| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Forgive the rather thunderous headline but within this article it says that in Brixham at least, they have just reported their best ever year for fish sales, up over 10% since pre-brexit/covid figures.Originally Posted by ninian opinian
Perhaps British fisheries haven't collapsed?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-sea-bass.html
"Make Remoaners choke on their sea bass".
James "balance/facts/I hate bias" Wales.
Well well..8 carefully selected articles from a shit rag posted by an arch EUphile on twitter. How many UK daily newspapers? Maybe 10? How many articles a day collectively? Perhaps 250? That's 1,750 a week. 91,000 a year. Five years since the referendum so that's the best part of half a million articles there, you can double that with news websites.
But yeah, those 8 articles.. absolutely damning. The same definitely couldn't be done in reverse. I definitely couldn't find any articles predicting Christmas being ruined or unemployment rising or dozens of other things that proved to be wrong. Definitely not.
You have a strange way of looking at things, have those articles been proved to be right currently? Drawing attention to things where “the other side” have seemed to be shown to be wrong is standard fare on both sides of the political divide - those in power in a democracy tend to be judged more by what they get wrong than what they get right.
No, they haven't been proved right, and that's my point.
Firstly, they are from the Express which is the most bombastic paper there is. I criticise the guardian mainly because people treat it with more reverence than it deserves. I criticise the Express because it genuinely is full of shite, or at least it's headlines are.
Secondly, there is not a direct correlation between the stories being compared aside from the mobile charging reference. the idea that farming will collapse and one farmer suggesting some farmers will go out of business are not contradictions. Farms have always gone out of business.
Thirdly, there isn't a farming DISASTER and British fishing hasn't COLLAPSED and there's no evidence that food bills have SOARED due to Brexit.
Fourthly, this kind of cherry-picking of articles can be applied to any argument. So many of the anti-brexit predictions have proven false, so the same headlines can be put together for that.
It's all just weird populist stuff designed for twitter that doesn't actually help move forward the understanding of issues. It's the same approach that Leave.EU did on the other side. Pointless.
Balanced as always
Mate, posts like that are like someone picking 4 random Cardiff City WalesOnline stories from the last five years and then saying "lOL CaRdIfF CItY r ShiT n sO r WaLes OnLine".Balanced as always
To counter stuff like that IS to provide balance. If someone present a wholly white argument, providing balance is to present a grey or black one.
Better still is if some of these initial posts could be balanced or try and tell the truth in the first place.
I was taking the piss as all you ever do is take a negative story about Brexit or the Tories and try to paint it in a more positive light when 9 times out of 10 you're just making yourself look like a mindless follower.
Your balance to this story wasn't to provide positives about Brexit but to show how it's only a few negatives being listed.
That's not balance. That's diversion.
Brexit, making life easy for so many businesses https://twitter.com/joe_mayes/status...496919556?s=21
Perhaps a sensible discussion?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59886350
I think we would all probably agree that even if you didn't support leaving the EU, one benefit once it's happened is having the flexibility to make a greater array of policy decisions.
One area we seem to be diverging is in terms of farm subsidies, which previously were paid based on the size of the farm. It now seems that post-Brexit, the UK will be factoring in other environmental elements into this, which broadly speaking seems a good idea to me. I suppose one concern is that we still need farms to focus on producing food and you can envisage a situation where someone almost gets paid for doing nothing except having a lot of land and letting it go wild for environmental purposes.
Quite a change in how we manage agriculture and land potentially anyway.
Note - this refers to England only and I'm not sure if Wales intends to depart significantly
Sort of.
It is more a greater weighting towards payments for public goods rather than for being an active farmer. Under the Common Agricultural Policy there were two streams of support, one area based and the other for environmental measures. England has always tried to maximise its use of the environmental measures fund and the opportunity of transferring money from one pot to another.
You are right that the flexibility as a consequence of leaving is that the balance can be increased. The old subsidies will be tapered down and eliminated by 2024 and replaced by the new schemes if the pilots are a success. A few points to note though:
1) The latest iteration of the EU CAP is doing this anyway. Far less emphasis on common schemes and more on each member state producing its own Strategic Plan so most of what is being proposed could be achieved within the EU;
2) Under the CAP, the UK had about £3.5 billion a year for agricultural subsidies. Having left England has committed to maintain that level of annual payment for a period. At some point though this funding stream will have to compete against all the other priorities that different governments might have;
3) There is a real risk that under these proposals that tenant farmers will be the big losers. On the area based scheme the subsidies went to the "active farmer" but for environmental measures England targeted the landlords/land owners because they could have fewer bigger agreements and get economies of scale. This is likely to accelerate and tenants could lose their existing funding and be at the whim of their landlords to see a commensurate reduction in their rents to compensate on land that is less productive. The rich get richer and all that;
4) You mention diminished food security which will also be under threat from the type of trade deals we have seen negotiated post-Brexit with Australia and New Zealand and UK produce competing with that subsidised on the continent with whatever additional bureaucracy Brexit brings in exporting UK agriculture. These schemes cannot be seen in isolation, which is why bodies such as the National Farmers Union are getting increasingly angsty (I say increasingly as angsty has been their default position in my experience)!
Thats interesting, thanks for posting
I'm less fearful of NZ and Australia. To me, if we cannot compete with them, it suggests that whatever system we have had in place has been inefficient and needs to change. Why are they so successful? I heard they have no subsidies at all? Larger farms?
Australia is low by international standards and New Zealand is essentially subsidy free. I once attended a talk by the New Zealand Minister of Agriculture at New Zealand House in London. He spent a lot of the talk extolling the virtues of going subsidy free. Later on after he left I chatted to a couple of his aides who privately conceded they wished there were support systems available. Australia, particularly has economies of scale.Thats interesting, thanks for posting
I'm less fearful of NZ and Australia. To me, if we cannot compete with them, it suggests that whatever system we have had in place has been inefficient and needs to change. Why are they so successful? I heard they have no subsidies at all? Larger farms?
The danger is seeing farmers as an homogenous group. The problem is mainly in the livestock sector and within that sector on upland farms. Many of these farms are not farming at a profit and the subsidy is the only means of making a living. These people are a world away from the barley barons of East Anglia who can probably compete on the world stage and have the sophistication and infrastructure to adapt. Even there, I did some work with one of the major fruit and vegetable organisations in the UK. Their leader said he would be quite happy to operate without subsidies but hat he would be uncompetitive if the playing field was not levelled in the rest of Europe.
The fear about the deals to date is that they will set a precedent for deals to come. It's not so much that those agricultural sectors are so successful but that their negotiators have engineered a deal that will make them more successful in the future with little beneficial quid pro quo for the UK if you believe the UK Government's own analysis of the deals.
I guess it comes down to how much you care about the economic viability of the vulnerable sectors of UK farming in the general scheme of things.
what happens if a British fish swims outside of British waters! Does it lose it's citizenship ?
And what about all these foreign fish coming here and swimming in British waters....should they be sent home?
A Dover sole will always be a Dover sole mon ami.
Or it can claim political asylum if in French waters if they are that welcoming .
I take your point. I can see a lot of people lining up to claim political asylum in France to get away from Boris and his cronies. Cod willing
Brexit win for city of London
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...-market-update
thats a surprise !
...in the interest of balance here's another, slightly more insightful, perspective
https://www.ft.com/content/f83ddf05-...d-e82a54c71afa
The City of London, like it or not, is hugely important to the UK economy. The impact of Brexit was a big worry. So far, it seems the City hasn't been hit as badly as some predicted - thankfully.
So far.
i thought the buffoon was supposed to be leveling up across the country not just London !
wonder how much carlisle will get
Come now Peter, I didn't make the headline and went as far as acknowledging and apologising for it.
What do you think of the figures within it?
I guess the question is whether you can extrapolate what has happened in one port out to the rest of the UK fishing industry. For balance here are articles giving perspective from Cornwall, the East Coast of England (apologies for the headline)and Scotland. What do you think of the detail within it?
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fish/how...663179.article
https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-market-update
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/...-dream-1391517
To be fair all this ping pong is over an extremely emotional and locally important sector but one that is relatively unimportant to the UK's GDP. The Office of Budgetary Responsibilities forecast (dirty word I know) of a 4% hit to GDP as a consequence of the friction in the great UK/EU "free trade" deal and the absence of the services sector from it still holds true for them after their analysis of the first year of "freedom". If it's not fishing then the pain is going to be felt somewhere else based on the Government's own body.
What did I think of the figures? I've read a number of articles relating to fisheries. Some suggest Brexit has had a negative impact - others are more positive. I don't knows what the real picture is. I'm not convinced anyone does yet. My view (fwiw) is still that damage to the economy may be mixed across sectors, but that Brexit will end up having a very large negative economic impact overall. To think otherwise (in my mind) defies logic. Maybe markets will adjust and I'll be proved wrong though.
I think though that if I was billing myself on here as someone who is highly evidence-led and balanced in my approach I would avoid posting articles with absurd headlines which I immediately have to apologise for. I would worry that doing so would damage my credibility.
I think there's good and bad news and the reality will be neither sunlit uplands nor a 'catastrophe' or 'collapse'. And I'm fine with that. Let's wait and see.
It wasn't me that posted the collage of headlines claiming farming and fishing were collapsing. That clearly isn't happening, and my intention was to demonstrate that.
someone I know who is very perceptive about these things said at the time of the referendum that there would be no huge positive or negative effects initially, but that the UK would grow its economy a bit slower than the EU, a couple of percent less per year, but that would continue forever. so initially there wouldn't be any noticeable difference, but after 20 years had passed there would be a chasm.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
