Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well George! You really have addressed the issue I have mentioned. The welfare of farming livestock in the EU doesn't seem to be of great importance to the EU, as so many would have us believe.

 

I aint no Tory but I object to people bringing up welfare issues re future trade deals as if the EU were fault free.

 

And as I have pointed out, they certainly are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

About a year ago on the Brexit thread I invited you, and anyone else who cared to, to identify one single thing that would be better after BREXIT.  Back then I predicted that the answer would be silen

It's a sad state when opinions are clung to despite requiring careful consideration. They're often held by people considering themselves free thinkers and not being taken in by any lovey-dovey leftly-

Could you, would you have answered, had someone asked you in 1972 what joining the EEC could mean for Shetland's crofters?   .....and if you had answered, how accurate do you believe your answer from

Well George! You really have addressed the issue I have mentioned. The welfare of farming livestock in the EU doesn't seem to be of great importance to the EU, as so many would have us believe.

 

I aint no Tory but I object to people bringing up welfare issues re future trade deals as if the EU were fault free.

 

And as I have pointed out, they certainly are not.

 

About a year ago on the Brexit thread I invited you, and anyone else who cared to, to identify one single thing that would be better after BREXIT.  Back then I predicted that the answer would be silence, or some general unsubstantiated ranting and grumbling about the EU. I was right, a year ago none of the BREXIT champions of this forum could think up a single thing that was going to be better after BREXIT.  Not a single thing.

 

Now I have invited you to think about BREXIT and what it's reality might mean for Shetlands crofters and you remain silent on that too. I have invited you to explain how British fishermen will be better off next year, more silence. The truth is you have no idea whatsoever if one single aspect of life will be in any way improved for anyone in Shetland, and yet you are perfectly comfortable gambling with the livelihoods of  Shetlands crofters - without even the vaguest understanding of the odds. Obliviously happy to see them driven to the wall, to satisfy, what on the face of it, is nothing more than a fanatical and utterly irrational hatred of the EU. 

 

Next year, and the year after that, and then the next one, and the next, I hope you can still feel proud of what you voted for, because you are responsible for this. We all have to live with what you did, many of us for the rest of our lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a sad state when opinions are clung to despite requiring careful consideration. They're often held by people considering themselves free thinkers and not being taken in by any lovey-dovey leftly-liberal nonsense; making the hard choices that others are too scared to make. Nine times out of ten these are the same opinions being pushed by those with the most to gain, who control what the public hear and read and who are seamingly above the law. It doesn't take much to figure sh*t out as following the money invariably leads to what's really going on... but that may cast doubt on the dodgy opinions being agreed upon.

 

This TED talk pretty much nails where today's opinions emanate from, how people were steered to hold them and hopefully to help folk to question what they read and hear:

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en&fbclid=IwAR1p4sq-7UB3YFlje1fdBeu7n7SWIJsBmgMkNqZ0ZIlXgp5weI56zm90SVE#t-798630

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a sad state when opinions are clung to despite requiring careful consideration. They're often held by people considering themselves free thinkers and not being taken in by any lovey-dovey leftly-liberal nonsense; making the hard choices that others are too scared to make. Nine times out of ten these are the same opinions being pushed by those with the most to gain, who control what the public hear and read and who are seamingly above the law. It doesn't take much to figure sh*t out as following the money invariably leads to what's really going on... but that may cast doubt on the dodgy opinions being agreed upon.

 

This TED talk pretty much nails where today's opinions emanate from, how people were steered to hold them and hopefully to help folk to question what they read and hear:

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en&fbclid=IwAR1p4sq-7UB3YFlje1fdBeu7n7SWIJsBmgMkNqZ0ZIlXgp5weI56zm90SVE#t-798630

Yes it is sad, depressing too. 

 

It's also fascinating how people on a mass scale can be convinced to take actions which are so clearly against their better interests. It's exactly this trait that dictators, cult leaders, and religious extremists have exploited so well over the years. Now, unshackled from the rule of law the British conservative party are embracing the technique. They have long since abandoned any notion that honesty and truth are in anyway important and emboldened by getting around the regular British law during the BREXIT campaign they now think they can ignore all laws. Look at the bill going through parliament right now. 

 

"These people speaking out against us are terribly irritating, why can't we just get rid of them?"

 

"Because that would be against the law prime minister"

 

"The law! what does that matter?"

 

Where does it stop? Anyone who points out concerns with what is happening is dismissed with terms such as 'woke'  'lefty' 're moaner' etc. The irony you point out is of course what makes it work. The disciples believe themselves too astute to be taken in by 'fake news' and the 'lamestream media' preferring to rely on organisations such as facebook and youtube. Organisations which are accountable to no one and have no incentive whatsoever to ensure accuracy or truth and so, ipso facto, they are inherently inaccurate and untruthful.  And there we have it, a self perpetuating cycle that can only take us backwards. 

 

It is no small coincidence that the people who are happy to embrace such dishonesty also don't think it's a good idea to make higher education freely available to everyone.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

........BREXIT and what it's reality might mean for Shetlands crofters...............

Could you, would you have answered, had someone asked you in 1972 what joining the EEC could mean for Shetland's crofters?

 

.....and if you had answered, how accurate do you believe your answer from your crystal ball might have been judged in 2020?

 

Right here and now with this you are asking an impossible question to answer, the UK for almost 50 years has operated in a very artificial agriculture market, it will take time for the domestic food supply chain to adjust and settle in to its new business model, likewise the foodstuffs export import/export market will be similarly affected, mainly due to it requiring the UK to have left the EU before many trading agreements can be finalised, but also that some nations won't seriously negotiate deals before we have left.

 

What is beyond debate is that the UK agricultural market has be a depressed and heavily subsidy dependent one for the entireity of the UK's EEC/EU membership. That should not have been the case.

 

Much of that depressed state has been due to foreign imports (dumping?) from fellow EU states undercutting the market to such an extent many UK producers could no longer remain viable, 'imports' the UK was 'forced' to take under EU free trade rules. The difficulties in finding and maintaining export markets for our agricultural produce within the EU, whether that be the French hijacking and burning truck loads of meat or Eastern Europeans undercutting us, while the EU machine stood back and did nothing. The difficulties of obtaining non-EU export markets due to whatever trade agreement the nation in question did, or didn't have with Brussels, and finally the lack of support from Brussels when circumstances beset the industry that were outwith both its and the nations control. The UK's agricultural sector, and the Shetland agricultural sector in particular was heavily impacted by both the Chernobyl incident fall out and BSE, yet we had to ride it out best as we could, alone.

 

None of the above were supposed to happen, its not done what it said it would do on the tin in 1972 when we opened the can of worms.

 

Yes, there's going to be a bump in the road as we leave, and a stretch with potholes for a time as we go forward, but anybody that cannot see its worth it to allow crofters to regain a demand driven market for their produce, and make their money from the demand for and the quality of their wares, rather than be the amateur and grossly underpaid nature wardens who keep a few livestock on the side, the EU has bribed crofters in to becoming with subsidy cheques. Is, quite frankly, a subsidy junkie.

 

The EU, latterly aided and abetted by a Commie Holyrood has brought to crofters a regime of form filling and record keeping of frequency, detail and accuracy requirements only surpassed by those left behind by Hitler's Germany. Would crofters rather take the time it requires to measure, and access and record and compile, store and submit such detailed information on all they possess and everything they do, all just to get a relatively paltry cheque which can barely cover the hours and effort required to do everything necessary to ensure you qualify for it, or would they rather be out there with livestock and crops, producing whatever they can that the market demands and is willing to pay for to earn their dollar. To me its a no brainer.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you, would you have answered, had someone asked you in 1972 what joining the EEC could mean for Shetland's crofters?

In 1972 I was a small child, but, nonetheless, yes, I would have been able to think about what it might mean if someone had explained it to me. Thinking about, what they have actually voted for seems to be what the BREXIT proponents on this forum are finding uncomfortable.

 

.....and if you had answered, how accurate do you believe your answer from your crystal ball might have been judged in 2020?

I'm not asking anyone to look 50 years in the future when many of us will be long dead, I'm asking you to think about next year, about 4 months from now.

 

Right here and now with this you are asking an impossible question to answer, <SNIP - Irrelevance ->

The questions i have been asking are along the lines of Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that the EU have been providing sheep farmers with a subsidy to keep them in business?, and do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Shetlands crofters are going to lose that money and that it may not be replaced with anything, and that many of them will find it no longer viable to continue in business? These are not even slightly difficult questions, let alone impossible. You only need a simple sentence and a couple of words, good or bad. What is your answer? 

 

What is beyond debate is that the UK agricultural market has be a depressed and heavily subsidy dependent one for the entireity of the UK's EEC/EU membership. That should not have been the case.

Much of that depressed state has been due to foreign imports (dumping?) from fellow EU states undercutting the market to such an extent many UK producers could no longer remain viable, 'imports' the UK was 'forced' to take under EU free trade rules. The difficulties in finding and maintaining export markets for our agricultural produce within the EU, whether that be the French hijacking and burning truck loads of meat or Eastern Europeans undercutting us, while the EU machine stood back and did nothing. The difficulties of obtaining non-EU export markets due to whatever trade agreement the nation in question did, or didn't have with Brussels, and finally the lack of support from Brussels when circumstances beset the industry that were outwith both its and the nations control. The UK's agricultural sector, and the Shetland agricultural sector in particular was heavily impacted by both the Chernobyl incident fall out and BSE, yet we had to ride it out best as we could, alone.

 

I don't even know where to begins with this. Most of it is utter pish that you have simply made up. It has no basis in truth whatsoever. The rest of it is irrelevant to the discussion.  The EU has not been 'dumping' agricultural products in the UK. That is a lie. Anyone who cares to spend less than 20 seconds with google can confirm that themselves.  For example EU exports of lamb into the British market is less than one twentieth of one percent. 0.04%. That is such a small amount that its difficult to imagine anything less.  source https://www.gov.scot/publications/assessment-opportunities-retain-increase-sheep-lamb-processing-scotland/pages/4/   Scroll about halfway down the page and it saves you having to bother reading. The amount of lamb the EU 'dump' on the British market does not even make a mark on the nice easy to understand colourful pie chart they have provided for you.

 

Yes, there's going to be a bump in the road as we leave, and a stretch with potholes for a time as we go forward, but anybody that cannot see its worth it to allow crofters to regain a demand driven market for their produce, and make their money from the demand for and the quality of their wares, rather than be the amateur and grossly underpaid nature wardens who keep a few livestock on the side, the EU has bribed crofters in to becoming with subsidy cheques. Is, quite frankly, a subsidy junkie.

It isn't just Shetlands crofters, it is the entire sheep farming industry in the UK and throughout Europe.  It cannot compete on a global scale with mega producers in New Zealand and Australia. If you want to have a sheep farming industry in Europe it has to be subsidised. That is why the EU do what they do, they subsidise their own farmers and make imports more expensive by placing tariffs on them and also by restricting the amount that can be imported, because they want to have a sheep farming industry in europe. Do you think that is a good or bad thing? 

 

Once the EU food processing and safety standards are abandoned British farmers will also be competing with farmers from other countries with less developed standards of production like Brazil and Chile. When that happens you might begin to understand what 'dumping' and 'undercutting' actually is. If, as you allege, British farmers find it difficult to compete with European farmers when they enjoy the same rules and benefits as their competitors, how do you think they are going to manage when they are not subsidised to the same extent and they have to compete on WTO terms with farmers from every nation on earth. That is the reality of the 'demand driven' free market you wish to impose on Shetlands crofters. 

 

I understand that the truth is terribly inconvenient for your argument but If you want to continue this discussion keep it short, keep it relevant and don't waste my time by posting made up crap to try and justify your prejudices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you, would you have answered, had someone asked you in 1972 what joining the EEC could mean for Shetland's crofters?

 

Anthony Eden signed the Treaty on the Funcioning of the European Union in 1957, and it came into action on 1/1/1958. I would suggest that was the start of the problem inflicted upon the crofters, as opposed to 1972. It did the fishermen no favours either, or the rest of humanity but that's Westminster for you.

 

 

IMHO, of course.

Edited by George.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This source should be compulsory reading for anyone who keeps sheep in Shetland.

I read through the bit where it gives in depth analysis of what would happen if there was a no deal Brexit and EU tariffs, this isn't even taking into consideration the loss of EU subsidy, or the damaging effect lamb imports from non EU countries (under WTO rules) would have to the viability of sheep farming in Scotland, this is just how much the price would have to drop to sell lamb to the EU for the price we sell at right now when tariffs are included, the percentages are huge!

It goes on to catalogue how far lamb sales drop off in general when they increase in relation to other meat, this inevitably leads you to the conclusion that even if cheap imported beef from the US, for example, came to the UK market it would have a considerable negative impact on the sale of lamb.

Additionally it spells out in facts and figures the amount of lamb the UK market consumes and how it's not big enough to sustain current levels.

It's harrowing reading for anyone who has an interest, I knew it would be bad but to have it spelled out in this link is particularly sobering.

Thanks for the info, I'm sure every single one of us knows somebody who'll be affected, tragically there's many still in complete denial and won't even click on it.

Reminds me of this George Orwell quote from the book "1984"...

 

"...The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essental command..."

Edited by Capeesh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forecasts are notoriously unreliable, at the end of the day we will get what we voted for democratically.

 

The Shetland electorate are not getting what they democratically voted for. Neither is the broader Scottish one. If you are open minded enough to have given this discussion any rational thought perhaps you will now better appreciate at least part of the reason why Shetland voted how it did.

 

They are getting what the electorate in England voted for. Whether or not that vote was democratic or not is another, more complex, discussion. If you watch the TED talk Roachmill posted above, again with an open mind, you will understand why many very valid questions are being asked about that. 

 

If one good thing can come out of this it is that, once the incumbent shower of imbeciles in Westminster are replaced with a responsible and fit for purpose government, there will almost certainly be a wide ranging modernisation of the laws which govern how decisions like BREXIT can be taken. In the meantime though, it remains a tragedy that short term populism fueled by hyper distortion of truth and outright lying was allowed to triumph over the long term national interest and that the next generation, or perhaps the next two generations, of Shetlanders have to live through the catastrophe it has caused to achieve that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

JGHR it was a United Kingdom wide democratic vote as you well know. The same as the UK wide democratic vote to join Europe in the 70s. The vote to join Europe was also led by what seems to be now viewed by yourself as a wonderful forward looking Conservative government, happily accepted by Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Mind you there was some weeping and wailing in the ranks then I believe by those who viewed the result as a disaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same as the UK wide democratic vote to join Europe in the 70s.

 

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union was signed by Anthony Eden, 25 March 1957, and became effective on the 1st of January, 1958. Not one bit of democracy there. That was the first bit of us joining what at that time was called the European Economic Comunity. We're still there, although they've changed the name a few times, and we're still suffering, while they strip the fish out of our waters.

 

In which way was that, in any single way, democratic?

Edited by George.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union was signed by Anthony Eden, 25 March 1957, and became effective on the 1st of January, 1958.

You keep telling us this George, but I can find no evidence that Eden actually signed anything of the sort!!!

The original treaty was between 6 countries who wanted to set up a "Common Market", and GB WAS NOT one of the six (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany).

This treaty was a follow-on from an earlier treaty signed in 1951 (European Coal and Steel Community).

When GB did eventually decide to try and join, they were vetoed by France.

 

The only thing close(?) to your claim is that GB tried to set up a "Free Trade Area" in 1956. 

 

Give me your source please...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...