Let us have our cake, eat it, then get a second cake.

The EFRA Committee called for a fund to prepare British farming for Brexit. This is a bit of overkilll as farming is the ONLY industry to be guaranteed continuation of full subsides for the future. Already farming gets 40% of the Euro cheque but contribute less than 1% to the economy.

Savings can be made by ending the income support for millionaires/billionaires in England who are only landowners - producing no food. Plenty of savings to be made there to keep small farmers sustainable.

  

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is today launching its report, Brexit; Trade in Food. 

There are many crises ahead for forming. 

• That the EU is the UK’s most significant trading partner and there is no guarantee that a free trade agreement will be reached.
• WTO tariffs could possibly lead to higher costs for consumers but could lead to beneficial import displacement. A liberalisation of barriers could possibly lead to cheaper imports, produced to lower welfare standards, and damage British producers.
• The agricultural industry needs clarity on the Government’s long-term vision, as reverting to WTO tariffs will have a significant impact on agriculture, given that tariffs are higher for agricultural products than for other goods and services.
• Perishable agricultural products are more at risk from lengthy customs procedures and poor IT systems.
• When setting UK tariffs at the WTO, Government should understand that removing tariffs ‘could put many UK farmers out of business and render the UK dependent on imported food.’

 

The Committee has recommended that the Government:

 

• Should consider creating a fund to support the UK’s agricultural sector as it adapts to the post-Brexit environment.
• Must set out how it will make sure that IT systems and infrastructure are in place for the import and export of agricultural produce so that businesses can continue to trade smoothly with Europe and the rest of the world.
• Should begin to develop relationships at a political level with potential new trading partners.
• Should publish a sector-by-sector analysis of the impact of Brexit before the publication of the Agriculture Bill, and publish the Bill as soon as possible.
• Should ensure that any new agreements are not to the detriment of the UK’s high animal welfare, environmental, or food standards.
• Should make clear how it will deal with potential regulatory divergence with the EU, and ensure that protected geographical indicators are retained in a similar form after the UK leaves the EU.

 

“60% of the UK’s agricultural exports and 70% of its imports are from the EU. In order to safeguard the livelihoods of UK farmers and guarantee domestic food security post-Brexit, it is vital that the Government articulates its vision for protecting both. The first step in this process is creating an analysis of each farming sector before bringing the Agriculture Bill before Parliament.

 

“UK agriculture will need to adapt to the changed trading circumstances following Brexit, so the Government should consider putting funding in place to enable farmers to do so.

 

Comments

[Walter Craig]

This is a comment. I agree with Ad

[Walter Craig]

This is a comment.

[Ad]

Socialism for the rich. Honestly they are taking the piss. They can never siphon enough away before sneering at those whose pittance they like to snatch. They would pickpocket you as you trek through the desert, out of sheer meanness.

There are the poor (financially) and then the morally, spiritually poor. Which I will explain. Poor people know they are poor, and many of them don't fight, being better than snatching abusers.

Satan can make laws. Doesn't mean they are legitimate or do anyone any good. Government, the power of governing is invariably bound up with cursing and condemning people with law, i.e. the gradual demolition of liberty.

Now, so many awful ideologues hide behind 'liberty' as an idea to push senseless dogma, and moral decrepitude. I shall attempt to argue this.

Why are people afraid to fight back? As if those who rake it in at our expense hold the keys to deserving and reason? If we try otherwise, put our own interests first we cannot succeed. This isn't an exact science: what it is is a reasonable step toward justice (which everyone is owed) and towards the logical conclusion: equality.

Its akin to the bullied saying 'don't provoke the bully', to the superstitious saying 'don't mention the devil, just get on with things'. You are being conned.

I strongly doubt that in Britain in 2018 I am asking for much or courting controversy by doing so. I just take a position that what we should have is far better than what we get.