Petition to stop Brexit

Sorry maryeliza my post Mon 18-Feb-19 19:13:40
Was meant in response to MaizieD
Oops!

But how will workers losing their jobs pay their mortgage/rent and keep themselves and their families until the good times we're promised by Brexiteers finally arrive?

MarthaBeck look here:

JAPAN FEBRUARY 18, 2019 / 3:24 PM
Honda plan to close UK plant is not due to Brexit: lawmaker

LONDON (Reuters) - Japan’s Honda plans to shut its British car plant in Swindon by 2022 with the loss of 3,500 jobs but the decision is not related to Brexit, a local lawmaker told Reuters today.

Justin Tomlinson, who voted for Brexit in 2016, said he had met with the business minister and representatives from Honda who had confirmed the plans.

“They were due to make a statement tomorrow morning, it’s obviously broken early,” Tomlinson, lawmaker for North Swindon, told Reuters.

“This is not Brexit-related. It is a reflection of the global market. They are seeking to consolidate production in Japan.”

I think we all realise the EU has weaknesses and there are many areas for improvement. However, we have every right to change our mind now that we are seeing more clearly some of the implications of leaving and witnessing the UK Gov's failure on many fronts, including their inability to have meaningful trade talks with other countries (instead alienating them at an apparently ever-increasing rate!).
TM's position that it would be undemocratic to change our mind just doesn't hold water. Consider a family group who "voted" in January, after considering options, to go on holiday in June to a new resort after studying the prices, facilities and pictures in a glossy brochure. They then find out in May from someone who has been ( and has the photos etc to prove it) that the hotel is half-built, has no swimming pool, 80% of the guests have suffered food-poisoning and it is 2 km, not 200 metres, to the beach. Would they agree to go anyway as it would be undemocratic to overturn their original choice?
Brexit poses such a risk to the economy, health, safe food supply, and much more for generations to come that it would be lunacy not to reconsider.

I stand by what The Economist posited maryeliza

Rather than put tariffs which break WTO rules, some countries such as the EU prefer to strangle trade by imposing red tape, bureaucracy and things which increase the administration cost of trading. This has the same effect of discouraging imports. For example, the increasingly stringent standards set by the private sector in the area of certification and traceability create difficulties for developing countries exports. (EU Protectionist measures)

An increasingly popular method nowadays is to strangle traders not with high tariffs, which are easy to spot, but with red tape, which is not.
(Protectionism Alert at Economist)

Janetra6, what’s your views on Honda and Nissan, I suppose I should really ask those Brexit supporters who believe that are leading us into utopia, it will take years to rebuild the local economies in Sunderland and Swindon ?

The number continues to rise.

124,601 a moment ago.

Signed. What with the illegalities and mysterious funding of the Leave campaigns, why on earth our government continues to take this seriously is beyond me.

Talking about 'protectionism, Urmstongran

There is a handy chart accompanying this article, ranking the biggest countries/blocs on their protectionist practices. Note where the EU comes

www.businessinsider.com/the-us-is-the-most-protectionist-nation-2015-9?r=UK

I don’t have your encyclopaedic mind.

I don't have one either. I have to keep looking things up and checking them. But I'm not prepared to take general statements and opinions at face value. You (and I'm using the term generally here, not specifically) want to convince me that the EU is bad, you give me specific examples so I can make my own judgement.

The problem is that the Leave campaigners told such incredible lies, and so many of them, that it is very hard to separate truth from fiction. So I mistrust everything until proven otherwise. I'd really like to be convinced that all this mayhem is worth something, but it's just not happening.

But, like you, I have one vote! Must make you darn mad eh?

It doesn't make me mad at all. Everyone is entitled to vote however they wish to. I think I'm making you cross, though...

Once upon a time, petra, our economy was based on slavery and the exploitation of 'conquered' countries.

I don’t know MD
I don’t have your encyclopaedic mind.
But, like you, I have one vote! Must make you darn mad eh?
??

MaizieD
But once upon a time it was true.
It's like saying " have you stopped beating your wife"

I know this is old and I have no idea if it's stopped. But it shows what has been happening.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html

The arable farms won’t have fields of nothing for which they receive money.

Arable farms don't have fields of nothing for which they receive money. That was 'set aside'. It hasn't been operative since 2008

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-aside

This is what really bothers me. These beliefs about EU practices which persist even though they are no longer true.

I'm sorry, Ug but you didn't give me any specific examples. Which particular EU deals offer tariff free trade but then impose big non-tariff barriers?

Rest your brain a bit too. It’s not good for our blood pressure either....

I do like to think better minds than ours are on the case.
All will be well.
My brain hurts I’m off to make myself a coffee and read about the news of the breakaway Labour MP’s.

No, MD I think the government’s idea is to use some of the savings we will make (from not paying so much money to the EU once we are out) to cushion the farmer’s loss of EU money in the interim. Honestly I fail to see how that can even be deemed ‘protectionism’. It’s money to transition. The arable farms won’t have fields of nothing for which they receive money. They will be able to grow more crops without the protectionism of the EU dictating that fields have to lie fallow.

It's like homework for me, too, Ug. I didn't expect to spend part of my morning thinking about the implications of removing the SFP in the interests of 'free trade'.

But why should I be convinced by unsourced opinions and generalisations?

Ug, you have quoted things from heaven knows where (you haven't made clear what is a quote and what are your own words, nor have you linked to a source. Both of these are helpful things to do) and you haven't given any examples.

Apart from this, of course:

The aim is to increase prices for domestic European farmers in order to increase their income.

Specifically in the UK, are you aware that most UK farmers would be unable to continue in business without the EU Single Farm Payment (SFP)?

There have been some well publicised high profile cases of some owners of large landholdings getting large amounts of money from the SFP, with the implication that the money is all going straight into their greedy pockets whereas we have no idea how much of it is ploughed into their businesses. While it is clear that economies of scale count for a great deal in the agricultural business I don't buy the contention that the money is just enriching major landowners.

The majority of farmers depend on the SFP to keep their businesses going. The Free Trade enthusiasts would say that it just keeps inefficient farmers going but I think there are other points to be considered, a vital one being what would happen if these farmers went out of business?

Would anyone be able to make these farms more 'efficient'?

If farmers go out of business with no-one to replace them how would this affect our food security? Leavers are blithely saying that we should buy more British produce but there won't be much to buy if farms are no longer working. We would be even more dependent on food imports and our dependency would make us more vulnerable to having lower standards imposed as part of trade deals. At present our deals through the EU ensure high standards of food safety. This is protecting the population. Do we seriously want to become vulnerable to lower food standards? And if we try to impose similar standards on our post Brexit trading partners isn't this 'protectionism, too?

The environment. At present the SFP comes with requirements for protecting the environment, such as controls on fertiliser run off into water sources and requirements to provide habitats for wildlife. This adds to farming costs but a lot of people consider the preservation of a healthy environment and the preservation of our wildlife to be a worthwhile objective. Of course, if farmers go out of business and the land lies idle we won't have runoff problems and wildlife will have a heyday...

Then there is the question of the industries dependent on British farming. Horseracing for example. What do they do when they can't obtain high quality British feedstuffs? Import lower quality stuff? Food miles? How does that help us fight climate change?

What do we do with the empty land?

What do we do with the farmers and agricultural workers who lose their employment? The businesses that supply farmers?

It's all very well to cry 'protectionism', but it's quite another thing to look at the implications of allowing our farming industry to go to the wall...

Actually, I believe that the government has tried to reassure farmers that they won't suffer loss of subsidy after Brexit. So we just replace EU protectionism with UK protectionism?

Ps can I also mention that when you ask for examples (which I took time to source for you & gave 3) you rarely comment back!
What’s your take?

God MaizieD this is like homework! Sorry to be dim. Can you put me out of my misery and tell me?

Sorry I’m probably not concentrating as I’m also reading about the SEVEN Labour MP’s who have quit their party.

I was responding specifically to your last post MaizieD from Sun 17-Feb-19 19:57:01

Try reading it again

One more - (more for information other posters in case they’re finding these examples helpful) :

The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Despite reforms and some reduction in tariff rates, the EU still impose substantial tariff rates on many agricultural markets. The aim is to increase prices for domestic European farmers in order to increase their income.

You are clever MaizieD and very well read. I’m sure you know of other instances yourself where the EU operate using protectionist practices. I’m surprised you asked me to provide examples really.
I think you are being disingenuous.