In the pub yesterday for the Five O'clock Club. Three beers, and home for tea!
Chatting about the Vote, one chap asked us all how we were going to vote. The four or five of us all chirped simultaneously ............. OUT! He agreed too, but added that his two grown-up daughters can't see why anyone would want to even contemplate coming out.
The point is .......... and I can see this as a argument ............ the older people want OUT and the younger folk want REMAIN.
Now, who are the voters? Younger people or older people?
So it's regulatory as well as financially. Westminster in inthrall to NFU.
Isnt it the agrochemical industry pulling the strings rather than the NFU?
Of course in Brussels there are other strings being pulled by other hands rather than an idyllic lack of string pulling.
During the height of the Badger Cull protests, FOI requests were put in for some correspondence between the DEFRA and NFU (specific correspondence). The request was refused because it was classed as "Internal Correspondence". DEFRA to NFU being "internal correspondence" suggests a far too close involvement to my mind.
Tacascarow wrote:... But as I said before my primary concern of exit is environmental destruction & lack of funding in environmental projects. All the major reserves & restoration projects around me have been funded by the EU. Not making many jobs or generating much for the economy but certainly making a county I love a whole lot nicer to live in.
It's nt just "funding" but regulations. e.g. Uk government still wants Neonicotinoid pesticides permitted (even though there is now a lot more and stronger evidence about their damage than when the EU banned them). Farmers will leap at their use. We leave and can say goodbye to our bee populations (and the consequent damage that will then follow).
So it's regulatory as well as financially. Westminster in inthrall to NFU.
Ian
Both good points, but you might also throw into the mix the loss of green land that is necessary as the population increases. And some of that increase is due to immigration from the EU of young people who are at an age where they will have children and need homes. More traffic on the roads, too. What is the environmental cost of that? Around here the small villages are seeing large fields built on to provide housing. The extra homes (very necessary) will put a lot of extra traffic on the previously quiet lanes.
When I last looked, more that 50% of UK immigration is from countries outside the EU - countries where we have full "control of our borders" yet (rightly or wrongly) have decided not to reduce below such levels. So, given that less than 50% of our immigration is from within the EU, you then have to offset that quite a few people emigrate from the UK to EU countries (because it is so easy, your pension is inflation adjusted, you get excellent/better healthcare, etc.) and that would undoubtedly significantly reduce. And when we go for a free trade deal with the EU (given that (I believe) 44% of our exports are to the EU - so we really really need a trade deal), for many eastern EU countries "freedom of movement" is pretty crucial to them (more important than trade) so they will undoubtedly insist we accept freedom of movement as part of any trade deal (and those countries are no longer at the beck and call of Germany as evidenced by their staunch refusal to accept Germany's refugee plans for the Schengen area).
So I can't see that leaving the EU is going to have any effect on our housing requirement.
so they will undoubtedly insist we accept freedom of movement as part of any trade deal
Do they have no trade deals with China, USA, Brazil, India then or have they accepted trade deals without free movement for every other country outside of the EU? I think the undoubtedly is very doubtful.
So I can't see that leaving the EU is going to have any effect on our housing requirement.
Me too but "remain" do keep saying house prices will fall, so we may be able to buy some of the empty ones to live in.
So it's regulatory as well as financially. Westminster in inthrall to NFU.
Isnt it the agrochemical industry pulling the strings rather than the NFU?
Of course in Brussels there are other strings being pulled by other hands rather than an idyllic lack of string pulling.
During the height of the Badger Cull protests, FOI requests were put in for some correspondence between the DEFRA and NFU (specific correspondence). The request was refused because it was classed as "Internal Correspondence". DEFRA to NFU being "internal correspondence" suggests a far too close involvement to my mind.
Ian
Farmers (represented by NFU) are not generally cavalier about environmental matters. I think that suggestion is straying into stereotyping. They may need some convincing about certain matters, but that is not because they don't care about bees or other environmental concerns. And we don't need the EU to tell us how to do things. We can deal with these matters ourselves. It may take us a bit longer sometimes, and sometimes we may get there first.
UK farmers score highly on the matter of compliance. EU regulations about pig welfare are disregarded in some EU states that we buy pork from, whilst UK farmers comply.
And we don't need the EU to tell us how to do things. We can deal with these matters ourselves.
I dont think that this holds, even with the English Channel. Certainly not in NI.
Co-operation is required, what is the point in eradicating Ash die-back for example on one side of a border id it remains as a reservoir on the other side. A connected operation is required and the EU provides the umbrella for that. The EU doesnt tell us what to do we ARE the EU.
so they will undoubtedly insist we accept freedom of movement as part of any trade deal
Do they have no trade deals with China, USA, Brazil, India then or have they accepted trade deals without free movement for every other country outside of the EU? I think the undoubtedly is very doubtful.
So I can't see that leaving the EU is going to have any effect on our housing requirement.
Me too but "remain" do keep saying house prices will fall, so we may be able to buy some of the empty ones to live in. :wink:
People (and countries) go for what they most want (and can get). As the trade agreement will require unanimous acceptance (i.e. I understand NOT qualified majority voting) and given how much we are exporting to the EU (44% of our exports) they can ask for pretty well what they want. Saying Germany wants to sell us their cars might be true for Germany but there are a lot of other countries in the EU and they want different things. Other EU neighbours with trade deals have accepted freedom of movement so no reason to suppose we would not have the same requirement put on us, particularly given the newer eastern EU member states.
For example less than 4% of Romania exports are to the UK (I think it's down around 2%). So to Romania, exports to the UK are not a massive thing but freedom of movement of people into the UK is. So all they have to do is "We require the UK to accept Freedom of Movement (just as other neighbouring EU trade deal countries do)" and that is it - we accept it or don't get a trade deal (whatever Germany might want). Same for many other eastern EU members. Their exports to the UK are low that tariffs would not have much impact on their economy ... but "Freedom of Movement" would (very important politically for them).
Cooperation is possible with or without EU membership. On all matters.
(By the way, recent research has raised the hope that more ash trees in the UK are resistant to dieback than is the case in mainland Europe, so we may only lose, say, 15% of our ash, rather than the 90% experienced in other European nations.)
meic wrote:Isnt it the agrochemical industry pulling the strings rather than the NFU?
Of course in Brussels there are other strings being pulled by other hands rather than an idyllic lack of string pulling.
During the height of the Badger Cull protests, FOI requests were put in for some correspondence between the DEFRA and NFU (specific correspondence). The request was refused because it was classed as "Internal Correspondence". DEFRA to NFU being "internal correspondence" suggests a far too close involvement to my mind.
Ian
Farmers (represented by NFU) are not generally cavalier about environmental matters. I think that suggestion is straying into stereotyping. They may need some convincing about certain matters, but that is not because they don't care about bees or other environmental concerns. And we don't need the EU to tell us how to do things. We can deal with these matters ourselves. It may take us a bit longer sometimes, and sometimes we may get there first.
UK farmers score highly on the matter of compliance. EU regulations about pig welfare are disregarded in some EU states that we buy pork from, whilst UK farmers comply.
I agree/accept the criticism but those "few" irresponsible farmers can do immense damage and their lobbying power through the NFU (and the NFU's relationship with DEFRA) means that the regulations will be unduly swayed by the few (particularly during the next Conservative government following our leaving the EU).
And the worry is that as it "takes us a bit longer" so we delay results in even more environmental damage often which cannot be recovered from (at least not with the practical constraints of our land use).
We have a Conservative government itching with enthusiasm for tearing up anything that protects the environment and a powerful lobby group of farmers providing the pressure and reassurance to see that it happens. Research and advice from scientists is completely ignored when it conflicts with what the ministers/lobbyists want done.
Only the other day we have the Government objecting to an amendment that would have marginally restricted developers yet help prevent properties from surface flooding. All about profit and that is where significant danger to our environment comes from and is an aspect that the EU helps to protect.
pwa wrote:... I've heard other tales of UK residents in other EU countries having trouble getting medical care. The natural question that arises from this is: in what way can being in the EU be a help if all it does is create a mess like that? We can create reciprocal agreements with EU countries whether we are in the EU or not.
I may not trust Boris, but I trust the EU even less. Not the EU nations, just the institution of the EU.
1. It was the EU that actually prevented Sarkozy making changes that would have affected health cover for many many more expats. Without the EU it would have been a far bigger issue.
2. Technically, when I moved to France it was actually outside the EU Freedom of Movement regulations. I never asked the French if I could move there but technically at any point they could have thrown me out (they were fully aware I was there and fully aware of my status as I registered for tax, submitted tax returns and paid tax) - they chose not to throw me out. UK being part of the EU also means we get a lot of "leeway" and cooperation beyond the letter of the rules (thus I could confidently buy a house in France and move there).
So it's not the EU causing such problems but actually helping to reduce such problems.
I just don't see Europe as the source of all wisdom on this subject. If you really want to see some worrying use of dangerous chemicals, find out what French fruit growers do to supply us with shiny, blemish-free apples all year round.
Another good example of the EU meddling that is good for the public but governments object to: I believe it to 40,000 deaths a year caused by air pollution. UK government has and continues to drag its feet really wanting to do nothing. EU is pushing hard and is pretty well the only thing making the UK government do anything (although it's still a struggle). As is so often the case, a high profile incident that is avoidable will cause a massive outcry. But killing 40,000 through air pollution and it takes the EU to argue the case against the UK government (though this is seem as more unwanted meddling by Brexit).
For example less than 4% of Romania exports are to the UK (I think it's down around 2%). So to Romania, exports to the UK are not a massive thing but freedom of movement of people into the UK is. So all they have to do is "We require the UK to accept Freedom of Movement (just as other neighbouring EU trade deal countries do)" and that is it - we accept it or don't get a trade deal (whatever Germany might want). Same for many other eastern EU members. Their exports to the UK are low that tariffs would not have much impact on their economy ... but "Freedom of Movement" would (very important politically for them).
For an awful lot of people that I know the UK has a similarly intransigent stand to the Romanians and leaving the EU gives them the chance to "refuse" such trade deals and you have just helped to persuade them that voting out is a (very) good idea.
pwa wrote:I just don't see Europe as the source of all wisdom on this subject. If you really want to see some worrying use of dangerous chemicals, find out what French fruit growers do to supply us with shiny, blemish-free apples all year round.
Not saying EU is perfect but certainly it adds protection that would not be there without them. Can you see the UK taking action against those French apple growers chemicals once it has the freedom to do so ?
