How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[Tuna]

PurpleMoonlight said:

While you may think it's great to lose all home production and import cheap alternatives, what about when those cheap alternatives decide to substantially increase their price because they no longer have any competition?

CAP severely distorts the market - it makes it more profitable to buy land that does nothing than to actually farm it. Using tariffs to protect a whole industry harms the whole nation - the subsidised product costs everyone more (reduced competition) for the benefit of a tiny number of producers.

On the whole, it seems to me it's better to reduce tariffs (the whole nation benefits), and look to targeted subsidies (currently not allowed under EU membership) to preserve any strategic or nostalgic assets. The goal here is efficient businesses, not ones that are taught to limp from one bail out to the next.

If you genuinely believe EU membership has been good for UK farmers (rather than UK landowners), I suggest you go talk to some of the people who actually produce beef, wheat and so on. They'll tell you a different story. For sure you can find some large scale farms that will tell you how wonderful CAP payments are, but that's not actually preserving beef farming is it?

[Murph7355]

PurpleMoonlight said:

An economy of not even a 10th of ours and the change was 30 years ago.

Not comparable.

I live rurally and a good friend is a farmer. Well before the referendum was even mooted I had a good discussion with him on subsidies etc. His view was that they were killing farming and only stood to benefit the massive "corporate" farms, and even there he doubted the wisdom of them.

CAP has been in place for over 30yrs. The world hasn't moved on in that time IMO in this respect and it would be interesting to see us change tack.

With a larger economy, we should need less propping up.

[Ali G]

Possibly,

"This is your arse and this is our plate" which you are being handed.

Conversations regarding EU corruption and who shall serve time in Blighty if ever venture outside of their protectorate.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

New Zealand used to pay its subsidies for lamb on head count.

What happened under that system was they produced a high head count stock that was virtually worthless because they didn't invest in growing the meat content of each head of stock, they used to burn a lot of stock because of this.

What happened when the subsidies stopped was the farmers went back to good farming practices, which cut the head count but increased the quality of each lamb by investing in the stock and improving the meat content back to world standards.

Their profits and quality of product grew enormously.

Currently New Zealand Lamb makes up 74% of UK lamb imports, this is tariff free because New Zealand currently doesn't export enough lamb to the EU to hit their quota allowance. Next largest supplier is Australia at 15%, then Ireland at 6%. The rest of the EU excluding Ireland currently provide just 4%, so in total only 10% of our imports of lamb come from the EU.

If we already get NZ lamb tariff free, what are the expected benefits of a trade deal with NZ? What are the other key produce that we stand to benefit from importing? What key exports could benefit from new reduced tariffs into NZ?

Presumably we might import more than 7% of our lamb from NZ if we wanted to, as the tariff free quota is not exhausted.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

New Zealand used to pay its subsidies for lamb on head count.

What happened under that system was they produced a high head count stock that was virtually worthless because they didn't invest in growing the meat content of each head of stock, they used to burn a lot of stock because of this.

What happened when the subsidies stopped was the farmers went back to good farming practices, which cut the head count but increased the quality of each lamb by investing in the stock and improving the meat content back to world standards.

Their profits and quality of product grew enormously.

Currently New Zealand Lamb makes up 74% of UK lamb imports, this is tariff free because New Zealand currently doesn't export enough lamb to the EU to hit their quota allowance. Next largest supplier is Australia at 15%, then Ireland at 6%. The rest of the EU excluding Ireland currently provide just 4%, so in total only 10% of our imports of lamb come from the EU.

If we already get NZ lamb tariff free, what are the expected benefits of a trade deal with NZ? What are the other key produce that we stand to benefit from importing? What key exports could benefit from new reduced tariffs into NZ?

Presumably we might import more than 7% of our lamb from NZ if we wanted to, as the tariff free quota is not exhausted.

Surely you can work out for yourself why an FTA is beneficial for both parties? OK, maybe not, you are slasher.

In the case of New Zealand, one of the benefits you have is due to geography and how the earth orbits the sun, when one country is in summer the other is in winter. Do I need to explain what that means?

We import aprox 1/3 of our Lamb, of which 74% is supplied from New Zealand. 74% of 33% is not 7%, its 24%

[///ajd]

jsf said:

Surely you can work out for yourself why an FTA is beneficial for both parties? OK, maybe not, you are slasher.

In the case of New Zealand, one of the benefits you have is due to geography and how the earth orbits the sun, when one country is in summer the other is in winter. Do I need to explain what that means?

We import aprox 1/3 of our Lamb, of which 74% is supplied from New Zealand. 74% of 33% is not 7%, its 24%

Ah, OK I misread your 10% as from NZ not EU.

So if we import 24% from NZ already tariff free - and we are presumably already taking advantage of the whole season phase thing you so patronisingly trotted out - what are you saying - we'll increase that amount from NZ from 24% to a bigger number? Why don't we do that already if the EU tariff free quota has not been fully used (only 75% used)? Surely that suggests market forces have already limited the amount of tariff free lamb we actually need - and we get all we need already?

Under these circumstances, you will have to explain how we can benefit more from that, yes. Please do so.


EDIT

sheep article said:

.....UK sheep farmers were especially alarmed about the prospect of free trade deals with New Zealand and Australia.

A free trade deal with Australia or New Zealand ... could have a catastrophic effect on UK sheep farmers ... cannot sit back and be sacrificed for the benefit of others. There could be difficulties occurring post-Brexit if the UK was unable to export a third of its lamb production to Europe as it does at present.

Apparently we demand the best cuts and export the cheaper bits of sheep elsewhere. Its all quite complicated to be fair.

Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 23 July 23:24

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

Surely you can work out for yourself why an FTA is beneficial for both parties? OK, maybe not, you are slasher.

In the case of New Zealand, one of the benefits you have is due to geography and how the earth orbits the sun, when one country is in summer the other is in winter. Do I need to explain what that means?

We import aprox 1/3 of our Lamb, of which 74% is supplied from New Zealand. 74% of 33% is not 7%, its 24%

Ah, OK I misread your 10% as from NZ not EU.

So if we import 24% from NZ already tariff free - and we are presumably already taking advantage of the whole season phase thing you so patronisingly trotted out - what are you saying - we'll increase that amount from NZ from 24% to a bigger number? Why don't we do that already if the EU tariff free quota has not been fully used? Surely that suggests market forces have already limited the amount of tariff free lamb we actually need - and we get all we need already?

Under these circumstances, you will have to explain how we can benefit more from that, yes. Please do so.

Yet again you make stuff up and then argue a point based on that made up stuff.

Where did I suggest we will increase how much New Zealand Lamb we will import?

Currently there is a drive at some UK supermarkets to use only British meat in its products, but that wont last as it drives down quality in the UK off season. Once the supermarket marketing people get slapped back down from their current reaction to Brexit of we must use British all the time, New Zealand can stop worrying about a loss of revenue from the UK.

With regards to NZ in general, they do more than breed sheep and they use services and products we produce, an FTA will improve the trade conditions between our two nations currently limited by our current trading conditions.

Surely this doesn't need spoon feeding to you, are you not capable of working this out for yourself? of course, you are slasher, so you wont.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Its all quite complicated to be fair.

Is it? Who'd have thunk it eh?

you may find this helpful.

http://www.ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents/BeefandLam...

[///ajd]

jsf said:

///ajd said:

jsf said:

Surely you can work out for yourself why an FTA is beneficial for both parties? OK, maybe not, you are slasher.

In the case of New Zealand, one of the benefits you have is due to geography and how the earth orbits the sun, when one country is in summer the other is in winter. Do I need to explain what that means?

We import aprox 1/3 of our Lamb, of which 74% is supplied from New Zealand. 74% of 33% is not 7%, its 24%

Ah, OK I misread your 10% as from NZ not EU.

So if we import 24% from NZ already tariff free - and we are presumably already taking advantage of the whole season phase thing you so patronisingly trotted out - what are you saying - we'll increase that amount from NZ from 24% to a bigger number? Why don't we do that already if the EU tariff free quota has not been fully used? Surely that suggests market forces have already limited the amount of tariff free lamb we actually need - and we get all we need already?

Under these circumstances, you will have to explain how we can benefit more from that, yes. Please do so.

Yet again you make stuff up and then argue a point based on that made up stuff.

Where did I suggest we will increase how much New Zealand Lamb we will import?

Currently there is a drive at some UK supermarkets to use only British meat in its products, but that wont last as it drives down quality in the UK off season. Once the supermarket marketing people get slapped back down from their current reaction to Brexit of we must use British all the time, New Zealand can stop worrying about a loss of revenue from the UK.

With regards to NZ in general, they do more than breed sheep and they use services and products we produce, an FTA will improve the trade conditions between our two nations currently limited by our current trading conditions.

Surely this doesn't need spoon feeding to you, are you not capable of working this out for yourself? of course, you are slasher, so you wont.

Hmmm. First of all you did want to make a point about lamb and some clever condescending remarks about seasonal availability.

And then it isn't about lamb after all and its about other services that we sell to NZ.

So which NZ tariffs are penalising our sales of which products at the moment, or are you just making this up as you go along? Quick, get bashing those keys into google again!

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

///ajd said:

jsf said:

Surely you can work out for yourself why an FTA is beneficial for both parties? OK, maybe not, you are slasher.

In the case of New Zealand, one of the benefits you have is due to geography and how the earth orbits the sun, when one country is in summer the other is in winter. Do I need to explain what that means?

We import aprox 1/3 of our Lamb, of which 74% is supplied from New Zealand. 74% of 33% is not 7%, its 24%

Ah, OK I misread your 10% as from NZ not EU.

So if we import 24% from NZ already tariff free - and we are presumably already taking advantage of the whole season phase thing you so patronisingly trotted out - what are you saying - we'll increase that amount from NZ from 24% to a bigger number? Why don't we do that already if the EU tariff free quota has not been fully used? Surely that suggests market forces have already limited the amount of tariff free lamb we actually need - and we get all we need already?

Under these circumstances, you will have to explain how we can benefit more from that, yes. Please do so.

Yet again you make stuff up and then argue a point based on that made up stuff.

Where did I suggest we will increase how much New Zealand Lamb we will import?

Currently there is a drive at some UK supermarkets to use only British meat in its products, but that wont last as it drives down quality in the UK off season. Once the supermarket marketing people get slapped back down from their current reaction to Brexit of we must use British all the time, New Zealand can stop worrying about a loss of revenue from the UK.

With regards to NZ in general, they do more than breed sheep and they use services and products we produce, an FTA will improve the trade conditions between our two nations currently limited by our current trading conditions.

Surely this doesn't need spoon feeding to you, are you not capable of working this out for yourself? of course, you are slasher, so you wont.

Hmmm. First of all you did want to make a point about lamb and some clever condescending remarks about seasonal availability.

And then it isn't about lamb after all and its about other services that we sell to NZ.

So which NZ tariffs are penalising our sales of which products at the moment, or are you just making this up as you go along? Quick, get bashing those keys into google again!

It really is impossible to have any form of normal discussion with you slasher.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

Is it? Who'd have thunk it eh?

you may find this helpful.

http://www.ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents/BeefandLam...

Thanks, that is very helpful.

It proves there are no opportunities with NZ, and no real threat as they are not using their quota. Seasonal smeasonal, what a red herring. I hope I don't have to explain to you why

The main threat to us is from EU tariffs if we don't get a zero tariff deal with the EU - which would really hit our domestic industry. Plus our biggest export destination is France so no risk of politics there then - perhaps powerstroke can suggest we give France our FS sector in exchange for protecting our shepard jobs.

The opportunities outlined are very limited for our cheaper bits of sheep as they are still not competitive with various non-EU markets. China is highlighted as an option however, but it notes NZ & Aus already have a tariff free deal there. It doesn't sound very optimistic does it?

Thanks again, very illuminating.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Murph7355 said:

I live rurally and a good friend is a farmer. Well before the referendum was even mooted I had a good discussion with him on subsidies etc. His view was that they were killing farming and only stood to benefit the massive "corporate" farms, and even there he doubted the wisdom of them.

CAP has been in place for over 30yrs. The world hasn't moved on in that time IMO in this respect and it would be interesting to see us change tack.

With a larger economy, we should need less propping up.

I'm not saying that the EU's CAP is the correct implementation of farmer support, because I honestly don't know enough about the way it is implemented, but the UK must protect home food production to prohibit us being exploited by those exporting food to us. If that means subsidies to farmers then so be it.

[Murph7355]

PurpleMoonlight said:

I'm not saying that the EU's CAP is the correct implementation of farmer support, because I honestly don't know enough about the way it is implemented, but the UK must protect home food production to prohibit us being exploited by those exporting food to us. If that means subsidies to farmers then so be it.

I agree that we should be doing more to be self sufficient.

As with you, I'm not sure what the answer is, but firmly believe CAP isn't it.

Again pertinent to where I am, allowing agricultural land to be used in the local housing plan also isn't a good idea either.

[ORD]

Of course we are going to subsidise our farmers. We will probably also impose import tariffs to protect them.

Can you imagine the adverse publicity if the government let farmers go under all over the country?

The idea that we will engage in rampant free trade and provide unmitigated access to our consumer markets is bonkers. Not going to happen.

Remember the drama about that Welsh steel plant? Why on earth are we making steel?! You cannot rationalise economy and just say 'It will make us all richer in the long term'. That's not how politics work.

This country should be trying very hard to protect its high tech and service sectors and letting low skill manufacturing die off. That's the economics. But it certainly is not politically viable.

[turbobloke]

ORD said:

Of course we are going to subsidise our farmers. We will probably also impose import tariffs to protect them.

Can you imagine the adverse publicity if the government let farmers go under all over the country?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12169948/Britains-farms-would-thrive-outside-of-the-EU.html

[Dr Jekyll]

ORD said:

Of course we are going to subsidise our farmers. We will probably also impose import tariffs to protect them.

Can you imagine the adverse publicity if the government let farmers go under all over the country?

The idea that we will engage in rampant free trade and provide unmitigated access to our consumer markets is bonkers. Not going to happen.

Remember the drama about that Welsh steel plant? Why on earth are we making steel?! You cannot rationalise economy and just say 'It will make us all richer in the long term'. That's not how politics work.

This country should be trying very hard to protect its high tech and service sectors and letting low skill manufacturing die off. That's the economics. But it certainly is not politically viable.

The last time we engaged in 'rampant free trade and provide(d) unmitigated access to our consumer markets' it was in response to political pressure from consumers who wanted cheaper food.
Saying something isn't politically viable isn't an argument. Just an excuse for not having an economic argument.

Also remember that allowing unmitigated access to markets was originally the whole point of the EEC. The fact that it's defenders now praise protectionism un defiance of basic economics goes to show how it's gone rogue.

[PurpleMoonlight]

turbobloke said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...

Ha ha, that's very funny.

A minister complaining at the inflexibility, complication and fines of the EU.

He should try dealing with the UK Government from our side of the fence. A £100 fine for being a day late with a tax return that requires no tax to pay...

[ORD]

Dr Jekyll said:

The last time we engaged in 'rampant free trade and provide(d) unmitigated access to our consumer markets' it was in response to political pressure from consumers who wanted cheaper food.
Saying something isn't politically viable isn't an argument. Just an excuse for not having an economic argument.

Also remember that allowing unmitigated access to markets was originally the whole point of the EEC. The fact that it's defenders now praise protectionism un defiance of basic economics goes to show how it's gone rogue.

I'm not praising anything.

I believe strongly in free trade. I would benefit from perfectly free trade because I work in an area in which this country excels.

But it's just not politically viable to let our less efficient sectors die off. The public will vote out any government that says 'We shouldn't have cereal farmers anyway' or 'We don't need a steel industry', etc. You have to bring the public with you.

I understand entirely the desire for Britain to become a lean economy focussed on high tech and high skill areas, with low corporation tax and moderate income taxes. It would probably make almost all of us quite a lot better off.

But we have been banging on about it for decades, and Britain has in that time become no really less focussed on public sector jobs and low skill private sector jobs. We have never got to grips with the productivity problem. We have a public that sees huge public spending as morally good in itself and sees state benefits as moral entitlements, even when they are just padding lifestyles a bit.

Add to that the fact that the public and political discourse has moved decidedly to the left, and I just think it's entirely unrealistic to posit a future in which we operate like Singapore. The future is high taxes and a huge state - nothing major will change for at least a decade. The only difference is whether it is a Tory government doing it or a Corbyn (which would of course be disastrous because he has no love for wealth or growth or even capitalism itself).

I know that I bang on about this, but Tony Blair must be right that Brexit + Corbyn is looking increasingly likely and is fairly terrifying.

[Tuna]

ORD said:

Of course we are going to subsidise our farmers. We will probably also impose import tariffs to protect them.

Can you imagine the adverse publicity if the government let farmers go under all over the country?

The idea that we will engage in rampant free trade and provide unmitigated access to our consumer markets is bonkers. Not going to happen.

Remember the drama about that Welsh steel plant? Why on earth are we making steel?! You cannot rationalise economy and just say 'It will make us all richer in the long term'. That's not how politics work.

This country should be trying very hard to protect its high tech and service sectors and letting low skill manufacturing die off. That's the economics. But it certainly is not politically viable.

I guess this is one of your 'blindingly obvious' things, where you start out on some absolute position and take yourself to the conclusion that it's all doom and gloom again.

I agree about smart, targeted subsidies - though with the low bar of CAP, we're going to have to keep an eye on whatever replaces it to make sure the same mistakes aren't repeated. However, tariffs make no sense in this context. They're a prehistoric blunt tool.

Politically, I suspect you'll find consumers' concern for farmers stops at the cash till of your local supermarket. Take a look at the economics of milk production and then consider how much traction the campaign for fair milk prices got.

Free trade is good. Everyone benefits with more cash in their pockets at the end of the day. If that gets splashed out on something special, say a nice locally grown steak at the end of the week, then even better. I doubt any politician could really sell putting up all meat prices in the shops to save our livestock farmers, but they could very legitimately say that subsidies will be targeted to keep our meat competitive and cheap.

The interesting thing is that the assumption we're not competitive isn't necessarily true. Wages in the Chinese high tech sector have rocketed, and the manufacturing zones around Hong Kong are struggling to keep prices down as a consequence. At the same time, the issues around quality remain and the new trend to rapid, small volume production really doesn't suit having your manufacturer a few thousand miles away. When people talk about free trade as though it's a threat, they're assuming everyone else can do it better and cheaper than we can, and that's not automatically the case.

Just as important is the point that if we artificially protect our industries, we don't advance - which means we end up falling behind the rest of the world. When it's a dog eat dog world, hiding away to breed Pekingese is just not a good idea.

A lot of this is historical baggage. I don't hear anyone calling out to save the high tech manufacturers of phones, chips and cameras - or even trying to kick start an industry where we have almost zero presence, despite them being globally and strategically vital industries. The best we have is ARM which is fabless (no manufacturing capability) and owned by Japan. In new stuff like drones, we're no-where to be seen and actively legislating against them.

So the 'of course we should save xxxxx' conversation is already laden with your presumption about what should be saved and why. And there are numerous studies that show that leaving the decisions about which industry to protect or promote to the government produces consistently terrible results.

I seem to recall the steel plant is being saved by moving to higher quality material to produce greater value - not by trying to compete at the low end of the market?

[PRTVR]

Tuna said:

ORD said:

Of course we are going to subsidise our farmers. We will probably also impose import tariffs to protect them.

Can you imagine the adverse publicity if the government let farmers go under all over the country?

The idea that we will engage in rampant free trade and provide unmitigated access to our consumer markets is bonkers. Not going to happen.

Remember the drama about that Welsh steel plant? Why on earth are we making steel?! You cannot rationalise economy and just say 'It will make us all richer in the long term'. That's not how politics work.

This country should be trying very hard to protect its high tech and service sectors and letting low skill manufacturing die off. That's the economics. But it certainly is not politically viable.

I guess this is one of your 'blindingly obvious' things, where you start out on some absolute position and take yourself to the conclusion that it's all doom and gloom again.

I agree about smart, targeted subsidies - though with the low bar of CAP, we're going to have to keep an eye on whatever replaces it to make sure the same mistakes aren't repeated. However, tariffs make no sense in this context. They're a prehistoric blunt tool.

Politically, I suspect you'll find consumers' concern for farmers stops at the cash till of your local supermarket. Take a look at the economics of milk production and then consider how much traction the campaign for fair milk prices got.

Free trade is good. Everyone benefits with more cash in their pockets at the end of the day. If that gets splashed out on something special, say a nice locally grown steak at the end of the week, then even better. I doubt any politician could really sell putting up all meat prices in the shops to save our livestock farmers, but they could very legitimately say that subsidies will be targeted to keep our meat competitive and cheap.

The interesting thing is that the assumption we're not competitive isn't necessarily true. Wages in the Chinese high tech sector have rocketed, and the manufacturing zones around Hong Kong are struggling to keep prices down as a consequence. At the same time, the issues around quality remain and the new trend to rapid, small volume production really doesn't suit having your manufacturer a few thousand miles away. When people talk about free trade as though it's a threat, they're assuming everyone else can do it better and cheaper than we can, and that's not automatically the case.

Just as important is the point that if we artificially protect our industries, we don't advance - which means we end up falling behind the rest of the world. When it's a dog eat dog world, hiding away to breed Pekingese is just not a good idea.

A lot of this is historical baggage. I don't hear anyone calling out to save the high tech manufacturers of phones, chips and cameras - or even trying to kick start an industry where we have almost zero presence, despite them being globally and strategically vital industries. The best we have is ARM which is fabless (no manufacturing capability) and owned by Japan. In new stuff like drones, we're no-where to be seen and actively legislating against them.

So the 'of course we should save xxxxx' conversation is already laden with your presumption about what should be saved and why. And there are numerous studies that show that leaving the decisions about which industry to protect or promote to the government produces consistently terrible results.

I seem to recall the steel plant is being saved by moving to higher quality material to produce greater value - not by trying to compete at the low end of the market?

I agree mostly with that, but how do you cope with he likes of China who is selling it's steel under cost to maintain its plants ? Logically no body can compete on price so should shut down, then China can charge what it likes due to no competition, is that good ?