Britain outside the EU

[TheDaddy]

Seeing some worrying stuff appearing about our Australia deal, claims of it costing our farmers £100 million a year and food processing over £200 million a year although tbf that's already on it's knees anyway, yep nothing reeks more of sovereignty and taking back control than relying on foreigners for your food, still at least we can all have fish for tea, can't we

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Seeing some worrying stuff appearing about our Australia deal, claims of it costing our farmers £100 million a year and food processing over £200 million a year although tbf that's already on it's knees anyway, yep nothing reeks more of sovereignty and taking back control than relying on foreigners for your food, still at least we can all have fish for tea, can't we

Link?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Seeing some worrying stuff appearing about our Australia deal, claims of it costing our farmers £100 million a year and food processing over £200 million a year although tbf that's already on it's knees anyway, yep nothing reeks more of sovereignty and taking back control than relying on foreigners for your food, still at least we can all have fish for tea, can't we

You are a very bitter man, re-peddling Project Fear. The ink's hardly dry on the deal and as yet it has cost our farmers nothing. The Grauniad's been busy, eh?

It seems that you don't like free trade deals - which is why you're such a solid Remainer who enjoys the protectionism and regulation of the EU.

Are you aware that the bulk of Australia's beef production goes to Asia and a good price is extracted - higher than we'd be willing to pay for the cuts involved? I suppose they could reduce their prices if their Asian market suddenly stopped and then they'd turn to the UK.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Seeing some worrying stuff appearing about our Australia deal, claims of it costing our farmers £100 million a year and food processing over £200 million a year although tbf that's already on it's knees anyway, yep nothing reeks more of sovereignty and taking back control than relying on foreigners for your food, still at least we can all have fish for tea, can't we

Originally Posted by Chris

Link?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The Grauniad's been busy, eh?

It's the government's own figures

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ry-web-version

However, part of the gains results from a reallocation of resources away from agriculture, forestry, and fishing (around -£94 million) and semi-processed-foods (around -£225 million). This is in favour of growth in manufacturing sectors, in particular manufacture of motor vehicles and manufacture of machinery and equipment.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It's the government's own figures

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ry-web-version

But doesn't the following paragraph from the linked document mitigate fears?

The agreement therefore includes mitigations which seek to limit the potential for increases in imports in the near-term. The agreement also supports affected producers to enhance productivity and competitiveness over the longer-term. For example, beef and lamb producers will be protected through measures including tariff rate quotas that last 10 years. These automatically apply the UK Global Tariff (UKGT) to imports above a certain volume threshold. From years 11 to 15 a product-specific safeguard will have a similar effect, imposing tariffs (of 20% for beef and sheepmeat) above a volume threshold. A general bilateral safeguard mechanism will provide further protections should industry face serious injury from increased imports as a direct consequence of the FTA. This applies to all products. There are also tariff rate quotas for a range of other products, such as UK imports of sugar, butter, cheese and long-grain milled rice.

[ianch99]

Here's a Farmer's perspective:

https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/anger...-is-finalised/

NFU president Minette Batters criticised the UK government for agreeing to Australian demands to time-limit safeguards for sensitive sectors.

Despite assurances that these sectors would be afforded some level of protection, we will see full liberalisation of dairy after just six years, sugar after eight years and beef and lamb after 15 years.

In addition, she said there are no safeguards for any products if imports reach damaging levels after the 15-year period is over.

The UK also agreed to beef and lamb quotas which favour imports of high value cuts, despite this being the end of the market where British farmers tend to derive value.

Ms Batters said it is difficult to discern anything in the deal that allows us to control imports of food produced below the standards legally required of British farmers – for example land deforestation for cattle production or systems relying on transport of live animals in a manner that would be illegal in the UK.

The sheep farmers seem particularly impacted:

National Sheep Association (NSA) expressed grave disappointment over the official signing of the deal.

When news of the agreement in principle was announced in summer, the association called for the use of a licensing procedure to manage seasonality disruption and the use of a whole carcase weight co-efficient to help manage high volumes of single and boned out cuts.

Chief executive Phil Stocker commented: “We have no confidence that this licensing procedure has been or is now being considered. We are told the deal still has to be scrutinised by parliament and TAC, but from recent experiences we can be sure this will be a formality rather than an opportunity for positive amendments to be made.”

The deal will see the Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for lamb more than triple immediately, from roughly 8,000 tonnes annually to 25,000, and then grow over 10 years to 125,000 tonnes. At current consumption rates that is equivalent to more than 40% of the UK’s total sheepmeat needs.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You are a very bitter man, re-peddling Project Fear. The ink's hardly dry on the deal and as yet it has cost our farmers nothing. The Grauniad's been busy, eh?

It seems that you don't like free trade deals - which is why you're such a solid Remainer who enjoys the protectionism and regulation of the EU.

Are you aware that the bulk of Australia's beef production goes to Asia and a good price is extracted - higher than we'd be willing to pay for the cuts involved? I suppose they could reduce their prices if their Asian market suddenly stopped and then they'd turn to the UK.

Chill out snowflake, you'd love it if I was bitter, it'd explain everything neatly for you in a way you could comprehend

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:12 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Here's a Farmer's perspective:

https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/anger...-is-finalised/



The sheep farmers seem particularly impacted:

Expert's, what do they know

[1andrew1]

One reason why Truss needs to act promptly on Northern Ireland is that the US has retained sanctions against steel from the UK. The sanctions, originally imposed by Trump have been repealed against the EU but not the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59113868

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

One reason why Truss needs to act promptly on Northern Ireland is that the US has retained sanctions against steel from the UK. The sanctions, originally imposed by Trump have been repealed against the EU but not the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59113868

Sorry to disappoint you but it turns out that Frost was actually articulating British government policy on Northern Ireland, and Liz Truss is doing the same. Typically, the Independent is so wrapped up in its preferred narrative that it can’t see the basic consistency in the policy not changing just because the team leader charged with implementing (i.e. not formulating) policy has changed. For them, it must be evidence of Truss sucking up to Brexiteers and positioning herself for a leadership challenge.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1980187.html

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Sorry to disappoint you but it turns out that Frost was actually articulating British government policy on Northern Ireland, and Liz Truss is doing the same. Typically, the Independent is so wrapped up in its preferred narrative that it can’t see the basic consistency in the policy not changing just because the team leader charged with implementing (i.e. not formulating) policy has changed. For them, it must be evidence of Truss sucking up to Brexiteers and positioning herself for a leadership challenge.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1980187.html

I think you meant to quote a different post as your comments don't seem to be in response to the one you quoted.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think you meant to quote a different post as your comments don't seem to be in response to the one you quoted.

Not at all - you want Truss to ‘act promptly’ and I infer from that you believe there’s at least a chance that she may approach things differently than David Frost did. The Independent reports that so far, she hasn’t, and in fact has repeated the UK government’s threat to invoke Art.16 in her first phone call with Sefcovic.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not at all - you want Truss to ‘act promptly’ and I infer from that you believe there’s at least a chance that she may approach things differently than David Frost did. The Independent reports that so far, she hasn’t, and in fact has repeated the UK government’s threat to invoke Art.16 in her first phone call with Sefcovic.

I'm explaining why Liz Truss will want to move promptly as the outstanding US sanctions against us are a tedious detail not often mentioned but she will be very aware of them. The rest of your guesswork is just that.

I don't expect her to say anything different as the UK's approach has only recently altered so why concede more? I do think changing the UK negotiator is a good idea as things were getting logjammed and something that Brexiters should be able to come on board with too.

[ianch99]

Given the fact that the BBC is no longer "an impartial news-gathering service", their stark admittance that Brexit is a no win situation is damning:

Brexit: One year on, the economic impact is starting to show

The business owners I spoke to have pretty much the same reflection on different aspects of the reality of one year of trading outside the Single Market and Customs Union. It's clearly been challenging: "Frustrating. Scary. Huge drop in sales. Rendered uncompetitive in Europe."

When I put to them what ministers have suggested privately - that some sections of British business need to be as prepared as the best-prepared bigger businesses, it got a little testy.

"I found it astounding that they are telling us to get used to it," said Adrian Hanrahan, of Robinson's chemicals, who is dealing with a new set of UK regulations entirely duplicating EU requirements.

A gift box distributor, Karen Lowen, says it's cheaper for her to supply the US and Australia than Europe.

Meanwhile, a manufacturer of cutting edge green radiators says the expansion of his factory in Birmingham will now take place in Poland. One participant's voice cracks as he tells me they are fighting to survive after a century-and-a-half in business.

[Carth]

"The business owners I spoke to . . ."

Fair and unbiased, definitely

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Given the fact that the BBC is no longer "an impartial news-gathering service", their stark admittance that Brexit is a no win situation is damning:

Brexit: One year on, the economic impact is starting to show

Interesting headline in the Express today raging about the red tape nightmare for exporters, whilst conveniently ignoring that what we've got is exactly what they campaigned for