable for large farms. So, if successful, potentially another development favouring big business at the expense of smaller family farms. I sometimes wonder what sort of society we'll have in 20-40 years.

 

On the feasibility or affordability of it, I have no idea. Though I'd expect the benefits would be hard pressed to outweigh having temporary minimum wage workers on demand, which could be why we've not really seen this innovation until there's been a decline in workers.

Fair point re. the connection between low pay, low investment and low productivity. Another justification for my argument that govt should act against low pay in agriculture, even if that means higher food prices and less exorbitant profits and incomes for the big supermarkets and the 

 

On better pay for agricultural workers, how much would they have to pay you to get you in a field picking Asparagus? I'd say for me to get out there you're looking at about £30/hr. That's some expensive Asparagus.

So long as they could provide transport and the hours weren't too long, they wouldn't have to pay me much to pick asparagus. I'd quite like a bit of physical work in the fresh air, so long as it wasn't too exhausting (I'm getting on a bit) and I could keep up with home-based family and work commitments. But I assume they'd mainly be employing younger people. When I did such work as a young, commitment-free man, it was paid piece-rate but probably equated to just above minimum wage, which was fine by me. I hope nothing ever goes wrong with your job/business, if you'd demand £30/hr to get out of bed - and if you're in business, I trust you pay all your workers that much! 

 

Yes yes. People in a society where we defend farmers who don't actually care about us, but expect us to care about them. 

Apart from a handful of saints, everyone looks after their own interests first, so nothing wrong with farmers arguing for their interests. Anyway, I wasn't defending farmers, I was defending society. I see it as madness to even consider accepting zero food security in an unstable world afflicted by climate change, chaotically abandoning much of the British countryside and sacrificing countless thousands of livelihoods, all for the sake of a few cheap imports and an obsession with laissez-faire ideology. That's the crux of where we disagree, I think: you believe that unbridled free-market competition will sort everything out for the better; I believe that markets need some intervention on behalf of all of us and our wider society.

 

I'll leave it there, as I don't see the point of getting into further circular arguments. We clearly have very different world views.

 

[Alf Bentley]

52 minutes ago, Milo said:

 

No answers to my questions, then?

 

p.s. The reference to Tory Brexit nutters was meant affectionately. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

Haven't been on since the weekend and come back to find @Alf Bentley has gone deliriously mad. Have a lie down pal 

 

Cutting tariffs on food is going to leave us with zero food security (as if we are food secure as it is), destroy our countryside, and leave thousands destitute. Deary me.