The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

 

Leavers, ask yourself, is the CAP, fish, blue passports, ending freedom of movement, ending ECJ jurisdiction + whatever other reasons you voted the way you did, worth it? No deflections, whataboutisms etc.

I think we all deserve an answer.

 

Spot on and I'd be interested too

[a m ole]

 

Wow, it’s amazing how that brick fell so perfectly positioned.

[bickster]

17 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

fish

We haven't really heard about fish for sometime because the argument has been debunked ad nauseum

The fishing quotas are there to preserve the stocks, for environmental reasons and so we can enjoy fish long into the future but even the EU hasn't managed to achieve its aim with this as only this week North Sea Cod lost its blue sustainability tick as the stocks are once again dwindling and below the level where the stocks are sustainable. In short, North Sea Cod is being over fished. If it wasn't for the EU the cod left in the hands of the fishing industry would have gone a long time ago. Big fishing business really wouldn't give a shit and it's big fishing business that gets the lion's share of the UK quota and that is down to UK government not the EU. If we leave the EU, you might as well say au revoir to Cod, it'll be gone

[blandy]

38 minutes ago, Xann said:

F*** a duck - You think think the EU said "you must increase your subsidy for grousing land"?

The a portion of CAP money is to sustain environments that otherwise might be turned over to making cash.

It's the UK Govt that decides which land falls under that remit.

No that's not what I think.

Full Fact covers this.

Quote

Moorland—which can be used, among other things, for grouse shooting—is eligible for agricultural subsidy, though the sport of grouse shooting isn’t itself subsidised.

In brief

Claim

Theresa May has increased subsidies for grouse shooting from £45 million to £84 million a year.

Conclusion

Moorland in England used for grouse shooting is eligible for agricultural subsidy, though the act of shooting itself isn’t subsidised. Data on the total subsidy paid to grouse moors isn’t published, though the £45 and £84 million figures are likely to be overestimates.

Moorland—which can be used, among other things, for grouse shooting—is eligible for agricultural subsidy, though the sport of grouse shooting isn’t itself subsidised....

How are agricultural subsidies allocated?

Like all EU member states, the UK follows the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This provides direct income support payments to farmers and is meant to help maintain competition, while protecting against volatility in agricultural prices....

In England CAP payments are distributed through different schemes, but the main payment is granted under something called the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS). This is paid to farmers based on the amount of land they have entitlements for.

The BPS rules state that only a farmer can claim BPS payments on their holdings. A farmer is defined as a person or group which produces agricultural products or keeps land suitable for grazing or cultivation.

Because moorland is often suitable to be grazed upon, grouse moors qualify for payment, regardless of whether livestock is actually being kept on the moorland.

The rules on subsidies do state that: “If agricultural and non-agricultural activities are taking place on the same land, the land won’t be eligible if the intensity, nature, duration, and timing of the non-agricultural activity significantly interferes with agricultural activity.”  

 

[Xann]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

No that's not what I think.

Full Fact covers this.

Yes - I've read that and lots more - We still allocate which land is covered, not some Belgian.

If you think it's the EU that make these decisions? Tell Chris Packham he's been lobbying the wrong country for years.

https://www.chrispackham.co.uk/

He'll likely get back to you.

[snowychap]

 

[choffer]

 

[mrbojangles]

56 minutes ago, bickster said:

We haven't really heard about fish for sometime because the argument has been debunked ad nauseum

The fishing quotas are there to preserve the stocks, for environmental reasons and so we can enjoy fish long into the future but even the EU hasn't managed to achieve its aim with this as only this week North Sea Cod lost its blue sustainability tick as the stocks are once again dwindling and below the level where the stocks are sustainable. In short, North Sea Cod is being over fished. If it wasn't for the EU the cod left in the hands of the fishing industry would have gone a long time ago. Big fishing business really wouldn't give a shit and it's big fishing business that gets the lion's share of the UK quota and that is down to UK government not the EU. If we leave the EU, you might as well say au revoir to Cod, it'll be gone

C'mon @bickster this isn't the time or the Plaice 

[mjmooney]

I haddockinda hunch this would start again. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by mjmooney

[bickster]

2 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

C'mon @bickster this isn't the time or the Plaice 

I hake it when this happens

[blandy]

4 hours ago, Xann said:

Yes - I've read that and lots more - We still allocate which land is covered, not some Belgian.

If you think it's the EU that make these decisions? Tell Chris Packham he's been lobbying the wrong country for years.

https://www.chrispackham.co.uk/

He'll likely get back to you.

Right, let's try and get a few things clearer.

Me personally, I'm not in favour of subsidising grouse shooting, or of grouse shooting at all, or Raptor persecution, or habitat destruction or the way sheep are allowed to keep hills and moors devoid of more than scrubby shrubbery.

But. When you said

6 hours ago, Xann said:

Grauniad

All In the land of foodbanks.

Tory filth.

I took that to be implying that you believe the tories instead of spending money on food for people were instead giving it to millionaire grouse murderers.

That, if I understand you rightly is completely untrue. The CAP money for agricultural subsidies comes from the EU and Brussels (though from us initially) and is only for agricultural subsidies, it legally can't be given to homeless folk or the elderly or disabled or...etc. The CAP determines what the money is for, and some is directly passed to farmers etc. decided by the EU and some is passed on after they apply that they meet specific criteria for land usage or management, set by the parts of the UK, but within the terms of the CAP's remit to (they reckon) promote beneficial environmental and sustainable land use and wotnot. It's not the vile tories fault in this instance that money is going to people who who are eligible for it and apply for it. The CAP is (in part) bobbins, because countries like France are hugely resistant (as they get the most wedge from it) to changing it.

[Dodgyknees]

I'll post the link when I find it (to the interview) this is insane. 

 

 

Presume this is real?

[desensitized43]

4 minutes ago, avfcDJ said:

I'll post the link when I find it (to the interview) this is insane. 

 

 

Presume this is real?

She did say his hateful actions could be down to this but in fairness she provided no evidence.

It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine though. The leader of the house himself is involved in a business that's well documented to be doing precisely this.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

The leader of the house himself is involved in a business that's well documented to be doing precisely this.

this "fact" was on twitter the other month and i remember reading up on the claim back then  ,  I found nothing ..I was also somewhat surprised to find that nor did anyone else , well in so much as if they did  find something they didn't share it   , best we got was  nudge nudge wink wink of course he's involved  don't be so naive ...  so if you've seen something I'd genuinely be interested in the evidence to back this claim up

[tonyh29]

6 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

blue passports

It was an interesting post but you killed my inclination for input at that point

maybe I'll come back to it later if there is nothing decent on TV

[StefanAVFC]

52 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

It was an interesting post but you killed my inclination for input at that point

maybe I'll come back to it later if there is nothing decent on TV

You may sneer that you weren't won over by it, but plenty were. It's indisputable. 

[desensitized43]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

this "fact" was on twitter the other month and i remember reading up on the claim back then  ,  I found nothing ..I was also somewhat surprised to find that nor did anyone else , well in so much as if they did  find something they didn't share it   , best we got was  nudge nudge wink wink of course he's involved  don't be so naive ...  so if you've seen something I'd genuinely be interested in the evidence to back this claim up

It's fine I'll help... 

Quote

Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg is estimated to have earnt £7m from investments since the referendum according to investigation by Channel 4 Dispatches

Ch4 Dispatches

Quote

Did you hear? Jacob Rees-Mogg is “in line for a huge personal windfall when Britain exits the single market”?

Fund manager and anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller says so:

FT

It's clear that he's not actively involved in the day to day management of the company but he's a shareholder and thus stands to gain from the massive fall in the pound since Brexit and it's widely predicted slump at best (or collapse at worst) in the event of no deal.

You might not like to admit it but he's got a conflict of interest he's done his best to avoid disclosing. 

[desensitized43]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

It was an interesting post but you killed my inclination for input at that point

maybe I'll come back to it later if there is nothing decent on TV

Was blue passports not presented by some as a reason for leaving? I remember it well. 

I know it wasn't you specifically but many of the Brexit persuasion did.

I didn't ask for war and peace just a simple "yes it'll be worth all these times of hatred in the end" or "no I never envisaged the division would get this bad" would have sufficed. 

[tonyh29]

14 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

It's fine I'll help... 

https://www.channel4.com/press/news/brexiteer-jacob-rees-mogg-estimated-have-earnt-ps7m-investments-referendum-according

 

https://amp.ft.com/content/7095b307-46b5-355f-a881-78cf9d57ce83

It's clear that he's not actively involved in the day to day management of the company but he's a shareholder and thus stands to gain from the massive fall in the pound since Brexit and it's widely predicted slump at best (or collapse at worst) in the event of no deal.

You might not like to admit it but he's got a conflict of interest he's done his best to avoid disclosing. 

Your original claim was shorting the £ on a No deal Brexit , despatches article doesn’t say anything of the sort ... as for the FT article did you read it ? it’s essential ridiculing the argument not giving it any credence

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by tonyh29

[Xann]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I took that to be implying that you believe the tories instead of spending money on food for people were instead giving it to millionaire grouse murderers.

Yes and no.

Obviously that CAP money is for the environment and not the Social Security budget. 

Moors though? Farmers use moors certainly, they're often common ground. Stick your sheep on them and give your home pastures a break, but who owns lots of moorland? Middle class or working class people?

Where would that money be better spent?

Planting trees, reclaiming brownfield sites or quarries. Perhaps?

Call me bonkers, but it seems to me the money needs to be spent to offset the effects of climate change. Waterways and coastal areas in particular. (I had a great diagram of how farmers could utilise running water on their land, and the life each method supported? Can I find it now? Nope). Funds for drainage and to offset erosion of environments that support ecosystems would also be welcome.

Then there's the magic money tree. There isn't one, unless the rich need a tax break for voting Tory, or the DUP need bribed, or the public aren't taking to the Brexit for Billionaires and need a bit of cajoling or Chris Grayling has a brainfart... And there's me falling off the bike again because there's a crater in the middle of the road. Beggars piling up around transport in quite shitty parts of town and tent villages in the parks.

So no, I don't think that CAP money make a couple of foodbanks disappear, but I do think  the system favours the wealthy. The Tory filth treats Average Joe with disdain and cares nothing for their suffering, seeing them as a resource to be exploited by themselves and their chums.