# Will exit from the EU make Repeal easier



## Judgemental (21 February 2016)

If we regain our soverignty and the Supreme Court cannot be overruled by some obscure and wholly unknown court in Luxembourg, will there be a chance  that the Hunting Act 2004, be reviwed by a British Supreme Court populated by Judges who are British Nationals?


----------



## skint1 (21 February 2016)

I personally doubt it, regardless of the personal feelings (and habits) of these people in high places- it would not be politically expedient for them to support an activity that the vast majority of people in the UK are dead set against. Whether the majority against hunting are ignorant of the facts, or townies or whatever is immaterial, they can't be seen to support it


----------



## Goldenstar (22 February 2016)

I think exit from the EU will make government so busy that repeal won't get a look in.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 February 2016)

'And with one bound,  he was free',  simply won't apply to our leaving the EU,  unravelling the complex and interwoven laws,  rules and dictates will take years to achieve,  and even though I fully support Hunting,  we will have much more on our plate and of far greater importance than whether we chase a fox about the countryside,  mostly in circles and with a load of dogs!

Sorry J_m,  but no,  I don't think that whether we stay in the EU or leave,  will have any bearing upon the 2004 Hunting Act,  and perhaps it shouldn't.  We will have far greater concerns than what many would see as an irrelevance.

Alec.


----------



## skint1 (22 February 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			I think exit from the EU will make government so busy that repeal won't get a look in.
		
Click to expand...

An even better point. As GS and Alec have said... it will take years to unpick it all. One good thing (from a selfish perspective) if they're busy doing that it may slow down their dismantling of the public sector generally


----------



## Judgemental (22 February 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			'And with one bound,  he was free',  simply won't apply to our leaving the EU,  unravelling the complex and interwoven laws,  rules and dictates will take years to achieve,  and even though I fully support Hunting,  we will have much more on our plate and of far greater importance than whether we chase a fox about the countryside,  mostly in circles and with a load of dogs!

Sorry J_m,  but no,  I don't think that whether we stay in the EU or leave,  will have any bearing upon the 2004 Hunting Act,  and perhaps it shouldn't.  We will have far greater concerns than what many would see as an irrelevance.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec good morning, good to talk it's while since we had anything worth discussing or debating.

I will confess to something of a hidden agenda in my post, in that I will put a large amount of money on Boris being our next Prime Minister and that David will resign on 24 June 2016 when the British people vote to leave the EU.

Boris will immediately be elected leader and will immediately call a General Election, despite this parliament not having run it's full term. Where this is a change of incumbent leader in a Fixed Term Parliament the new incumbent can go to the country.

The Conservatives will win with a resounding majority, Mrs Sturgeon will be finessed by Boris into agreeing English votes for English laws and a vote to Repeal the Hunting Act 2004 can be put to the House of Commons in September, which will be carried by a majority of at least 65.

Boris will be eager to throw that bone to the farmers and landowners who will be about to lose all their EU subsidies and single farm payments.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 February 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Alec good morning, good to talk it's while since we had anything worth discussing or debating.

..

Boris will be eager to throw that bone to the farmers and landowners who will be about to lose all their EU subsidies and single farm payments.
		
Click to expand...

Were we to leave the EU then the SFPs would be funded from our own coffers and would be a considerable saving on the funds which we currently hand over to the EU,  so it's wrong to say that SFPs will come to an end,  because they can't and won't.

Otherwise,  your propositions are interesting and points which I hadn't considered!  'IF' we leave the EU and 'IF' Cameron resigns,  then as you say,  were Boris to be voted in (I've yet to really get my head around that,  but we'll see!),  then going to the Country would make for perfect sense.  I feel that Boris would 'walk it'!

I'll admit to being a little concerned at the level of power which Mrs. Sturgeon has.  That we have a section of Gt. Britain which has such power and that it can exert the influence which it does,  with little thought for the good of GB in its entirety,  should have us concerned.  Even considering that this Referendum works on a one-man-one-vote principle,  for most Scots,  being as Northern Ireland and rather on the fringe,  to have such an influence over the majority,  and that's us,  is wrong.  Perhaps we should have encouraged Independence which would have allowed them to make their own 'arrangements'.  

The argument returns to the discussion of 'Tribes',  and I'm wondering if autonomy isn't such a bad thing,  after all,  and after all,  isn't that what Devolution's about,  returning the ability to be autonomous to those who are most affected?

Hunting?  It's no more than a tool in the Sturgeon armoury,  and such power should be wrested from her.

Alec.


----------



## HashRouge (22 February 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Alec good morning, good to talk it's while since we had anything worth discussing or debating.

I will confess to something of a hidden agenda in my post, in that I will put a large amount of money on Boris being our next Prime Minister and that David will resign on 24 June 2016 when the British people vote to leave the EU.

Boris will immediately be elected leader and will immediately call a General Election, despite this parliament not having run it's full term. Where this is a change of incumbent leader in a Fixed Term Parliament the new incumbent can go to the country.

The Conservatives will win with a resounding majority, Mrs Sturgeon will be finessed by Boris into agreeing English votes for English laws and a vote to Repeal the Hunting Act 2004 can be put to the House of Commons in September, which will be carried by a majority of at least 65.

Boris will be eager to throw that bone to the farmers and landowners who will be about to lose all their EU subsidies and single farm payments.
		
Click to expand...

But do you really think, if the scenario you describe were to occur, that repealing the hunting ban would be anywhere other than at the bottom of a very, very long agenda? The government would be having to deal with a new leader, a general election AND dealing with the fallout of leaving the EU. I'd say there would be much more important things to deal with than repealing the hunting ban, which I can't really see being any consolation whatsoever to farmers losing EU subsidies (I mean really, are they supposed to think, well, I've got no money, but at least I can hunt foxes, yay!). Surely the government will be needing to do other things, like looking at substitutes for the subsidies (I admit I don't know the ins and outs of what subsidies farmers receive from the EU and how they are going to be replaced by the government). And I don't know where you have come up with the figures you mention...a majority of a least 65? How on earth do you figure that?

And no, I am not in favour of repeal, though I try to listen to the arguments on both sides and be as open-minded as possible.


----------



## Judgemental (23 February 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Were we to leave the EU then the SFPs would be funded from our own coffers and would be a considerable saving on the funds which we currently hand over to the EU,  so it's wrong to say that SFPs will come to an end,  because they can't and won't.

Otherwise,  your propositions are interesting and points which I hadn't considered!  'IF' we leave the EU and 'IF' Cameron resigns,  then as you say,  were Boris to be voted in (I've yet to really get my head around that,  but we'll see!),  then going to the Country would make for perfect sense.  I feel that Boris would 'walk it'!

I'll admit to being a little concerned at the level of power which Mrs. Sturgeon has.  That we have a section of Gt. Britain which has such power and that it can exert the influence which it does,  with little thought for the good of GB in its entirety,  should have us concerned.  Even considering that this Referendum works on a one-man-one-vote principle,  for most Scots,  being as Northern Ireland and rather on the fringe,  to have such an influence over the majority,  and that's us,  is wrong.  Perhaps we should have encouraged Independence which would have allowed them to make their own 'arrangements'.  

The argument returns to the discussion of 'Tribes',  and I'm wondering if autonomy isn't such a bad thing,  after all,  and after all,  isn't that what Devolution's about,  returning the ability to be autonomous to those who are most affected?

Hunting?  It's no more than a tool in the Sturgeon armoury,  and such power should be wrested from her.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Taking the historical track record of the Conservative party in the last fifty years, I am fairly sure there is going to be an internecine war of words.

We are at opposite side of England and Wales, yet I dare say you would, as I do, find it difficult to find anybody who is minded to stay in the EU

Boris is a leader and only yesterday, I had three youngish chaps doing some contracting work and they all said, "Boris comes across as telling it like it is and they said, if he can run London, he is more than capable of running the country".  Whereas, David is 'posh' but tries to play down his 'poshness', which they find very embarrassing and I am talking about the working class perception of him. As the boys said, Boris makes them laugh.

Frankly I believe this whole referendum is going to dissolve into a pre-general election campaign and pre-prime ministerial election.

I agree with your comments about Mrs Sturgeon which are very correct and worrying. Boris is probably the best person to deal with her.

As for the hunting, if we have a general election this back end, I am certain the Conservatives will have a resounding majority and Mrs Sturgeon, coupled to the SNP will be more or less emasculated so far as their influence in the House of Commons is concerned.


----------



## Welly (24 February 2016)

To answer the original question no,  the hunting act is one of the things you can't blame the EU. They still hunt with hounds!


----------



## Judgemental (24 February 2016)

Welly said:



			To answer the original question no,  the hunting act is one of the things you can't blame the EU. They still hunt with hounds!
		
Click to expand...

Yes but what contribution have the EU made to lifting the ban and helping towards repeal. None.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 February 2016)

I suspect that Cameron has committed political suicide,  regardless of how the Referendum swings.  By the end of July,  Cameron will be finished,  you mark my words!

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (24 February 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			I suspect that Cameron has committed political suicide,  regardless of how the Referendum swings.  By the end of July,  Cameron will be finished,  you mark my words!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

You are probably right.

It appears that the political hyenas are circling. For a Lord Chancellor to openly disagree with The Incumbent Prime Minister is wholly unique.

In those circumstances a General Election is inevitable.

We, Parliament, must regain our/it's unimpeachable sovereignty.


----------



## Judgemental (25 February 2016)

HashRouge said:



			But do you really think, if the scenario you describe were to occur, that repealing the hunting ban would be anywhere other than at the bottom of a very, very long agenda? The government would be having to deal with a new leader, a general election AND dealing with the fallout of leaving the EU. I'd say there would be much more important things to deal with than repealing the hunting ban, which I can't really see being any consolation whatsoever to farmers losing EU subsidies (I mean really, are they supposed to think, well, I've got no money, but at least I can hunt foxes, yay!). Surely the government will be needing to do other things, like looking at substitutes for the subsidies (I admit I don't know the ins and outs of what subsidies farmers receive from the EU and how they are going to be replaced by the government). And I don't know where you have come up with the figures you mention...a majority of a least 65? How on earth do you figure that?

And no, I am not in favour of repeal, though I try to listen to the arguments on both sides and be as open-minded as possible.
		
Click to expand...

Hashrouge it will  take about four years to dismantle our membership of the EU

If the Countryside Alliance and MFHA are wise, they will recommend a vote to leave the EU

Single  Farm payments will be replicated when  the UK government has full sovereignty over their own affairs.

Eleven years have  past since the Hunting Act 2004 and with a decent majority  in the Commons, the issue would be totemic and worth a punt of anybody's money.


----------



## JanetGeorge (26 February 2016)

Judgemental said:



			If the Countryside Alliance and MFHA are wise, they will recommend a vote to leave the EU
		
Click to expand...

And if the CA or MFHA make a recommendation, I'd be tempted to do the opposite!  Basically, it's none of THEIR business what WE do with our vote!


----------



## Isbister (26 February 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Yes but what contribution have the EU made to lifting the ban and helping towards repeal. None.
		
Click to expand...

There's no reason why the EU ever should have got involved. Let's not forget, the law was passed by a lawfully and democratically elected government. If it is wrong and unpopular - which of course it is with some of the electorate - then the law must be changed from within. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 February 2016)

I suspect that should we leave the EU,  then Cameron will consider falling on his sword,  BJ will quite probably (but for reasons that I don't understand) walk it,  should there be a General Election with BJ on the crest of a wave and a huge (or at least usable) majority,  then repeal is a possibility.  

I suspect that that's what will be the EU influence.  A bit round about,  I grant you,  but I can see the possible logic! 

Alec.


----------



## chillipup (26 February 2016)

OP, Please can you tell me why it is so important to you that the 2004 act be repealed?


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 February 2016)

There are far more people against hunting than there are for it. I very much doubt it will ever be repealed.
Also there are far more important issues to deal with. Issues that effect everyone. Not just a few who wish to chase a Fox around the countryside.


----------



## popsdosh (27 February 2016)

chillipup said:



			OP, Please can you tell me why it is so important to you that the 2004 act be repealed?
		
Click to expand...

I do agree with you however I suspect for different reasons. I have long said it is best left alone . A compromise has been reached where most hunts can still continue under the act and within the law . Why keep going back there it will only make it a game of political tennis changing every time the government changes. I opposed the original ban however wont be joining any campaign to repeal the act there is no point you just drag the whole thing up again and the general public are just sick of it. 

On the question of europe in my opinion it will be the worst thing ever for the countryside in the uk if we get out. As much as I hate the form filling etc agriculture in this country had such a boost from our original entry and that whole thing will be reversed as I dont care what they say they will not have a second thought about the people who work in the countryside. If you want proof of that just look at the fiasco that is happening at the moment with SFP its not europes doing it the British government and the total cock up they have made of it.
If you want proof of what pulling out of the EU may do to you ,I suggest those of you with pension investments get an up to date valuation of your pension pot and see where that stands as most of that fall is due to uncertainty over if we will stay in the EU . Do you really think the other member states will just stand back without administering some form of pay back for us leaving. Sorry were in there its to late after the event to change your mind again


----------



## Countryman (27 February 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I do agree with you however I suspect for different reasons. I have long said it is best left alone . A compromise has been reached where most hunts can still continue under the act and within the law . Why keep going back there it will only make it a game of political tennis changing every time the government changes. I opposed the original ban however wont be joining any campaign to repeal the act there is no point you just drag the whole thing up again and the general public are just sick of it.
		
Click to expand...

Then you are very lucky your hunt is able to 'continue' - many are finding it very difficult, and there is very little legal recourse to prevent disruption if you happen to be targeted every single weekend.

I completely agree it needs to be taken off the political agenda - it can't be a football, changed by each incoming government. Therefore a basic repeal alone is not the answer - but some sort of replacement, (Lord Donohughe wants to introduce a "Cruelty to Wildlife" bill for instance -  or delegation to a regulating authority etc may be the answer.


----------



## popsdosh (27 February 2016)

Countryman said:



			Then you are very lucky your hunt is able to 'continue' - many are finding it very difficult, and there is very little legal recourse to prevent disruption if you happen to be targeted every single weekend.

I completely agree it needs to be taken off the political agenda - it can't be a football, changed by each incoming government. Therefore a basic repeal alone is not the answer - but some sort of replacement, (Lord Donohughe wants to introduce a "Cruelty to Wildlife" bill for instance -  or delegation to a regulating authority etc may be the answer.
		
Click to expand...

I do agree with you as you say repeal is not the answer and until we have one keeping it below the radar to me is the best course of actiom. 
To be honest the Antis still targeting hunts really makes them look fools and goes to prove what we knew all along ,it really is not about foxes!


----------



## Alec Swan (28 February 2016)

Countryman said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. Lord Donohughe wants to introduce a "Cruelty to Wildlife" bill for instance -  or delegation to a regulating authority etc may be the answer.
		
Click to expand...

There will always be a group who feel that any form of wildlife management is cruel,  so Lord Donoghue's proposal is approaching lunacy and it will achieve no more than further division.  Shall I,  one day perhaps,  be compelled to take a qualified veterinary surgeon with me when I go to roost shoot pigeons,  or when I travel to Ireland to walk up snipe?

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (2 March 2016)

Quite who determined that The Referendum Campaign should be for four months needs to have their reasons closely examined.

Apart from, as I have already predicted we have already seen internecine 'warfare' within the Conservative party.

I confidently predict that journalists and the media, are going to run out of subject matter and they will turn their attention to the Common Agricultural Policy.

Thus the excessive and generous amount of money that is given to Landowners, Farmers and any tom, dick or harry, that owns or tenants a few acres. Or  principally thousands of acres probably worth about £10,000.00 per acres in which there is some opulent mansion or farmhouse, filled with inherited antiques etc. 

I confidently predict, that because of the almost forensic examination in the next four months of this money and farmers/landowners 'benefits' in the form of the Single Farm Payment etc, which is largely spent on new 4 x 4's, hunt subscriptions and in a few cases new machinery, the whole scandalous system, will be brought very graphically to the attention of the many, who do not enjoy this 'feather bedded' lifestyle.

So much so, that as a result whether it is IN or Out of the EU, at the end of the day there will be a latter day Agrarian Revolution, because 'the people' will wake up to a very complex system that only benefits a minority to the tune of £1,300,000,000,000 (£1.3 billion) of some 275,000 farmers and already very wealthy landowners out of a total population of 56,000,000,000. people.

Such money would be better spent on hospitals, schools and the national infrastructure. 

I am merely stating facts and the sooner all those in the countryside and farming wake up to the notion that 'the gravy train' will shortly hit the buffers, the better!   

what I find remarkable is that Comrade Corbyn is happy with the billions paid to farmers and landowners for doing nothing.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 March 2016)

Judgemental said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

So much so, that as a result whether it is IN or Out of the EU, at the end of the day there will be a latter day Agrarian Revolution, because 'the people' will wake up to a very complex system that only benefits a minority to the tune of £1,300,000,000,000 (£1.3 billion) of some 275,000 farmers and already very wealthy landowners out of a total population of 56,000,000,000. people.

Such money would be better spent on hospitals, schools and the national infrastructure. 

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

There are times J_M,  when as fond of you as I am,  your level of stupidity astounds even me,  and I'm generally of a most tolerant nature,  you'll accept I'm sure!  The simple fact is that without the subsidising of our food industry,  and by 'us',  then 'we' would no longer be able to afford the food which we produce.

Alec.


----------



## popsdosh (2 March 2016)

A lot depends who you think is really being subsidised maybe!
Is it the farmer or the consumer with a cheaper and guaranteed food supply. The argument could go on forever. Love to know what these billions are doing really because at the moment farmers are having to pay for animal food on credit cards because thats the only credit they have left. Maybe its ok to burn down the rain forest to produce more cheap food to flood this country with . That moneys no good to anybody if you dont have food to eat see how long we last then.


----------



## ycbm (2 March 2016)

Do you really think the other member states will just stand back without administering some form of pay back for us leaving.
		
Click to expand...

Yes.

For the simple reason that they export 61 BILLION pounds or more to us than we do to them. They need us more than we need them. Simples.

The French wine industry has never recovered from our boycott of their wine after they refused to take our beef.


----------



## Judgemental (2 March 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			There are times J_M,  when as fond of you as I am,  your level of stupidity astounds even me,  and I'm generally of a most tolerant nature,  you'll accept I'm sure!  The simple fact is that without the subsidising of our food industry,  and by 'us',  then 'we' would no longer be able to afford the food which we produce.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec, I cannot agree for one simple reason.

When we were conned into voting for the Common Market in 1975, the price of agricultural land was about £500.00 per acre, give or take. It is now about £10,000.00 per acre give or take depending upon the quality.

Allowing for inflation and improved farming methods, there is still a massive disparity between the value in 1975 and now.

The reason, inflated subsidies that are fundamentally intended for poor, sheep and subsistence  farmers in the Mediterranean type countries, have pushed land prices to absurd levels. Subsidies that have been usurped by the French and Germans, subsidies that were never intended for our farming methods, climate and substantially larger holdings than the rest of Europe.

If the subsidies are taken away the price of land will fall, as will tenanted farm rents and as a result the cost of production will fall and therefore the cost of food will fall by about £700.00 per household annually.

I will go further. My sources estimate the price of average agricultural land to fall to about £3,500.00 - £4,000.00 per acre if we vote to leave. If we vote to stay, because of the hiatus and investigation by non-agricultural busybodies, that the referendum campaign will generate, agricultural land will fall to about £5,000.00 per acre. Tenanted rental values will fall, although Tenant Right in-goings and outgoing values will remain more or less as they are currently. Largely because of the likely demand for tenanted land at lower levels. Owner occupied land will not be seen as the investment it once was, because British farmers will have to compete with the rest or the world, particularly where grain is concerned.


----------



## popsdosh (2 March 2016)

It wont happen because land for agriculture is a diminishing resource and the price will hold up it may drop off a little but not much. However it will always creep up . If your Hypothesis is true why are land values not dropping at the moment because agriculture has been losing money like a drain for 2yrs running now. The largest distortion to land values and rents in recent years has come from the energy sectors. I think the thing you conveniently forget is that with a rising world population we soon wont be able to feed ourselves let alone worry about the prices. USA actually supports its farmers at a higher level than within europe nowadays and land values of equal quality land is not far off our levels. 
If you are in fact correct we had better all say a prayer for James Dyson et al who have also distorted the land market hugely by the tax breaks they get for investing their personal family  pension funds in agricultural land at in effect up to a 40% discount( now hold best part of 30,000 acres all farmed by them.) or for example the Mormon church who have bought up large areas around here because religious organisations dont pay tax. These buyers arent letting this land they are farming it. However this has very little to do with support money.

Bye the way if you think the price of food will drop by £700/household your on some funny substance as the price of food is already subsidised by europe it will in truth have to go up . I will let you into a secret at present we would be better off not farming the land and producing crops at all but its not in our make up to do that and at the end of the day its not just us but all our suppliers as well.


----------



## JDee (2 March 2016)

The EU (as already stated) had nothing to do with the hunting ban so being in or out isn't going to make a difference. 
The majority of people don't understand hunting and don't want too, they just see it as mindless slaughter so its unlikely to ever get a majority vote to change anything
The UK countryside is shrinking all the time, the population keeps growing people have to live somewhere, shortage of land pushes the price up. 
The UK produces only about half of the food it eats so remove the benefits of trade with EU countries then the cost of anything grown there and shipped to the UK markets will cost more
I'm wondering what a difference its going to make to all the field scale fruit and veg growers who rely on an eastern European workforce, coming out of the EU is going to make hiring them more complicated again


----------



## Alec Swan (3 March 2016)

popsdosh said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. the price of food is already subsidised by europe &#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Is it?  How?  We pay substantially more in to the EU than they hand back by way of SFP (now BPS).

I also see no reason why our household food bills should change.  The UK would continue to be self supporting by subsidising our food producers.  There would also be no reason why we couldn't support our own dairy industry,  it wouldn't be a day too soon.

I do agree though that now that payments are attached to land rather than food production,  vast areas have been bought up by those with the wealth to do so,  many being only interested in the payments available rather than the production of food.  The current system insists that those making the claims for payment must be actively farming,  and those who aren't and are simply landowners still win though,  as the rentable value of the land is worked out on the value of the subsidy,  so it's win-win for those with the capital to buy up these farms.  

It's a cockeyed system,  that's for certain.  Would we,  without the constraints of the EU directives,  be able to have an improved and workable support system where those who are in need are the beneficiaries?  We could and we should.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (3 March 2016)

popsdosh said:



			It wont happen because land for agriculture is a diminishing resource and the price will hold up it may drop off a little but not much. However it will always creep up . If your Hypothesis is true why are land values not dropping at the moment because agriculture has been losing money like a drain for 2yrs running now. The largest distortion to land values and rents in recent years has come from the energy sectors. I think the thing you conveniently forget is that with a rising world population we soon wont be able to feed ourselves let alone worry about the prices. USA actually supports its farmers at a higher level than within europe nowadays and land values of equal quality land is not far off our levels. 
If you are in fact correct we had better all say a prayer for James Dyson et al who have also distorted the land market hugely by the tax breaks they get for investing their personal family  pension funds in agricultural land at in effect up to a 40% discount( now hold best part of 30,000 acres all farmed by them.) or for example the Mormon church who have bought up large areas around here because religious organisations dont pay tax. These buyers arent letting this land they are farming it. However this has very little to do with support money.

Bye the way if you think the price of food will drop by £700/household your on some funny substance as the price of food is already subsidised by europe it will in truth have to go up . I will let you into a secret at present we would be better off not farming the land and producing crops at all but its not in our make up to do that and at the end of the day its not just us but all our suppliers as well.
		
Click to expand...


The point you missed in my most recent post was as follows:

"If we vote to stay, because of the hiatus and investigation by non-agricultural busybodies, that the referendum campaign will generate, agricultural land will fall to about £5,000.00 per acre".

In the context of what I said, Farming/Agriculture is going to be 'hung out to dry' by the media because it is the easiest target. Farms are fixed features and when one considered all the information available in for example:


http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/2013/

By the time this referendum is over and umpteen television crews, journalists and reports have rocked up on farmer's doorsteps, asking them to explain why they are paid vast sum of money by the EU for doing nothing, trust me the  British public will, by 23 June understand what it is all about.

Politicians will be forced to change the whole procedure where Farm Subsidies are concerned whether or not we are in or out of the EU.


----------



## ycbm (3 March 2016)

Politicians will be forced to change the whole procedure where Farm Subsidies are concerned whether or not we are in or out of the EU.
		
Click to expand...


Not a hope of reform if we stay in. The other countries in Europe have much more land than we do per head of population, and have far more to lose.


----------



## Judgemental (3 March 2016)

ycbm said:



			Not a hope of reform if we stay in. The other countries in Europe have much more land than we do per head of population, and have far more to lose.
		
Click to expand...

In or Out by the time this referendum is over the whole question of Agricultural Subsidies paid to already very rich farmers and landowners who enjoy inherited wealth will be the fundamental talking point.

As I say and if you visit: 

http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/2013/

and care to enter any name of a farmer or simply the village they live in, you will find out how much money they have received.

An interesting example is

http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org...s-of-the-viscount-folkestone-1963-settlement/

in the context of the following development in Salisbury


http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/n...a_meadow_that_doesn___t_flood___/?ref=mr&lp=9

or

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/n...rsial_plans_for_100_homes_on_meadows/?ref=mc&


----------



## ycbm (3 March 2016)

I know all about the subsidy Judgemental. I have friends who claim it, create a loss for the farm, put the farm loss against the profit from a completely unrelated business, and also had the gall to have the agricultural tie removed on their property on the basis that they aren't employed in farming and it didn't sell (surprise!) when on the market for a year at 30% more than it was worth.

I could claim it myself for my one field , but I don't.

The whole system is broken, but the economies of the Med Euro zone  countries will crash and burn if it's removed, (bringing down the Euro with them)  and French farmers are very politically influential.


----------



## popsdosh (3 March 2016)

My main argument is with Judgementals assertion that its the EU thats distorting the value of land there is nothing further from the truth and land values will not drop because of us leaving the EU .
At no time in the last 40 years has land values reflected their income earning capacity and the gap is forever getting larger.
The main drivers for land values are that investors look on it as a safe investment because the values do not drop and the main reason for that is scarecity.
Also the tax system drives demand one from an investment point of view and the second and possibly more significant cause which is that land sold for development can be replaced by 100 fold without having to pay tax on the proceeds and because people have an avertion to pay tax they then pay over the odds for that land so as not to pay tax and claim roll over relief .

Farmers and landowners are not becoming fat cats on the back of EU subsidies if you think thats the case just look at the reality. We are lucky on our land here we can produce 4 ton of wheat to the acre each of those tons of wheat are losing us £35 ton at the moment even after SFP so taking out SFP thats very close to £200 /acre  if we didnt grow that wheat our cost would be about £25/acre so in hard headed business terms what would you do probably not grow anything  so everybody else down the line suffers as well as we dont need labour,machinery etc. We would much rather not have to rely on SFP as in the NZ system however their agriculture was nearly destroyed in the changeover period. We need wheat prices at £180/200 ton to survive without SFP which will increase the price of food. Hence why I say SFP subsidise food prices not farmers in reality.

YCBM I can assure no farmer is having to create a loss at the moment its a reality.I stopped milking cows 30 yrs ago and the ridiculous thing is milk was making more off the farm then than it is now. You would not be able to claim SFP yourself any more the system changed last year.The large businesses in this country cannot claim it either as there is now an upper limit on what can be claimed so change is happening


----------



## ycbm (3 March 2016)

Popsdosh I know my friend's business better than you do, and I can assure you that as a small sheep farm they have manufactured a loss as often as they can get away with it. They posted another loss last year, were challenged by the inland revenue, and lo and behold they managed to 'find' a profit that had somehow been 'missed'.  They claim around 15k per year SFP. I am not suggesting that they are representative of farming in this country, but they are certainly representative of milking subsidies from the EU.


----------



## popsdosh (3 March 2016)

ycbm said:



			Popsdosh I know my friend's business better than you do, and I can assure you that as a small sheep farm they have manufactured a loss as often as they can get away with it. They posted another loss last year, were challenged by the inland revenue, and lo and behold they managed to 'find' a profit that had somehow been 'missed'.  They claim around 15k per year SFP. I am not suggesting that they are representative of farming in this country, but they are certainly representative of milking subsidies from the EU.
		
Click to expand...

Luckily this actual tax year not an historical one they will have made a loss! If not I would love to know what their doing that others are not. A lot of sheep farmers who actually have to farm for a living are actually on tax credits to survive. If they were caught out trying to defraud the tax system I have no sympathy for them.Somebody who actually had that business as their only income will most likely have had to pay no tax. 

I hope we do stay in the EU . However that is not due to the SFP which I still feel is the wrong system of support. I would talking as a farmer rather go back to a deficiency payment system were as the subsidy is there when needed. Also bear in mind if we have a decent crop year 40% of the single farm payment does go back. Please also bear in mind nearly every agricultural producing nation has some form of subsidy system in place with one major exception. The reason for those subsidies are mainly political and its to do with having political control over food production and without subsidies that cannot be achieved. It is that lack of political control over their  dairy farmers in NZ that has created the huge drop in milk prices.
Surely what everybody wants is a stable agriculture producing food at an affordable price and I know many cant see it but food as a proportion of take home pay has got nothing but cheaper the whole time we have been in europe. An example of this would be back in the sixties my grandfather kept 25 cows on 30 acres in sussex ,that farm kept two families and my Grandfather had a new car every year !
You cannot do that with 500 cows nowadays whats more that was before the EU bonanza hit our shores.


----------



## ycbm (3 March 2016)

Food is stupidly cheap in the shops, but costs a fortune in taxes for our EU payments and in tax credits for low paid agricultural workers. I'd rather pay less tax and more for my carrots.  The system is totally messed up.


----------



## popsdosh (4 March 2016)

ycbm said:



			Food is stupidly cheap in the shops, but costs a fortune in taxes for our EU payments and in tax credits for low paid agricultural workers. I'd rather pay less tax and more for my carrots.  The system is totally messed up.
		
Click to expand...

Have to agree there are so many cheaper and easier ways of achieving the same ends a large chunk of whats in the pot goes on the bureaucrats that run it. As farmers we dont want the need for the payments however at the moment it helps keep out heads above water its not right.


----------



## fburton (5 March 2016)

ycbm said:



			Food is stupidly cheap in the shops, but costs a fortune in taxes for our EU payments and in tax credits for low paid agricultural workers. I'd rather pay less tax and more for my carrots.  The system is totally messed up.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the price of food. Personally I would rather pay more for e.g. milk so that dairy farmers get a decent price, and more for meat from animal reared to good welfare standards. But then I'm in the fortunate position of being able to afford that. What about people who don't have a lot of money to spend on groceries and who benefit from food being relatively cheap? They pay less tax anyway, so wouldn't they would lose out relative to well off people with the changes you favour?


----------



## Judgemental (5 March 2016)

popsdosh said:



			My main argument is with Judgementals assertion that its the EU thats distorting the value of land there is nothing further from the truth and land values will not drop because of us leaving the EU .
		
Click to expand...

I have never read such twaddle. Of course land values are being distorted by EU subsidies.

Land in 1975 was £500.00 per acre and now it's £10,000.00 per acre

The subject is a monstrous con and scam, solely to benefit the landed titled aristocratic gentry, who do nothing but leech off their tenants.

If landowners were responsible, they would decline these subsidies and donate them to the NHS etc. Instead of bragging about the enormous sums they are paid to keep their many cars, mistresses and horses. I could name one particular Earl who lives in Hampshire who does just that.

Furthermore there are those to receive their Single Farm payments only to buy more land to obtain more single farm payments. I can also name and shame specific individual landowners and farmers.

Lets be quite blunt about this if this was not the case there would not be the comprehensive website

http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/2013/

set up with immense care and detail showing exactly who is paid, how much they are paid and the reasons they are paid.


----------



## popsdosh (5 March 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Land in 1975 was £500.00 per acre and now it's £10,000.00 per acre

.
		
Click to expand...

 Wheat is about the same price today as it was in 1975  
LOL it would take about  150yrs to buy an acre of land using SFP money and as I stated for every acre sold for development you can buy 100 at least, which is the most likely to be driving prices?. FGS get real you are really talking out of your a*** 

Yes indeed you have found the website where everybody can find out the levels paid to individuals that information is only any good if you look at it in context but you wont be up for that argument . However you will be pleased to know that there is now an upper ceiling for payments which stops large land owners claiming more than that amount however large their land holding.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 March 2016)

Judgemental and popsdosh,  calm down boys! 

There are parts of both your arguments which are right.  When the CAP altered the criteria of its payments from food production to land usage,  so the rot set in.  Those who 'farm' and in an effort to earn a living,  are totally reliant upon SFP.  The problem arises when large land owners claim monstrous payments,  keep 6 head of cattle to satisfy the conditions of being a claimant,  and as JM says,  the payments made to such people,  or huge insurance companies,  or foreign investors who have no interest in food production,  and they abound,  then the system is very wrong and for all the time that we remain in the EU,  so it will stay in place.

The bulk of those who earn a living by getting out of their beds in the morning and working for a living on 'their' land are totally reliant upon SFP just as we the consumers are.  I'm not sure what the percentage is,  but a sizeable amount of the UK is farmed by tenant farmers,  and their rents are set at a commensurate rate to the payments which they receive,  so however the funds may be directed to the working producer,  so the landlord is reliant upon his income and links it to the SFP that his tenant receives.

I sold some shearling ewes earlier in the year to a man who is a tenant of Cambridgeshire County Council and he has under his control 250 acres and farms land which CCC own.  When he asked what sort of rent they wanted,  he was told that they expected his SFPs in total and by way of rent.

We need to return to the days when the SFP was linked directly to what a man or his efforts can produce,  and we need a system which doesn't support those who don't need support.  Whilst we remain in the EU,  that simply won't happen because the CAP covers every farming and land owning member of the EU.  There needs to also be a separate and lesser environmental payment made to those who maintain our moorlands,  forests and the areas which though of no economic value from an agricultural viewpoint,  because they nonetheless need to be preserved.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (6 March 2016)

Sir Humphrey on the EU.

The real Europe

https://dotsub.com/view/229ca3b5-e82f-4162-9e9d-1b6ad4af9cb2


----------



## popsdosh (6 March 2016)

Alec that chap is the lucky one then as the SFP is about half to one third of a commercial FBT rent at the moment.You know as well as I do SFP does not give a substantial return on the investment circa 0.75% the real benefit is in a reasonably secure investment that over many years has increased in value(well in excess of inflation) because its a diminishing commodity. This investment has actually increased at the same time as income from SFP is falling so another reason to discard it as a main driver. 

There have been changes to the system to try and remove the excesses ie upper limits,and the active farmer requirements.
Do you really see farming being supported adequately post a EU pull out ,we were not before we joined the EU and farming was more valued then. If we are not there will be carnage in the industry. 

Just a little note to make people aware . Be very careful of supermarket clains of paying producers more if you buy dearer milk the truth is at least half that money is ending up in foreign producers pockets who are not even supplying that milk because the money is being diveed up between all members of the producer coop not just the British ones. The supermarkets keep that one quiet when the public think they are helping


----------



## ycbm (6 March 2016)

fburton said:



			I agree with you about the price of food. Personally I would rather pay more for e.g. milk so that dairy farmers get a decent price, and more for meat from animal reared to good welfare standards. But then I'm in the fortunate position of being able to afford that. What about people who don't have a lot of money to spend on groceries and who benefit from food being relatively cheap? They pay less tax anyway, so wouldn't they would lose out relative to well off people with the changes you favour?
		
Click to expand...

I missed this in my blind state, sorry.

You have a good point. In time, the answer is exactly what you have proposed earlier (maybe on another thread)  that everyone should receive a 'living wage' whether in work or not. It will have to happen. Automation continues apace, with even my recent cataract operation now able to be done without a human, by a half million pounds machine!

How we get there, I've no idea. If I was a benign dictator, I'd start by subsidising core food like bread, milk and veg and wean the subsidies down as I increased lower end income. 

It's an impossible mess right now, it will take decades to unwind the corruption of the labour market by working tax credits.

Another good place to start would be for the world to unite as one and make these corporations that have a GDP bigger than most countries in the world pay sensible taxes. And pigs might fly.


----------

