The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

I don’t think its a disputed fact that Wales gets a shed load of EU cash relative to its tax take - its a cliche but the roads really are superb having driven many of them recently all around Wales.

Once again, it’s just a proportion of our own money given back to us.

[alfie2244]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

I don’t think its a disputed fact that Wales gets a shed load of EU cash relative to its tax take - its a cliche but the roads really are superb having driven many of them recently all around Wales.

Once again, it’s just a proportion of our own money given back to us.

After the EU take their cut and deduct for a blue plaque.

[Jockman]

rs1952 said:

barryrs said:

I’m amazed Brexit even makes the news in SA; if it’s taking such a prominent position in the media perhaps our global influence isn’t insignificant after all.

More likely though a little exaggeration may be occurring.

Ah - right - I see- "fake news..."

If you read my post again you will see that I did mention a group of people in SA who support Brexit. Those ex-pats who, incidentally, have been banging on about it ad nauseum for as long as I have been going regularly.

They bang on about it to hoteliers, B&B owners, bar owners and any of the locals who will listen. And the locals still think they're crackers.

But don't worry - you've rumbled me. You don't like what I've said so its fake news.

Or have I rumbled you?

So you are providing anecdotal evidence of a group who know very little about a subject commenting on the votes of people several thousands of miles away, many of whom also knew very little about their voting decision?

Decent summation or way off the mark?

[anonymous-user]

dbdb said:

Though it is clearly of surprise to you, many people in South Africa take a reasonably close interest in Brexit - as they so in events in the UK generally, the EU, the USA and in the rest of Africa. The UK is very insular and self-obsessed. A lot of places in the world are not like this, South Africa certainly isn't.

The UK population is one of the most outward looking there is, due in part to our history, but also our large ethnic mixed society. We have always looked outward.

It was the UK that was at the forefront of the anti-apartheid movement. When I visited Robben Island there was a large display of how the UK people made such a huge difference to the campaign to remove the apartheid regime. http://www.aamarchives.org/

So I find your comment very odd.

[dandarez]

jsf said:

dbdb said:

Though it is clearly of surprise to you, many people in South Africa take a reasonably close interest in Brexit - as they so in events in the UK generally, the EU, the USA and in the rest of Africa. The UK is very insular and self-obsessed. A lot of places in the world are not like this, South Africa certainly isn't.

The UK population is one of the most outward looking there is, due in part to our history, but also our large ethnic mixed society. We have always looked outward.

It was the UK that was at the forefront of the anti-apartheid movement. When I visited Robben Island there was a large display of how the UK people made such a huge difference to the campaign to remove the apartheid regime. http://www.aamarchives.org/

So I find your comment very odd.

Me too.

For a country he states is very insular and self-obsessed, isn't it odd then that so many want to come here?

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

I don’t think its a disputed fact that Wales gets a shed load of EU cash relative to its tax take - its a cliche but the roads really are superb having driven many of them recently all around Wales.

Once again, it’s just a proportion of our own money given back to us.

Is this really breaking news?

https://fullfact.org/europe/wales-getting-best-dea...

“Accounting for the variety of estimates that we do have available, the annual investment received by Wales could be an estimated €653-747 million per year, compared to an estimated annual contribution of €630 million. So, based on this method, Wales does seem to receive more financially than it contributes. “

This was one of the reasons why it was a surprise Wales voted leave - interestingly it seemed from the article many “didn’t think it was true”. Fake news triumphs over fact, again.

The immigrant wage deflation issue appears similar. Wages may seem and even maybe lower, but due to immigrants? Research is not conclusive as oft linked to.

[jjlynn27]

Breadvan72 said:

jjlynn27 said:

Obsession with Brexit is purely consigned to UK. Most people in EU that I'm in contact with, couldn't give a toss either way.

People don't obsess about it, but travelling in EU member states since the vote I've had quite a few "You Brits - WTF?" conversations with various people from cab drivers and waiters to business types. The attitude I've encountered seems to be one of bemused sympathy.

That was my experience for the first few months after referendum. Now, nobody gives a crap.

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

Is this really breaking news?

https://fullfact.org/europe/wales-getting-best-dea...

“Accounting for the variety of estimates that we do have available, the annual investment received by Wales could be an estimated €653-747 million per year, compared to an estimated annual contribution of €630 million. So, based on this method, Wales does seem to receive more financially than it contributes. “

This was one of the reasons why it was a surprise Wales voted leave - interestingly it seemed from the article many “didn’t think it was true”. Fake news triumphs over fact, again.

The immigrant wage deflation issue appears similar. Wages may seem and even maybe lower, but due to immigrants? Research is not conclusive as oft linked to.

That is quite remarkably irrelevant. Wales is not financially independent of the UK in any sense, and nor does it want to be. Why not break it out by industry, or racial minority?

[///ajd]

Funny how inconvenient facts become irrelevant. It is what it is - interesting that some in Wales (it is reported) choose not to believe it.

Meanwhile, mash feels the pulse of the discussion!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/univers...

Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 26th October 23:45

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

Funny how inconvenient facts become irrelevant. It is what it is - interesting that some chise not ot believe it.
...

What "fact"? If you're referring to the Wales piece, it's a pointless spinning of numbers that are only used that way by people clutching at straws.

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

Funny how inconvenient facts become irrelevant. It is what it is...

What it is is nonsensical misuse of statistics. Wales is a relatively underpopulated, relatively rural community - so yes, farming subsidies constitute a fairly high proportion of the balance. And yet that rural community voted leave. You know why? Because the EU CAP is widely regarded as being hugely damaging for small rural landowners and farmers. So a population that has more direct experience of EU intervention than most wants to leave. Is that an inconvenient fact for you?

Edited by Tuna on Thursday 26th October 23:50

[///ajd]

Tuna said:

What it is is nonsensical misuse of statistics. Wales is a relatively underpopulated, relatively rural community - so yes, farming subsidies constitute a fairly high proportion of the balance. And yet that rural community voted leave. You know why? Because the EU CAP is widely regarded as being hugely damaging for small rural landowners and farmers. So a population that has more direct experience of EU than most wants to leave. Is that an inconvenient fact for you?

The bloke in the article spent a year finding out why, and your reason didn’t make the summary. Maybe his survey was flawed, but it seems your take on the main driver is not consistent with his results. Do you really think the farmers don’t want their subsidies?

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

Do you really think the farmers don’t want their subsidies?

They don't - at least not in the way CAP applies them. It distorts land prices and in turn rental costs that make small rural farms uneconomical. Tenant farmers are being pushed to the limit and many rural communities that have lived in harmony with their environment for centuries are questioning whether EU environmental policies designed for an entire continent are actually beneficial for specific regions.

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

The bloke in the article spent a year finding out why, and your reason didn’t make the summary.

The bloke in the article focused specifically on the Labour voting Welsh Valleys as he found it particularly surprising that that specific community might vote leave. He didn't discuss the wider rural community for obvious reasons - their view is entirely in line with rural communities across the UK and in itself not surprising. Nor did it fit the narrative he wanted to express.

[///ajd]

Tuna said:

///ajd said:

Do you really think the farmers don’t want their subsidies?

They don't - at least not in the way CAP applies them. It distorts land prices and in turn rental costs that make small rural farms uneconomical. Tenant farmers are being pushed to the limit and many rural communities that have lived in harmony with their environment for centuries are questioning whether EU environmental policies designed for an entire continent are actually beneficial for specific regions.

NFU want to keep CAP to start with and only evolve it gently - making it clear CAP is critical currently for farmers to weather volatility.

https://www.nfuonline.com/news/brexit-news/eu-refe...

Are they wrong or only thinking of the big guys? Do they not represent every farmer?

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

NFU want to keep CAP to start with and only evolve it gently - making it clear CAP is critical currently for farmers to weather volatility.

https://www.nfuonline.com/news/brexit-news/eu-refe...

Are they wrong or only thinking of the big guys? Do they not represent every farmer?

If you've seen how badly the government handles 'big bang' changes like Universal Credit, you'd be calling for slow evolution too - but they are still very keen to move away from the current system and describe the opportunities as vital and exciting for farmers.

The fact that they aren't calling for things to be ripped up overnight doesn't mean they approve of CAP in any form, or the EU's stewardship of subsidies and the environment.

[///ajd]

Tuna said:

If you've seen how badly the government handles 'big bang' changes like Universal Credit, you'd be calling for slow evolution too - but they are still very keen to move away from the current system and describe the opportunities as vital and exciting for farmers.

The fact that they aren't calling for things to be ripped up overnight doesn't mean they approve of CAP in any form, or the EU's stewardship of subsidies and the environment.

They specifically state in that link that “many farmers could not survive in business without CAP”.

Rebadge it or ensure the nasty EU gets no credit for it - but the key value of it to our farming industry is clearly spelt out by the NFU who I assume are speaking for their members.

[Sway]

///ajd said:

Tuna said:

If you've seen how badly the government handles 'big bang' changes like Universal Credit, you'd be calling for slow evolution too - but they are still very keen to move away from the current system and describe the opportunities as vital and exciting for farmers.

The fact that they aren't calling for things to be ripped up overnight doesn't mean they approve of CAP in any form, or the EU's stewardship of subsidies and the environment.

They specifically state in that link that “many farmers could not survive in business without CAP”.

Rebadge it or ensure the nasty EU gets no credit for it - but the key value of it to our farming industry is clearly spelt out by the NFU who I assume are speaking for their members.

As were the NZ lamb farmers, with their subsidies. Calamity was predicted, the opposite was the result...

[Tuna]

///ajd said:

They specifically state in that link that “many farmers could not survive in business without CAP”.
.

I swear you're the only person I know who could witness a pub fight and come away saying you'd just seen people calling for ever closer union.

The fact that many farms need subsidy and support does not mean that they want the EU's version of subsidy and support, or that they support any of the EU's policies. Your illogical leap is like saying people who like clean white bed sheets support the Klu Klux Klan.

I don't know any other way to say it to make it clear. Under EU law as I understand it, we are allowed no other way to support our farmers who are in a perilous financial position. The only form of subsidy they can be given is through CAP, and has been for decades. Though there are many criticisms of CAP and EU environmental policy, it's the only game in town so farms will accept those subsidies, and over time many have changed their business to suit the criteria of CAP (this is one of the criticisms of the policy). Removing it overnight would decimate those fragile businesses, but that doesn't stop their desire to get away from a system that they regard as unhealthy. Like a drug addict who has to go to their dealer, they want to break the relationship. You can't infer support for the system because that relationship exists.

[wc98]

///ajd said:

The bloke in the article spent a year finding out why, and your reason didn’t make the summary. Maybe his survey was flawed, but it seems your take on the main driver is not consistent with his results. Do you really think the farmers don’t want their subsidies?

looks to me the bloke that wrote the article started of with the same ignorant prejudice you have. i find it hard to believe you still fail to grasp the political and bureaucratic entity that is the eu has absolutely no money of its own, none, nada. it is recipient and distributor (after subtracting its own largesse ) of other peoples money.

you along with a few others seem to think that when we leave many things will just stop happening, like international agreement on air traffic movement ,transfer of goods between european countries , subsidies for all sorts of things. this position appears more than a bit dim.

currently the cap appears to be driving smaller farmers out of business ,larger landowners buying up thier land and much of it sitting idle in certain areas. subsidy farming if you like.

i trust you will approve of the source.

There were two proposals for limiting handouts to the super-rich, known as capping and degressivity. Capping means that no one should receive more than a certain amount: the proposed limit was €300,000 (£250,000) a year. Degressivity means that beyond a certain point the rate received per hectare begins to fall. This was supposed to have kicked in at €150,000. The UK's environment secretary, Owen Paterson, knocked both proposals down.

When our government says "we must help the farmers", it means "we must help the 0.1%". Most of the land here is owned by exceedingly wealthy people. Some of them are millionaires from elsewhere: sheikhs, oligarchs and mining magnates who own vast estates in this country. Although they might pay no taxes in the UK, they receive millions in farm subsidies. They are the world's most successful benefit tourists. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul...