As you now know the NFU was against Brexit. When you say "moaning" you really mean "fearing for their livelihoods". No subsidy = farms close = food imports (at greater cost because the pound has fallen in value because of Brexit) = further trade imbalance = naught for your comfort. But hey, let's pretend it will all be fine if it weren't for people saying it won't be.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
don't know how to add stuff on here but if you read the NFU stuff like farmings offer to Britain etc yu can see how a positive post Brexit future is trumpteded
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
We should stop funding the EU and we could give some of the money to farmers.
I agree wholeheartedly - like was promised to the NHS on the bus. Problem is that the EU exit dividend will only go so far and I think in the referendum debate the Leave camp promised far more than was ever going to be saved to buy votes. Again standard electioneering practice but I suspect that a lot of Leave voters are going to be disappointed.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
As you now know the NFU was against Brexit. When you say "moaning" you really mean "fearing for their livelihoods". No subsidy = farms close = food imports (at greater cost because the pound has fallen in value because of Brexit) = further trade imbalance = naught for your comfort. But hey, let's pretend it will all be fine if it weren't for people saying it won't be.
living in a rural community all I know for sure is all those depending on farming for a living fear what comes post 2020 - none of them expect a positive outcome - frankly the most positive of them that I speak to hope that the cliff farming will fall off won't be too steep. None of them expect subsidy to last and hill farmers round here ( N Yorks Moors ) fear the worst. There are few arable farmers so can't speak for them. Even those involved in shoots expect a drop off in trade - in the barbers at weekend and one guy said already two of their best clients are relocating to Frankfurt so wont be coming this year.
That's very amusing.don't know how to add stuff on here but if you read the NFU stuff like farmings offer to Britain etc yu can see how a positive post Brexit future is trumpteded
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
I agree wholeheartedly - like was promised to the NHS on the bus. Problem is that the EU exit dividend will only go so far and I think in the referendum debate the Leave camp promised far more than was ever going to be saved to buy votes. Again standard electioneering practice but I suspect that a lot of Leave voters are going to be disappointed.
'Let's spend it on the NHS' was a proposition, not a promise. An example of a promise would be 'there will be an emergency budget on the Monday following the referendum' or 'the UK will be at the back of the queue'
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
'Let's spend it on the NHS' was a proposition, not a promise. An example of a promise would be 'there will be an emergency budget on the Monday following the referendum' or 'the UK will be at the back of the queue'
oh dear is that the best you can do? Pretty certain an awful lot of people voted leave on the basis that was going to happen - certainly a lot of those I have seen and heard interviewed on the TV and radio said it was. The last one........... well not really a promise was it - more a proposition given no negotiaitions have happened yet. I know Trump has said it isn't a given we will be at the back of the queue but then again we only have Trumps word for that and the same guy has promised to put America first so if it doesn't suit his plans that will be so much BS too.....
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
Not a fan of the truth then; I should have guessed after your NFU bollocks.oh dear is that the best you can do? Pretty certain an awful lot of people voted leave on the basis that was going to happen - certainly a lot of those I have seen and heard interviewed on the TV and radio said it was. The last one........... well not really a promise was it - more a proposition given no negotiaitions have happened yet. I know Trump has said it isn't a given we will be at the back of the queue but then again we only have Trumps word for that and the same guy has promised to put America first so if it doesn't suit his plans that will be so much BS too.....
Here's EU negotiator Michel Barnier:
"It goes without saying that a no-deal scenario, while a distinct possibility, would have severe consequences for our people and our economies. It would undoubtedly leave the UK worse off.
"Severe disruption to air transport and long queues at the Channel Port of Dover are just some of the many examples of the negative consequences of failing to reach a deal. Others include the disruption of supply chains, including the suspension of the delivery of nuclear material to the UK.
"While the 27 member states will find it easier to adjust – as they will still benefit from the single market, the customs union and more than 60 trade deals with their international partners we believe it is in the best interests of both sides to reach a deal on the UK's orderly withdrawal from the EU."
Here's you and some of the worst brexiteers (including some of the government):
"Bugger the bastards. We'll walk away!"
And have we got any negotiators yet?http://goo.gl/UDjD5I
Yep - and?????
That would be:
Michel Barnier? and his role is what???? oh - Lead EU negotiator - did you expect him to say that he has concerns for the EU??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, that post sums up the problem with a number of the Remain posters on here - they just suck up everything that the EU puts out there and ridicule anything that suggests positive things for our country. You wonder why a lot of us on the leave side hold the view that you seem to want the country to fail??
To help you - here is some more of Barnier's negotiating stance - this part of his briefing to the utterly pro-EU FT:
"Britain could be forced to pay up to €60 billion (£52 billion) in unpaid budget commitments, pension liabilities, loan guarantees and spending on UK-based projects as part of Brexit negotiations, the Financial Times reports.
The FT was briefed by senior EU negotiators on plans for talks with Britain once Article 50 is triggered, beginning the official process of Britain leaving the 28-nation bloc.
It looks pretty bad for Britain. Michel Barnier, one of the European Commission's chief Brexit negotiators, wants to go after Britain on finances, forcing it to plug the financial gap created by Britain leaving the EU. The total bill is estimated to be between €40 billion (£34 billion) and €60 billion (£52 billion)."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-wa...fee-in-brexit-negotiations-article-50-2016-11
Notice how it is all reported as negative fact - just like you do. No mention of the alternative opinion that we need not pay a penny - no suggestion of how the EU could be up shit creek pretty quickly if we equally play hardball.
In fact - if you understood the negotiating dynamics, Barnier's stance and briefings here actually support my stated views about the UK - from a negotiating POV - absolutely needing to have the option of walking away and the EU believing that it has the will to do so.
Why do you think that the EU: "............... wants to go after Britain on finances, forcing it to plug the financial gap created by Britain leaving the EU."?
As I have said before it is because MONEY - especially over the next 7 years when they have huge investment programmes predicated on our contributions - is their Achilles heel. Good negotiating tactic by Barnier to seek to fix that to the EU's advantage up front. Equally important that we do not remove from them the threat that they may have our contributions removed with immediate effect - that is our most important bargaining chip and one which likely is an 'Ace of trumps' if played right.
Problem is the Remoaners will continue to try and tie the government's hands and undermine the UK's negotiating strengths - they have tried throughout and will not stop now.
The tactic remains, as largely does the opinion on here, one of continuing to fight the pre-23/06 campaign - meanwhile the government's negotiating team have to try and secure the best deal based on the decision to leave - because they have to live with where we are - not where you wanted us to be.
Last edited:
I agree wholeheartedly - like was promised to the NHS on the bus. Problem is that the EU exit dividend will only go so far and I think in the referendum debate the Leave camp promised far more than was ever going to be saved to buy votes. Again standard electioneering practice but I suspect that a lot of Leave voters are going to be disappointed.
Maintaining farming subsidies wouldn't need to come from the dividend as it is something we currently pay in for and receive back from the EU as a benefit. The dividend accounts for what we pay in and don't receive back.
Countryfile at the weekend covered this and it sounds like we can cover the cost for much less than the EU pays. It doesn't just go to farmers, but anyone with a business over a large amount of open land, such as golf clubs, which seems silly.
There's also no restriction on what can be claimed and no accounting for the fact that smaller farms rely on the subsidy much more than large farms. Lord Heseltine is worth around £200m and he was receiving £90k each year from the EU for having a ton of land, perhaps explaining why he was so keen to see us staying in.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.