Brexit, for once some facts.

[50Hertz]

Interesting fact: Only 9% of British businesses do any trade at all with the EU.

That is interesting. Do you have any data which tells us the percentage of total U.K. business carried out by that 9% of businesses? For example, if that same 9% of British businesses carry out 90% of British business, then it is a highly significant 9%.

 

[OxygenJames]

So come on Woosh.

What facts did he get wrong? I've had a brief look - not gone through with a fine tooth comb.

You tell me:

https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/brexit/the-effects-of-brexit-on-farms-and-farming/

 

[50Hertz]

I enjoy listening to Farage. I find him interesting.

 

[flecc]

I enjoy listening to Farage. I find him interesting.

But as simplistic as ever. He always does this, making something look like a simple solution when it isnt. What he's suggesting is just kicking the can down the road for two years, then landing us back at today.

Once is enough thanks, I don't want this dispute all over again in two years time, nor do I want the trade talks to be delayed two years or more.

There's nothing fanatical about the EU position, they just want us to leave on the leave terms we agreed to when we signed up to all the previous treaties and that we again agreed to when the present negotiations started.

Far from being rigid, the EU has also varied the article 50 terms to allow us to delay it or even withdraw it if either would be helpful.
.

 

[Woosh]

So come on Woosh.

What facts did he get wrong? I've had a brief look - not gone through with a fine tooth comb.

You tell me:

https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/brexit/the-effects-of-brexit-on-farms-and-farming/

here are some quotes from that article.

British farmers will just go bust in their masses and we can’t allow that, can we?
Well, yes, obviously we can. The impact will really be upon the price of farmland and will thus mean that the landlords lose out.

what happens to our usual food? should we stop eating Welsh lamb when the Welsh shepherds stop shepherding? No Scotch beef? No British flour?
the mistake is to narrow the view down to the price of farmland from a multitude of variables so that the function/relationship connecting farm production to the price of farmland can be single out.
That's called a pseudo-scientific method.

That quote is just his (Tim W's) opening line.
James, if you want to carry on with this, do.

 

[oldgroaner]

What facts did he get wrong? I'll email him and see what he says.

Good idea, you don't want to get your American Corporate propaganda wrong do you?
You won't make "America Great Again" that way.
The Adam Smith Institute will need more hidden funding from elsewhere,you can't run Subversion on a shoestring these days.

 

[oldgroaner]

What's this? and in the Telegraph too!
Analysis Britain's best chance of revenge for its lost Brexit is to remain in the EU

 

[oldgroaner]

And in the Express, it's all turning out as predicted
Jacob Rees-Mogg reveals REAL reason behind his Brexit compromise – 'Enormous opportunity'
JACOB Rees-Mogg has revealed the reasoning behind his seemingly abrupt compromise on Brexit prior to Tuesday's amendment votes.
Mr Rees-Mogg shocked parliament when he took part in the ‘Malthouse Compromise’ - a cross-part initiative that involves renegotiating the backstop element of Theresa May’s Brexit deal to replace it with a free trade agreement with ‘alternative arrangements’ to avoid customs checks on the Irish border. It would also involve extending the transition period for an extra year until December 2021 to allow more time to agree a new trading relationship. Many have seen it as a softening of the Tory MPs hardline Brexit position, from which he regularly called for a no-deal.
But Mr Rees-Mogg outlined his rationale on his LBC show on Friday when a caller explained: “I find it quite interesting that you do want to accept the Malthouse compromise.

“On the basis that you’ve been quite hard line and a man of integrity as you are I find it…

“Do you want to do this because of party unity or is it because you feel it’s something the country deserves?
“I mean I don’t really like handing over £39billion, which equates to £2,000 of my income and giving it to the bureaucrats of Europe.”
Mr Rees-Mogg considered before replying: “I don’t want to do that.
“But I’ve come to the conclusion that what I most want is to leave the European Union.
“And that if there’s a payment for that it will be a good investment because once we’re free of the EU we will be able to flourish.
“Our economy will be set according to our own rules - it’s an enormous opportunity.
What he omitted was this
And I can keep my offshore assets safe from the EU

The man has changed sides out of fear, he's another Turncoat and wont be the last.

 

[50Hertz]

But as simplistic as ever. He always does this, making something look like a simple solution when it isnt. What he's suggesting is just kicking the can down the road for two years, then landing us back at today.

Once is enough thanks, I don't want this dispute all over again in two years time, nor do I want the trade talks to be delayed two years or more.

There's nothing fanatical about the EU position, they just want us to leave on the leave terms we agreed to when we signed up to all the previous treaties and that we again agreed to when the present negotiations started.

Far from being rigid, the EU has also varied the article 50 terms to allow us to delay it or even withdraw it if either would be helpful.
.

I still find his speaking strangely captivating and I think he has a real talent for detecting and tapping into the mood of the nation. He is popular and when you consider the bland, PR groomed talentless underachievers in parliament, you can begin to see why.

You are right, it is a simple solution that just delays the uncertainty we have now and proposes no eventual outcome.

I lost faith in Farage after the referendum. When his moment came to step up, he stepped down and hid. He campaigned for that Leave vote and promised many things, it was his moment to rise up and deliver on the promise, but he disappeared. Same with Johnson. Neither can be trusted, both have blown it.

 

[OxygenJames]

here are some quotes from that article.



what happens to our usual food? should we stop eating Welsh lamb when the Welsh shepherds stop shepherding? No Scotch beef? No British flour?
the mistake is to narrow the view down to the price of farmland from a multitude of variables so that the function/relationship connecting farm production to the price of farmland can be single out.

Really? Sounds to me like he is saying the end result will be a reduction in the value of the land. Whats factually wrong about that? Sounds about right to me. Which means rents will go down ie landowners will 'suffer'. I don't see that as factually incorrect at all.

As for the what about welsh meat etc - well do you really think most people can taste the difference or care where their meat comes from? And if they do then they will be willing to pay for that difference and the farms will survive - its how the market finds real value in things - ie if there is any there's a market for that particular 'value'.

If you can point out a definite specific factual error I will ask him - but I don't want to bother him otherwise.

 

[OxygenJames]

Good idea, you don't want to get your American Corporate propaganda wrong do you?
You won't make "America Great Again" that way.
The Adam Smith Institute will need more hidden funding from elsewhere,you can't run Subversion on a shoestring these days.

Try arguing with what is actually said rather than dismiss what is actually being said simply because of who is saying it or 'where they get their funding'.

Engage with the argument - not the source.

Or not.

As I keep saying it's still - just - a free country.

 

[OxygenJames]

And in the Express, it's all turning out as predicted
Jacob Rees-Mogg reveals REAL reason behind his Brexit compromise – 'Enormous opportunity'
JACOB Rees-Mogg has revealed the reasoning behind his seemingly abrupt compromise on Brexit prior to Tuesday's amendment votes.
Mr Rees-Mogg shocked parliament when he took part in the ‘Malthouse Compromise’ - a cross-part initiative that involves renegotiating the backstop element of Theresa May’s Brexit deal to replace it with a free trade agreement with ‘alternative arrangements’ to avoid customs checks on the Irish border. It would also involve extending the transition period for an extra year until December 2021 to allow more time to agree a new trading relationship. Many have seen it as a softening of the Tory MPs hardline Brexit position, from which he regularly called for a no-deal.
But Mr Rees-Mogg outlined his rationale on his LBC show on Friday when a caller explained: “I find it quite interesting that you do want to accept the Malthouse compromise.

“On the basis that you’ve been quite hard line and a man of integrity as you are I find it…

“Do you want to do this because of party unity or is it because you feel it’s something the country deserves?
“I mean I don’t really like handing over £39billion, which equates to £2,000 of my income and giving it to the bureaucrats of Europe.”
Mr Rees-Mogg considered before replying: “I don’t want to do that.
“But I’ve come to the conclusion that what I most want is to leave the European Union.
“And that if there’s a payment for that it will be a good investment because once we’re free of the EU we will be able to flourish.
“Our economy will be set according to our own rules - it’s an enormous opportunity.
What he omitted was this
And I can keep my offshore assets safe from the EU

The man has changed sides out of fear, he's another Turncoat and wont be the last.

If he stuck to his original position you would accuse him of intransigence - now that he is showing a willingness to compromise you accuse him of being a turncoat.

No surprises there then.

 

[oyster]

So come on Woosh.

What facts did he get wrong? I've had a brief look - not gone through with a fine tooth comb.

You tell me:

https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/brexit/the-effects-of-brexit-on-farms-and-farming/

He goes on about lower standards of production (lettuce or chlorine washed chicken or bromine-based flour conditioner) coming to the conclusion that we will not buy it if we don't want it. This is naive.

We first would need to have clear labelling in order to be informed before making our choices.

Yes, we can look at a lettuce and inspect how green and fresh it looks, weight, etc. What we cannot do while standing in a supermarket or greengrocers is identify biological contamination such has recently occurred in the USA. We only find that out when we (or other consumers) get ill and some agency eventually identifies the source.

We have much the same issue with chlorine-washed chicken. Unless it is always identified, it is very hard to be able to apply our apparent right to choose. Say KFC start supplying it, but there is no announcement, no labelling on the product or on the menus. (This might be unfair to KFC - I do not know their policy with regards to CWC in the UK. Do they even have a policy?)

When it comes to bromine-based flour conditioner, many of us are amazed that the USA allow such things to be used. In recent years there has been accumulating evidence that BBF can and do affect human health and specifically the thyroid. Again, even if wrapped product states that it contains BBF, a huge amount of bread is supplied unwrapped and without that information.

There have been, and will continue to be, breaches of regulation across the EU. But the basic minimum standards exist and, I suspect, are broadly more in line with consumer expectation than the examples above.

Before any such changes can be allowed, we need tough labelling standards across the UK. Quite possibly that labelling would put off everyone able to apply their own choices. Leaving vulnerable groups - those in prison, in care, in hospital, etc. - to consume them unaware because they are cheaper to the caterers.

 

[OxygenJames]

I still find his speaking strangely captivating and I think he has a real talent for detecting and tapping into the mood of the nation. He is popular and when you consider the bland PR groomed talentless underachievers in parliament, you can begin to see why.

You are right, it is a simple solution that just delays the uncertainty we have now and proposes no eventual outcome.

I lost faith in Farage after the referendum. When his moment came to step up, he stepped down and hid. He campaigned for that Leave vote and promised many things, it was his moment to rise up and deliver on the promise, but he disappeared. Same with Johnson. Neither can be trusted, both have blown it.

He deserves a knighthood.

(note to self: well done James any credit you might have built up here has now been effectively destroyed).

 

[oyster]

If he stuck to his original position you would accuse him of intransigence - now that he is showing a willingness to compromise you accuse him of being a turncoat.

No surprises there then.

Quite possibly guilty of both. Being intransigent when it might have made a difference and then turning coat when it appears the only option is hardly an impossible pair of allegations, is it?

 

[OxygenJames]

He goes on about lower standards of production (lettuce or chlorine washed chicken or bromine-based flour conditioner) coming to the conclusion that we will not buy it if we don't want it. This is naive.

We first would need to have clear labelling in order to be informed before making our choices.

Yes, we can look at a lettuce and inspect how green and fresh it looks, weight, etc. What we cannot do while standing in a supermarket or greengrocers is identify biological contamination such has recently occurred in the USA. We only find that out when we (or other consumers) get ill and some agency eventually identifies the source.

We have much the same issue with chlorine-washed chicken. Unless it is always identified, it is very hard to be able to apply our apparent right to choose. Say KFC start supplying it, but there is no announcement, no labelling on the product or on the menus. (This might be unfair to KFC - I do not know their policy with regards to CWC in the UK. Do they even have a policy?)

When it comes to bromine-based flour conditioner, many of us are amazed that the USA allow such things to be used. In recent years there has been accumulating evidence that BBF can and do affect human health and specifically the thyroid. Again, even if wrapped product states that it contains BBF, a huge amount of bread is supplied unwrapped and without that information.

There have been, and will continue to be, breaches of regulation across the EU. But the basic minimum standards exist and, I suspect, are broadly more in line with consumer expectation than the examples above.

Before any such changes can be allowed, we need tough labelling standards across the UK. Quite possibly that labelling would put off everyone able to apply their own choices. Leaving vulnerable groups - those in prison, in care, in hospital, etc. - to consume them unaware because they are cheaper to the caterers.

Most people really give a flying f&&k about labels - they go on taste and what we read in the press and what our friends say. People are not the rational creatures you think they are.

 

[OxygenJames]

Most people really give a flying f&&k about labels - they go on taste and what we read in the press and what our friends say. People are not the rational creatures you think they are.

Or - another way to say this - if we want to buy junk that's up to us. In time we'll learn it was junk (if it was) and we will change our ways. Its called market forces.

 

[oyster]

We don't really give a f&&( about labels - we go on taste and what we read in the press and what our friends say. People are not the rational creatures you think they are.

I agree that most people do not obsessively read ingredient lists and other labelling information.

Some of what appears in the press and what friends say is based on the information that appears on labels. I can imagine that if KFC supply CWC and state that on their menus, some people will notice and there will be a combination of Mumsnet-type discussion and press stories which might make KFC stop CWC. (Unless they can introduce it without anyone noticing, somehow. Which is what non-labelling allows.)

The phrase "full of E numbers" is very frequently applied to products as a reason to avoid. (Often without understanding that at least some of them are just coded ways of identifying perfectly innocent ingredients.)

 

[oyster]

Or - another way to say this - if we want to buy junk that's up to us. In time we'll learn it was junk (if it was) and we will change our ways. Its called market forces.

Lack of labelling means that we no longer have the choice of avoiding whatever is being discussed. We only have that choice when we can identify the process or ingredient.

 

[anotherkiwi]

Lack of labelling means that we no longer have the choice of avoiding whatever is being discussed. We only have that choice when we can identify the process or ingredient.

brexit: a good reason to stop buying food from the UK