I agree. However, Brexit should make it easier to recruit trained staff from around the world. Put it this way, simplified for effect: Say you need 100 nurses, and 1% of the people wandering in from the EU are nurses. That means you need 100 x 100 = 10,000 EU immigrants to get 100 nurses. That's another 9,900 immigrants that you don't need but still have to house, police, school, medicate etc etc. If you want to take only 5,000, then you are not going to get the nurses you need. Alternatively, where immigration is controlled and you need 100 nurses, you say the first 100 applicants who are nurses get in. Then you need only 100 immigrants to get 100 nurses. Leaving 4,900 places to fill the next most urgent category, doctors. I'm sorry, I just don't accept that working conditions are for the most part reliant in EU legislation. Besides, you seem to be arguing elsewhere that improving workers pay and rights is ruinous to business. Pick a side. We were speaking specifically about farms. Small farms make for nicer country walks but an inefficient agri sector is not beneficial to food security.
For the moment, yes ... Economics is NOT simply about demonstrating the basic numbers. Yes, the GDP per capita of the US is substantially larger than that of the EU - but that does not mean that such a distancing may last forever. (Especially under the present administration.) Moreover, the recent expansion of the EU reduced its GDP per capita (which was the obvious consequence) but by no means extinguished its ability to recuperate the loss. Quite to the contrary. In today's news, I was pleased to learn that one of the principal industries of the UK, car manufacturing, exports 60% of its production to the EU. We'll see how that stands up when the exports face import duties. (The EU will not be very forgiving.) Your designating the British as "rich" is hyperbole. They are not more so than those of other countries that have been in the EU for quite some time. See here: Map of sovereign states in Europe by GDP per capita based literal exchange rate for USD 2013 Note that eight of the EU countries have a larger GDP/head than the UK ...
So am I, the smoking ban was not introduced to make our working conditions better but those of the majority of non-smokers who work with us. I'm a chef and while many claims are made about the closure of pubs due to the ban these are often false as they have been showing a steady decline for a long time before the ban came in due in most part to the availability of cheaper alcohol in supermarkets and the preference to drink at home. The smoking ban has definitely helped the rise of gastro pubs and other eating establishments as many non-smokers are encouraged to eat out now because they don't have to wade through our antisocial smoke to get to the eating areas of those places.
Firstly there is ample evidence that those other 9,900 immigrants are needed and the tax they pay is greater than the cost our communities incur. You will note that I was talking about working conditions and minimum wages only which have improved due to EU legislations and these new rules like those in environmental legislation are often not pushed by our self interested national governments. Pay and therefore inflation is kept lower by our immigration policies and while this is a complicated balance with no room for black and white claims I believe that it is an overall benefit to our NHS and agricultural industries and many others competing with low labour cost imports. Small farms are much kinder to our environment and employ more workers per yield of crops with better animal welfare and food quality standards so I would like to keep that option open to give customers the choice between that and the highly intensified massive farming conglomerates. As a chef and consumer I appreciate this choice which allows me to buy locally sourced food with a higher standard of quality, you are of course still free to eat at McDonalds and buy your food from the supermarket cartels.
"Those who rule". Who are they? They are the elected officials of any democratic country, and as far as the EU goes, they are all "ruling" legally for as long as their tenure lasts. (Ditto USA, despite the Trump election debacle of a less than majority popular vote - which makes him think he is King of the Hill.) I will grant you the fact that Berlaymont in Brussels is not a democratic establishment given that its leadership is determined by inter-EU state leadership decision. Nonetheless, nothing gets done in the EU without the majority agreement of country leadership (PMs). Notwithstanding that above, for the EU to persist and evolve it needs One Leader Elected by a majority popular vote to do so. Frankly, I don't see that happening any time soon ...
Not yet there isn't. The indications are that over the full life cycle Eastern EU immigrants will return 0.60/0.70 to 1.0 spent. But we have had these immigrants for less than a decade, and they have not gone through the entire life cycle yet. They are still prime working age. I still don't know why you think an MEP is more likely to care about you than an MP. Can you try to explain that? There is no doubt a benefit to the NHS in low-cost imported labour, and indeed to any business. It just screws over the people. As long as my taxes aren't paying for your preferences I don't care what you eat.
Yet on a year by year basis they cost less than they contribute. You didn't address my point about them often being temporary residents who return home later in life, either to start businesses with their hard earned money or retire. I'm not sure I can explain it but the evidence is clear, it may be to do with the more socially responsible attitude compared to our usually conservative majorities in parliament. It is helpful in debates to provide reasons with claims one makes. They don't, I pay the higher costs with my own money.
We haven't see the full cycle yet for East Europeans so we can't say what they will do (would have done). However, a work permit scheme would ensure that they do go home. Its an interesting stance. To me it sounds like you want someone to look after us. you mean "screwing over the people"? I meant that undercutting indigenous workers with imported cheap labour for profit is nothing very innovative. It is certainly profitable. If that were the case then they wouldn't need EU subsidies.
Ruling legally? Laws made by rulers. Our PM did not represent us democratically. So he was not our leader in this. None of them did so none of them were. We elected UKIP to represent us in the EU. Which they did. Our democratic mandate has only ever been not to join the EU. Now those that thought they ruled over us... have found out that they don't. Them's the breaks. With regards to immigrants going home.... I'd rather we enforced this than left it to chance. Make it our choice and not theirs. Rather than we all just assume they do the right thing... let's make sure they even know that they are expected to. Honestly what a load of old hogwash. Immigrants come here to pay our taxes for us and when they can noi longer put in more than they take out, they will leave. Uh huh. A likely story. How about immigrants come here because they can get stuff we want for ourselves. How about they don't leave unless they get a better deal elsewhere. If they leave at all and instead don't plant roots locally..
All farms make use of subsidies whether large or small. Recent changes to subsidies have been aimed at countryside protection rather than ensuring high yields and guaranteed prices as these just led to over production and butter mountains, wine lakes etc. I will state a personal interest and tell you I live on a small mainly arable farm so have a reasonable knowledge of farming and subsidies.
Like some arses in the centre of a city, having worked in an office all their lives... know anything at all about protecting the countryside. We are British. We get the highest yields. Let the famine cultures farm stupid.
Now you are just assuming ignorance in others while signposting your own. High yield intensive farming is not sustainable in the long term due to the ecological damage and soil depletion it encourages.
There are two completely contradictory justifications for subsidy: Tourism and Food security. If we are subsidizing for tourism, maybe it would be less expensive to re-wild large portions of the countryside and have museum-farms to visit for a little fee Or if we want food security, then for 65 million people (plus annual immigration), large efficient farms are required rather than small hobby holdings. Or we can leave it to market forces like the world outside of Europe does.
Plenty of countries outside Europe also subsidise food production. There is plenty of room for both large and small farms and as I say both claim subsidies which are paid for environmental practises not production. Both large and small farms would be hit by the loss of subsidies so unless you want to pay more for your 1/4 pounder they are advantageous to food security. Most foreign tourists don't travel much outside London so I'm not sure where you are going with that one.
OK If not tourism then the only remaining justification is food security, which is incompatible with small farms. I hope you understand that if I pay 1 Eur additional tax to save 20 cents on my food, that is not saving me money. The taxpayer's return on farm subsidies in the EU is terrible because the difference in produce price with the rest of the world is quite marginal. The EU farm subsidy accounts for some 55% of farmer income in the UK, compared to 19% in the OECD average and 0% in New Zealand. EU farm subsidy is a gravy train to nowhere.
Get with the reality of governmental rule in a democracy - like it or not. From there, we might have an interesting exchange of opinion - because the nitty-gritty of "things political" are much more complex than your superficial dismissal of "rulers". We are both part of the "ruling group" in America quite simply because we are its citizens with the democratic right to elect our congressional representatives. But when only half the population decides to vote, moneyed-interests have found a way to "manipulate" the other half. (And we allowed them to do so willingly.) The "election" of Donald Dork is just the latest example of a candidate who lost the popular-vote but was made PotUS by a rump "Electoral College" ...
Tell that to France where the average sized farm is 100 acres and they produce the majority of their own food. For the 3rd time....subsidies are no longer about food production or ensuring high product prices which was the original intention after the food shortages of WWII they are about countryside protection. Which is why our threatened farms of all sizes need it to continue to guarantee food security.
We have twice the population density, so we simply can't afford to be that inefficient with space if food security is our goal. (which, granted, you later say it isn't) I thought you said it wasn't about tourism. If its about protecting the countryside, re-wild and import. Much cheaper Maybe so, but if it is about food security, (which you just said it wasn't) make the farms as efficient as possible with intense farming practices.
To be honest, what I would really like to see come out of Brexit is the ability to distinguish between British standards in animal husbandry to Continental and charge appropriately. I think our farmers get a raw deal when our standards are better than the continent but our produce is sold in direct competition with products of those lower standards. And also a more sensible approach to GM crops would be great
You were the one who tried to bring tourism into it not me. Protecting the countryside includes the 1000s of small farms which help make up the British countryside and have done for many centuries. Efficiency can and often does go against protecting our countryside. I had a chat with the farmer who's farm I live on this morning just to check I had my facts right. Farm subsidies are now a straightforward £90 per acre but are dependant on certain environmental conditions such as hedgerow conservation. If you cut them down you get nothing and wildlife has nowhere to go. Wheat which is one of the most profitable crops costs £220 an acre to produce and sells for £400 so the £90 per acre adds profit to the £180 otherwise earned and enables farms of all sizes to stay open. In conclusion subsidies keep the cost of home produced food cheaper and ensures the protection of the countryside whilst also helping food security by keeping farms profitable. That's a win, win win situation for subsidies and the govt has only guaranteed them for 5 years post Brexit. Cheers Brexit you have put future farming in danger of going broke, put up future food costs and endangered the protection of the countryside. Plus as an added bonus you have caused the pound to fall therefore increasing the cost of food imports. Happy now? Are we great again?
That makes no sense at all, almost all the beef eaten in this country comes from Britain or Ireland. The high standards are a result of EU regulations and the cheap imports come from the US and South America where the standards are appalling and the beef is full of growth hormones and anti-biotics. The GM debate is dead and buried, the public don't want it, the farmers don't want it and the govt don't want it. Game over for now and nobody wants to reopen the debate......
They really are not. The UK has and retains stricter standards than the EU https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/16/meat-imports-animal-welfare-standards You have a tendency to post things as fact without checking first. We don't import from the US, we import from EU as well as New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Brazil. The US is the world's biggest beef importer. Its going to get a big revival. https://www.farminguk.com/news/UK-v...for-potential-post-Brexit-approval_45484.html
Well, since the enclosures of the 18th century anyway, so that's 2 and a bit centuries, rather than "many". Before that it was hundreds of thousands of mini "farms". The enclosures have been described as one of the drivers behind the British Agricultural Revolution. True, which is why "protection" often conflicts with the aim of food security. But are we protecting small farms or hedgerows? Is it easier for a larger farm to cheaply undertake the environmental conservation activities than a small holding? No you just said the farmer is taking taking it as profit. It would reduce the cost if the wheat was sold for £400 less the £90 being £310. But it is sold for £400 regardless so doesn't impact the price. It keeps small farms open but I still don't have any reason to think that this is a good or worthwhile thing to do.
Says the guy who thinks tourists come to see the countryside and subsidies makes food security less obtainable. I have no problem with our standards exceeding the high standards of the EU. You are right, we don't import beef from the US because the growth hormones are so bad. If we import from so many non EU countries already remind me why we need Brexit again. Not necessarily a good thing and anyway you can't make the public buy what they don't want so what's the point?
Farms were nearly all small until the 20th century and intensive farming has reduced wildlife massively. Many birds have had a 70% drop in numbers since the 70's because of these huge farms without hedgerows. The birdsong right now where I am is deafening and there are 3 of the 7 species of UK owls not to mention protected wild orchids. We would lose all that if there were only large farms. Both, large farms would just buy up the small farms which would go bust without the subsidies and remove all the inefficient hedgerows to improve their profits. That would be subsidising food to the public and taking money out of the farmers pocket. Also many crops would be unprofitable and the whole countryside would be given over to wheat. See American dust bowl when you have huge fields of wheat with no hedgerows.
