Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

1 minute ago, FoxNotFox said:

 

'Gilets jaunes'  getting you down?!

Exactly ****ing right.

 

They have no idea.

[lifted*fox]

 

 

[FoxNotFox]

10 minutes ago, FIF said:

They have no idea.

It does seem self-defeating, those that currently support them will lose patience. It only takes one missed train or doctor's appointment for someone to turn.  

 

 

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Implementing the result of the referendum.

Fair enough.

 

Given the current climate I'm unconvinced, so I wouldn't mind hearing exactly why you or anyone else might think such a move wouldn't result in unrest caused by Remainers and/or a faction of the Brexiteers (depending on exactly what kind of implementation is carried out).

 

Like I said, just because they probably shouldn't doesn't mean that they won't.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

Growth hormones and gestation crates: the bacon we'll buy with a US trade deal

Trade deal would open door to meat containing banned growth promoters, from pigs kept in conditions banned in UK, industry leaders warn

 

The US meat lobby is “salivating” at the prospect of flooding the UK with bacon and pork produced using practices that would currently be illegal in the UK, a top food expert has warned.

Gestation crates and the chemical growth hormone ractopamine – both banned in the UK – are regularly used in the US pig industry, which achieves the lowest costs of production in the world. Any future trade deal which includes accepting US pork could potentially have a disastrous impact on the UK’s pig industry as well as diluting our welfare standards, say both industry and campaigners.

Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Tim Lang, from City University, said the British public needed to “wake up” to the dangers of animal welfare being rolled back as the UK prepares to leave the EU.

 

“[The US] secretary of state for commerce has already made it clear EU standards must go if the UK wants trade deals. Did voters really want leaving the EU to mean taking us out of a powerful and – by global standards – progressive trade block, and into the clutches of US big food?”

In the US, the chemical ractopamine is fed to the majority of pigs as a growth promoter. There is evidence that it causes lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath in farm animals and its use has been banned in the EU since 1996.

A sow stall or gestation crate is a metal enclosure that holds the pig in a confined space during pregnancy. It is too small to allow the animal to turn around. It is legal in all but nine US states, none of which are major pig producers, and is used ostensibly to prevent larger pigs from taking food from smaller ones and to enable farmers to keep productivity higher.

However, the practice has been criticised for restricting the ability of animals to move or carry out natural behaviours such as rooting, and the UK was one of the first countries in the EU to ban its use in 1999.

“The British public may not be aware how pig farming has been changed by the growth in free-range and end of sow stalls,” said Lang. “There are now tracts of East Anglia with open-air pigs. Campaigns have recalibrated the norms of pig farming. It’s not perfect yet but, wow, is it different from 50 years ago.”

The UK’s decision to take a global lead in banning crates saw a collapse in the numbers of UK pig farmers. Cheap bacon from countries that had not introduced a ban flooded into the UK, via retailers and the food service sector. UK pig meat imports from Denmark rose by 50% and from Germany by 400% between 1997-2007, according to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.

Pig farmers say the influx of meat produced to lower standards from US farms would lead to a drop in wholesale prices, once again undercutting UK producers. “Our costs are vastly inflated by standards. [Unlike US pig farmers] we’re not allowed to use hormones, ractopamine or keep pigs in stalls,” said Norfolk-based Rob Mutimer, who keeps 700 outdoor sows, producing about 15,000 pigs a year.

Animal welfare campaigners said the import of “cheap, inhumanely produced US pork” could see calls for UK welfare standards to be lowered and also make it more difficult to improve UK farm animal welfare standards in the future. However, the National Pig Association told the Guardian that UK producers had no interest in lowering standards to match imports.

“Having an animal that can never turn around or interact with other animals is unacceptable. I thought we had moved on as a society and that was no longer acceptable. It’s wrong to imprison them this way,” said Mutimer.

US farmers said opposition to the use of ractopamine and sow crates was “pseudo-science” and not “commercially reasonable”. “We’re not going to produce to perception. The food in the US is the safest and probably the best in the world,” said Nick Giordano, vice president and counsel for the National Pork Producers Council.

“The UK has to decide whether it’s really leaving the EU or not. The rest of the world does not subscribe to the nanny state approach. We expect the UK to accept our product without equivocation. Americans eat it, so it’s good enough for our friends across the pond,” he added.

The environment secretary, Michael Gove, has said the UK would not drop its standards on animal welfare in agreeing any US trade deal. But Lang said he had little faith the UK would be able to resist the pressure to sign a deal.

The US would bully the shit out of the UK, particularly under Trump

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The US would bully the shit out of the UK, particularly under Trump

Of course.

 

Given the attitude of this administration to pretty much all international deals this far (whether with friends or rivals) in amazed anyone would think otherwise.

[ClaphamFox]

The Chancellor of the Exchequor admitted on TV last night that every single ‘leave’ option would leave the country poorer than remaining in the EU. That’s not new, but I’d be interested to know whether most people understand and accept this, or believe something different...

[FoxNotFox]

13 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The Chancellor of the Exchequor admitted on TV last night that every single ‘leave’ option would leave the country poorer than remaining in the EU. That’s not new, but I’d be interested to know whether most people understand and accept this, or believe something different...

He also said "this isn’t only about economics" which I think addresses your question. I think we're to assume that Brexiters understand and accept being poorer as part of a bigger picture.

 

The big Brexit questions were things like taking back control, sovereignty, immigration, borders, etc. So seemingly 'leave' voters were prepared to pay for those things (by becoming poorer) Whether they'll think the same after a Brexit is another issue, but Hammond was only commenting on the economics of it. 

Edited 22 November 2018 by FoxNotFox

[The Horse's Mouth]

13 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The Chancellor of the Exchequor admitted on TV last night that every single ‘leave’ option would leave the country poorer than remaining in the EU. That’s not new, but I’d be interested to know whether most people understand and accept this, or believe something different...

Most brexiteers didn't vote leave for financial gain, the most popular argument is getting back to being a sovereign nation and being able to control immigration 

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Most brexiteers didn't vote leave for financial gain, the most popular argument is getting back to being a sovereign nation and being able to control immigration 

Yes, I know most leave voters didn’t vote for financial gain. I’m just interested to know whether they fully understand and accept the financial cost, particularly as it will be the poorer areas of the country (where the leave vote was stronger) that will be hit hardest. If they understand that and believe it is a price worth paying for controlling immigration, fair enough.

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Most brexiteers didn't vote leave for financial gain, the most popular argument is getting back to being a sovereign nation and being able to control immigration 

 

7 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes, I know most leave voters didn’t vote for financial gain. I’m just interested to know whether they fully understand and accept the financial cost, particularly as it will be the poorer areas of the country (where the leave vote was stronger) that will be hit hardest. If they understand that and believe it is a price worth paying for controlling immigration, fair enough.

 

I’m not convinced they do understand at all - they bought into the ‘we’ll have great deals with the whole world’, and ‘the EU need us more than we need them’ arguments. 

 

If they didn’t it would be just perverse - the freedom to live in poverty. Wtf?

[The Horse's Mouth]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

I’m not convinced they do understand at all - they bought into the ‘we’ll have great deals with the whole world’, and ‘the EU need us more than we need them’ arguments. 

 

If they didn’t it would be just perverse - the freedom to live in poverty. Wtf?

Most of the people who live in predominantly leave regions already live in poverty though 

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Most of the people who live in predominantly leave regions already live in poverty though 

 

Due to Tory ideological austerity, not the EU. 

 

If they think they’re poor now, wait till the effects of Brexit kick in. They ain’t seen nuthin yet. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

Due to Tory ideological austerity, not the EU. 

 

If they think they’re poor now, wait till the effects of Brexit kick in. They ain’t seen nuthin yet. 

You talk like these areas were wealthy before 2010, they didn't just appear overnight. If anything, a vote to remain was a vote for a continuation of the Cameron and Osborne government, thus a continuation of so called austerity.

Look at the public spending that;s going to happen to now under the Conservatives, an extra 20 billion a year for the NHS, more than even the Labour manifesto promised (and more than the bus even said) - do you think that would have happened without Brexit? I very much doubt it.

[The Horse's Mouth]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Due to Tory ideological austerity, not the EU. 

 

If they think they’re poor now, wait till the effects of Brexit kick in. They ain’t seen nuthin yet. 

You're being disengious to suggest these areas are impoverish just because of the Tory government, it's fine having your own side but you don't need to use spin on every point. These people have nothing to lose, brexit hurts the business elite more than these lads anyway.

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

You're being disengious to suggest these areas are impoverish just because of the Tory government, it's fine having your own side but you don't need to use spin on every point. These people have nothing to lose, brexit hurts the business elite more than these lads anyway.

Their workers maybe, not the elites themselves.

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

You're being disengious to suggest these areas are impoverish just because of the Tory government, it's fine having your own side but you don't need to use spin on every point. These people have nothing to lose, brexit hurts the business elite more than these lads anyway.

It really, really won’t.

[The Horse's Mouth]

It's irrelevant anyway because nothing is going to change, we're leaving in name only 

[SMX11]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

The Chancellor of the Exchequor admitted on TV last night that every single ‘leave’ option would leave the country poorer than remaining in the EU. That’s not new, but I’d be interested to know whether most people understand and accept this, or believe something different...

I assume the Chancellor is looking at his famous models in which the UK tariff barriers are mirroring the CET for the whole world. The model no doubt assumes that the UK keeps the same regulatory environment, tax policy etc. and therefore show a snapshot which is unrealistic. 

 

The lack of vision shown by this government is astounding.

[Buce]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Look at the public spending that;s going to happen to now under the Conservatives, an extra 20 billion a year for the NHS, more than even the Labour manifesto promised (and more than the bus even said) - do you think that would have happened without Brexit? I very much doubt it.

 

 

Empty promises made by a failing government, paid for by - wait for it - a 'Brexit Dividend!'

 

The really funny thing is that if Labour had come out with something like this, you'd have been laughing about 'magic money trees'.

[Buce]

33 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

You're being disengious to suggest these areas are impoverish just because of the Tory government, it's fine having your own side but you don't need to use spin on every point. These people have nothing to lose, brexit hurts the business elite more than these lads anyway.

3

 

 Who exactly are 'these lads'?

[bovril]

I think it's disingenuous to say leave voters didn't vote for financial gain. Some of the main arguments for leaving were to save money that we send to the EU, to tap into wealthy markets in other parts of the World, to help young Brits to find work and to clamp down on migrants on benefits. They are simplistic arguments but very emotive in times of austerity. I honestly don't think Brexit would have got anywhere near 52% if we hadn't had years of austerity and cuts, so it's illogical to say people will be somehow content with being poorer.

 

I don't think 'sovereignty' is quite as high up in people's priorities as some claim, but I could be wrong.

Edited 22 November 2018 by bovril

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, bovril said:

I think it's disingenuous to say leave voters didn't vote for financial gain. Some of the main arguments for leaving were to save money that we send to the EU, to tap into wealthy markets in other parts of the World, to help young Brits to find work and to clamp down on migrants on benefits. They are simplistic arguments but very emotive in times of austerity. I honestly don't think Brexit would have got anywhere near 52% if we hadn't had years of austerity and cuts, so it's illogical to say people will be somehow content with being poorer.

 

I don't think 'sovereignty' is quite as high up in people's priorities as some claim, but I could be wrong. 

Wealth distribution probably plays more of a part than austerity, you need to get the money to the areas that need it if you want them to be content with the current situation they are in.

Many Corbyn voters I know realise we'll be a poorer country under his leadership, but they hope the poorest will get a fairer share of what the overall wealth is - I'd imagine many leavers think the same with regards to Brexit.

[Strokes]

If you have Fùck all, you have Fùck all to lose.

[bovril]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Wealth distribution probably plays more of a part than austerity, you need to get the money to the areas that need it if you want them to be content with the current situation they are in.

Many Corbyn voters I know realise we'll be a poorer country under his leadership, but they hope the poorest will get a fairer share of what the overall wealth is - I'd imagine many leavers think the same with regards to Brexit.

Personally I believe with Corbyn and Brexit some of it (I stress some) is about punishing who they feel is responsible for their disadvantageous situation. It taps into the same feelings of discontent for sure. But history is littered with examples of angry proles taking decisions that made them even poorer.