Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by tjs282, Nov 1, 2019.
Maybe you'd better not keep the government at any length…
You do KNOW that they actually track food price increases for commodities right ?
So if wheat prices increase by 6.6% for 1 year for everyone you can figure out the exact additional cost of Brexit in relation to Wheat. and so on.
And you can enjoy yourself doing all the math to calculate "the price of brexit". Go for it. Then if food imports into the UK become more expensive than food imports into the EU you can tell me I was wrong.
Well, there is a difference in that the EU is actually self-sufficient in food production, and seems to be set to be so for quite some time (on an aggregate level, since this also varies massively between member states).
^And the EU has those lovely farm subsidies which the UK's given up on. So no cheap labour, no subsidies, and somehow magically the UK will have better food production.
There is a world to gain with industrial manna production, the democratised version of astronaut food... marmite heading the way.
I am not impressed with the UK conservative government's plans for agriculture.
But they can change them if they fail; or failing that we can change the top layer of governance.
Neither of those options were available to us while remaining in the EEC/EC/EU.
And I note here that the UK's self sufficiency in food declined between 1972 and 2021;
so I'd argue that EEC/EC/EU membership on balance damaged UK agriculture.
Just the membership by itself? Or is it the UK basically coasting along and deciding to specifically strengthen its ‘financial services’ sector to the detriment of absolutely everything else?
Yes, the impact of financial services is part of the picture too; but that does not mean
that competition from the EEC/EC/EU did not adversely impact UK agriculture.
In any case the export of financial services to the EU was excluded from both of the surrender treaties.
So it is likely that a depreciating pound may force the UK government to look at other sectors more.
They have experts that are paid to do the math and then publish the cost so that us simps can then read the conclusion.
Or leavers can yell that they are winning
UK has a free hand setting their own Agricultural policy now. The same problems still exist now that they have left the CAP.
But that competition is part and parcel of the free-market fundamentalism that had an unnecessary and enforced dependence on ‘financial services’ (read: being the second-largest money-launderer in the world).
The UK would have had a free hand if it had not adopted a policy of signing withdrawal and trade agreements.
This is part of what I mean by my allusions to Boris botched Brexit.
The UK had a policy of guaranteed price and guaranteed market for its agricultural policy between 1946 and 1973.
Under that policy the UK became more self sufficient in food. The policy was destroyed when the UK joined the EEC's
common market in 1973 since when the UK became progressively less self sufficient. My view is that the UK should revert
to that previous policy, but for the food the UK can not grow, the UK should buy food from the world, not just the EU27, market.
As for reliance on financial services and money laundering, I regard their value as overated and their future as inherently unstable.
That's not the way the world works, though.
The UK is only free to pursue any range of options on the understanding that it has committed to nothing so far. As soon as it commits to... something... that will immediately limit the UK range of options.
Then again, what use is a complete freedom in the range of hypothetical options to pursue in comparison to actuality producing results for the UK?
When did it not do both?
Alternative cost is a *****, I guess, since in order to be profitably self-sufficient in food production then UK first needs to sufficiently impoverish itself to make it commercially viable, or impoverish itself by subsidy spending on producing something not otherwise commercially viable.
When limited by EU regulations.
Doesn't need to be "profitably" self sufficient, need is to be more self sufficient.
That may well happen if the magic money tree of financial services starts shedding its branches;
but that is not necessary; at a guaranteed price for a guarranteed market; if the price is set high
enough to cover the farmer's costs; it is commercially viable.
All sorts of things are currently subsidised in the UK that are not commercially viable, whether by government intent
or by artificially structuring markets, many of which have no useful output, whereas food is very much an essential output.
Britain has historically protected its agricultural markets, but that attitude seems long gone.
How far should the Conservatives take it?
Would David Davis vote to protect the sugar beet industry at the expense of his former employers Tate & Lyle who import sugar from the empire. Is sugar beet too continental having been promoted by Napoleon to beat the UK blockade?
For what it's worth my father used to grow sugar beet, it wasn't economical and the local sugar factory shut down.
Exit from the EU, coronavirus, global warming, climate change, sea level rise, increasing world population,
increasing world food prices, competition in financial and technical industries etc will all be game changers.
Nevertheless in my opinion the conservatives won't do anything until circumstances force their hand.
You know the history, I know the history, but voter concern about honey bees may swing this.
There was a long period, from the establishment of our industrialised empire until the end of WW2 that the state was quite happy to keep the british farmers poor because of pretty free competition from even poorer people aboard.
Yes; but the industrialised empire that could pay for the food imports has
gone and the UK no longer owns many of those poor parts of the world.
Separate names with a comma.