UK, Germany, Holland, Ireland. We are not the only ones with a good employment rate.
Last month all 28 nations in the EU grew
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
UK, Germany, Holland, Ireland. We are not the only ones with a good employment rate.
Last month all 28 nations in the EU grew
Farming subsidies are a necessary evil if we do not wish to become completely reliant on others for our entire food supply and risk the environmental consequences of unfettered urbanisation or disproportionately scaled farming.
There's very, very good reasons why we are better off both environmentally and security wise in maintaining our own food production and aiming for self sufficiency. Do you really want your fresh goods flown or shipped halfway around the world because land and labour are cheaper there whilst our farmers stop working their asses off and sell off their only real asset to live a life of luxury? Can you not see how that would put you at risk of unfair price rises for a necessity, at danger of poor food standards and potentially even at risk of attack through deliberately tainted food?
It's fine to get all Daily Maily over ludicrous examples like a farmer being paid not to breed pigs or to grow hedges and put up fences but the alternative is that farms go industrial scale damaging local employment in favour of huge boundless fields with combine harvesters or wide scale grazing and foraging land with the subsequent environmental damage caused by increasing rainfall runoff at the very top end of the water cycle and overloading drainage capacity in lower lying areas with more of the subsequent flooding we are already seeing. I'm sure you'd get similarly Daily Maily over increasing unemployment, increasing nitrogen and phosphate pollution of our rivers, increased frequency and severity of flooding to urban areas and increasing food prices.
Yeah, there's lots of factors, as you describe and more, I was merely saying that if a Brexit UK felt the need to allow more immigration it could do.
Which might negate much of the Brexit vote of course, but that would be a separate point.
Last edited:
The UK had all sorts of farming subsidies before we ever joined the EU. They need continually re-assessing, but the principle has been around a long time.
Ignorance = The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
You were making a good point until your reference to the Daily Mail. Don't ever accuse me of being Daily Mail.
But I suppose you never buy any food imported into the UK / EU do you ?
I spent 20+ years flying fruit, vegetables, and flowers into Europe from East Africa. 30 tons of it every week. Obviously you didn't buy any of that. Or the strawberries from Morocco and cherries from Lebanon that I used to fly into the UK so that you could have those in March instead of having to wait until June for UK grown ones.
Presumably you don't buy any of those because of the environmental cost of shipping them half way round the world. Or the avocados flown half the way round the world from Peru ? Or Sth African or Sth American or Australian wine ?
Closer to home presumably you don't buythe greenhouse grown tomatoes and peppers which leave Spain in hundreds of trucks every day for the UK, or the greenhouse grown flowers which leave the Netherlands by the truckload everday, but could be grown in greenhouses in the UK without the need for the diesel pollution from all those trucks driving across Europe.
Tell me, hand on heart, that you don't and I'll start to take your personal environmental credentials seriously.
C'mon - East Africa ( Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe ) could feed the whole of Europe, easily.
Does the EU allow them Tariff Free access ? Of course not.
Does that mean we all pay more for those fruit and veg ? Of course we do.
Do the Afrcan farmers benefit from those higher prices ? Of course they don't.
And would they like a Tariff Free Agreement ? Of course they would.
Instead, the EU collects the tariffs, throws them into their money-go-round with yours and my taxes, and then pays non-farmers ( like Paul Dacre if you want to bring the Daily Mail into it ) and Emerati Royals, and small, hopelessly inefficient farmers £000s every year NOT to grow stuff because there might already be too much being grown or reared.
The CAP is probably the highest form of protectionism in world food production. And equally probably the most expensive.
We are already important huge quantities of food and there is no problem with prices or standards. There are also primarily emotional reasons to maintain some level of autarky in this one sector. Some subsidies when it comes to insurance are justifiable, but overall it is just the result of lobbying of powerful national industry, that don’t want to compete in a global market, while the general public has to pay for it.
Yet, as already mentioned, the EU didn’t invent subsidies for this sector; it is one of the sectors where producers just have a lot of influence for a variety of reasons, but the result is that many countries following the same path (USA, Japan). Additionally it is also not the only sector where this is happening. So many people who are taking offense by this specific subsidy are ignoring, that the EU is just doing what most states did or are doing as well. So the counter-factual is not a world without these subsidies, but one where equal subsidies would be paid by the individual nations.
it then becomes a place where the jobs were.
if there were no borders even for non eu countries then Africa would be empty
Absolute BS.
I kind of admired Bruce Dickinson of iron maiden, when he was asked if he thought it was wrong to live in a tax haven and not contribute to inland revenue in the UK.
He replied that he'd be quite happy to pay taxes if he could decide what they are spent on, until then he wont pay a penny.
So if you are happy to give money to NOT farm then that's a wonderful idea, I am not
He replied that he'd be quite happy to pay taxes if he could decide what they are spent on, until then he wont pay a penny.
So if you are happy to give money to NOT farm then that's a wonderful idea, I am not
As you have personal experience.
How do the other EU countries, Malta I assume in yor own case, feel about losing so many newly and expensively trained doctors and nurses to the NHS ?
To me those on here shouting about the NHS collapsing without EU nationals staffing the NHS seem a bit selfish - they don't seem to think twice at the consequences to other countries' Health Services if the NHS continues to suck in doctors and nurses from all over the EU. Our daughter spent a week or so in a UK hospital last year after an accident, and all the nurses she came into contact with were Portuguese or Spanish. Makes me wonder whether Spain and Portugal are training too many nurses, or Spain and Portugal will soon have their own nurses' shortages id they all move to the UK as soon as they're qualified.
British people are far more tolerant than the dutch imo, not a day passes that I don't hear a dozen flippant racist comments.
Jobs growth creates demand which creates jobs
We don't have open borders with African nations as non of them meet the criteria for joining the EU
I often here this excuse for tax dodging, he's just a greedy person
People voted to get poorer just because they dislike foreigners
I'm not sure what the point is here being made? That Brexit will mean the end of regulations and tariffs in the UK farming industry? That Britain will flood the UK and all the rest of the world with its pig meat and greenhouse strawberries? That current EU regulations are there to stop the U.K. from being competitive? That Britain will achieve better and more trade deals without the weight of the EU behind it? That flooding Britain with cheap exports from Kenya is a good for British farmers? That having access to the single market doesn't benefit Britain and British jobs? That the EU member states are backward countries and only Britains knows what it's doing?
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Where's that place at?
Tax avoidance was once perfectly fine for the caf
At least he said what he wanted to do with his money and it involved creating jobs in shitholes that have no work, still he wont be allowed to do that, that's fine
Every where
Africa has everything, if it was run properly and wasn't so corrupt, its just left for companies like bhp billiton to take everything out the ground and profit while paying the locals a penny or 2
I agree. Not sure what that has to do with the EU.
Brexit Britain will become an even bigger money laundering operation than it is now
Malta has a totally free education. Basically someone can take his boy at 3 and go and see him graduate without actually pay a penny. Not only that, but people at six form/university are helped through something called a stipend. Its not much, but it does help students to make ends meet. We love education and would rather see us spend money on that route then on military etc. Each for his own.
In Malta most doctors are expected and encouraged to work abroad. Its good for their experience and if/once they return they will bring wealth of knowledge with them that can be shared with others. There are others, who of course, never come back at all. Some do pop by on the islands to work part time or on weekends or to deliver lectures. We tend not to complain about this loss because
a- we need doctors to move abroad. We're an island, if our doctors dont go abroad and get knowledge elsewhere then we risk to become stale
b- we cant really complain. Whenever a consultant post is opened, its filled almost immediately, usually with these sort of doctors
c- Its their life after all.
d- we do poach talent from abroad ourselves. For example thanks to the stupidity of our nationalist party (a bit of your own version of the Tory party) who stripped extra incentives for youngsters to become nurses, we now has a shortage in certain lines. We were only able to fill those posts by offering them to third country nationals
Things are different in Italy/Greece though. Most senior jobs are given through pure nepotism and the doctors still working in the UK are those who happen not to have a padrino back home to give them a push
Greece and Italy aren't growing so they aren't creating demand which is why they ain't creating jobs
A decent proportion of public spending on health, education, welfare and infrastructure. Well regulated markets
I can't speak about Greece but I can speak about Italy because its our neighbour and closest friend. Italy is almost surreal. In many things its still stuck to medieval levels were nepotism reigns and were it almost impossible for someone without a 'sponsor' to become big in his line of work. The black economy rules supreme and decades of reckless expenditure by politicians with a communist (literally) ideology had crippled the country. Its not even a country in itself. The North constantly criticise the South of Italy and the South of Italy (whose well below the poverty line) steals from taxpayer money because it can. Recently they made a raid in a hospital and found out that mostly people do not even bother to come to work.
What impoverished Italy was
a- the scandal of Cirio and Parmalat which saw their owners bloating the companies finances only for everything to come crushing down on everybody.These two scandals contributed greatly in forcing many local investors to lose faith in Italy's economy + it hit everybody from employees to farmers right to football (Parma FC was owned by Parmalat)
b- Decades of over expenditure by the government had now become too heavy for the country to carry.
c- Bad management and a dark economy were few pay taxes
d- incompetent politicians
The EU could do more in one area ie immigration, were Italy is basically left alone in it. However lets not blame the EU for Italy's issues.
What impoverished Italy was
a- the scandal of Cirio and Parmalat which saw their owners bloating the companies finances only for everything to come crushing down on everybody.These two scandals contributed greatly in forcing many local investors to lose faith in Italy's economy + it hit everybody from employees to farmers right to football (Parma FC was owned by Parmalat)
b- Decades of over expenditure by the government had now become too heavy for the country to carry.
c- Bad management and a dark economy were few pay taxes
d- incompetent politicians
The EU could do more in one area ie immigration, were Italy is basically left alone in it. However lets not blame the EU for Italy's issues.
Italy's never had the benefit of British rule.
There are two other parts of the idea, the first part which it was promoted with is that an individual can move to where the best job for him is. The other part is that people from low income countries can take the high paid jobs in rich countries for less money so labour costs decrease.
That makes it very hard for the rich member states to tackle unemployment. If there's a financial crisis for example (thanks to the EU policy of deregulation the financial sector) followed by a recession, a national government could counter or soften that by investment in infrastructure and buildings. But if 80% of the money goes to foreign workers because they are cheaper (legal or illegal) there's not much effect on the economy.
I'm not opposed to the principle of free movement of labour, but it only works between countries with comparable living standards and cost of living.
I disagree.
The real reason that farm subsidy exist in the EU isn't because of any of the above its because the main govts of EU countries don't want to pick a political fight with their farmers. All your arguments here are wrong.
I note that you think that domestic supply, for example, means inside the EU but of course if you were serious about food security it would really mean inside the nation-state as otherwise in an emergency we would still be fecked wouldn't we?
The policy doesn't address the main risk to food security either which is the weather. That risk is better offset by diversifying food supplying regions to different climate zones rather than putting major obstacles in the way of that diversification such as CAP.
I don't see why a special exception should be given to agribusiness anyway, as compared to energy businesses for example. In northern Europe, we need electricity to keep warm in winter just as much as we need to eat. Your argument then is we should subsidise coal because it is domestically available rather than relying on cheaper foreign supplies?
Where do we stop with the list of essential industries whose goods we need to have a secure supply of? You want to live in a country surviving without steel, ships, railways, fabric, cars etc all of which we have told to go and get stuffed when we can buy similar products from overseas cheaper.
With regards to the land use argument. Holding a market unsustainable amount of farmland by paying enormous subsidies bends the economy against market sustainable uses. It raises the price of land which increases the costs for businesses which would otherwise remain viable and the direct link between business property costs and domestic property costs means we all pay more for the homes we live in and pay more in taxes not just to fund the subsidies but also from the reduced tax take on the other businesses because of the above. Also it reduces growth.
And there is worse.
CAP also prevents countries which are reliant on agriculture as their only viable exports from developing their assets by reinvesting money made by selling for better prices. That sounds a bit dry but in the end, that starves people in Africa. The cost of the CAP is in human lives.
We should also remember the lost opportunity costs because when we subsidise farming we also throw money away which would be better spent elsewhere on things like research. How far would we have come if we had spent all the CAP subsidy money on the EU space program instead?
To summarise,
You want to kill people in Africa now so that Europe might have a more secure food supply which isn't secure anyway and set the principle of ongoing huge subsidy to businesses based on how much political pain they can cause and we could be on Mars by now.
That is the reality of your argument and it stinks I'm afraid.
80% of money goes out to foreign workers?!?! What do you mean exactly and where do you get that figure from?
Theres no money for that there is only austerity, wheres the investment?
What the feck???? Do you honestly believe this shit you're spouting? You've managed to write down so many things which are either distorting the truth or just plain factually incorrect, that I don't know where to start.. I'm flabbergasted! There's nothing more difficult than arguing with a fool!!
Again more people working creates more spending that creates more jobs. Inflation is also kept in check so although wages may not rise quickly they go further.
Foreign workers who live here spend money here, are taxed here, they have a positive effect on GDP.
Free movement helps poorer nations catch up quicker
DEVELISH.
Thanks for your answer.
It sounds as though you still need to import foreign medical staff, though, so the UK isn't unique.
Thanks for your answer.
It sounds as though you still need to import foreign medical staff, though, so the UK isn't unique.
I agree. The EU helps quite a bit with its investment in infrastructure for poor countries
It's a hypothetical example that it's impossible to blame member states for unemployment while the EU rules and their strict enforcement prevents member states.
Nontheless close to where I live there has been a major power plant build recently and the estimate that about 80% of the builders was from foreign countries is very conservative. It could have been a huge boost to employment when many builders lost their jobs after the 2008 financial crisis, but it didn't work like that because the Polish, Romanians, Portuguese etc were a lot cheaper.
Well you could always try to make a start instead of just calling someone a fool.
Explain where, how and why Bill is distorting the truth or just plain factually incorrect
C'mon....Show us your eveidence
80%... which country in the EU.. no the entire world has ever had 80% of the money go out to foreign workers in the entire history of mankind? Wtf is this crap you are spouting out? You're kin insulting my intelligence!
No, they don't, not always. When there's a huge building project they tend to stay in cheap temporary housing just to work and save money, not really live there. They make less money, they accept that because of lower cost of living in for example Romania, but shy away from the high prices in the richer country. So it's just groceries and the odd visit to bars and prostitutes.
That's debatable. When the best workers work in richer countries it's not easy to get the local economy going, and all these men and women beeing away from home for large parts of the year is disruptive to society. It's certainly not good for families and happiness.
Stay calm, breath in and read it again. I'm talking about big building projects a government could start to help the economy and counter unemployment. But that doesn't work when 80% or more of the builders are from foreign countries because they're cheaper.