Here's an opportunity for all the Leavers

It is interesting watching and hearing from the horses mouth the BBC 2 programme -

Cornwall - This Fishing Life

I read that some of the local flooding, with rivers bursting their banks, is because an EU directive has stopped the banks being shored up annually, with the natural excess silt, to help prevent flooding, as went on for centuries before. Instead it has been 'taken away'. The directive was to protect animal habits which, of course, is a good thing but, if the river then floods, the habitats are destroyed anyway, so it's counter productive.

A similar thing in Australia, which increased the fire risk,(although not because of the EU, obviously) was that the undergrowth in forests stopped being removed- at the behest of the conservationists. The Aborigines had been doing this previously for centuries as it created natural fire breaks, with the consequences we have seen recently. The new ways are not necessarily better than the old.

Anyway, whether EU laws were good or bad is irrelevant. They were foisted on us by unelected bureaucrats and that was the whole point of Brexit- to gain back control. Please let's not pretend that locally elected MEPs had any real say in the processes. We are free now ( or should be in a year's time) to make our own laws, even though the EU still seems to think it has the right to rule over us thereafter!

No, as far as I am aware no laws were “foisted upon us”, we were equal partners in the process, and no laws detrimental to Britain were required to be acted upon. Can you provide a link to your statement about the EU directive?

Common Agricultural Policy and large landowners - "EU rules allow Member States to cut substantially so-called “basic payments” under the CAP to large landowners, such as most of those cited in the Greenpeace report, by applying an upper limit (ceiling). Nine Member States do so.

In the UK, such a ceiling is applied in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – with the resulting funds generated remaining in those regions for rural development projects.

The UK chooses not to apply a ceiling in England.

The European Commission’s repeated proposals for more radical reform have been watered down by national Ministers.

Only active farms are eligible for CAP funding as long as the farmer keeps his land in a state suitable for agricultural production. The business of breeding racehorses is not supported, though the land on which horses graze might qualify if it meets the criteria.

Basic payments account for in the UK and most Member States for around 70% of all CAP payments made to farmers.

Further info

In 2010, the European Commission proposed extensive reforms to the CAP, including to place a compulsory ceiling on payments to large landowners under the CAP’s basic payment scheme, thus putting an end to payments at the levels referred to in today’s reports.

^A number of Member States combined to oppose these proposals.

*As no EU law can be adopted without approval from both Member States and MEPs*, this meant the extensive reform package implemented from 2014 did not include any compulsory ceilings, only a reduction of 5% on all amounts over €150 000.

However, an option was left open for individual Member States to apply a ceiling at national level.

Similar proposals to limit the amount of payment per individual farm were made by the Commission in successive CAP reform exercises since 1992 – but were always blocked by Member States.^

In the UK, ceilings are now applied in Northern Ireland (€150 000), Wales (€300 000) and Scotland (€600 000)

I'm looking forward to Defra doing a better job of managing agriculture and the countryside.

That's an interesting article, Elegran. Somewhat ironic in view of quizqueen's assertion:

They were foisted on us by unelected bureaucrats and that was the whole point of Brexit- to gain back control. Please let's not pretend that locally elected MEPs had any real say in the processes.

More of the lies that Leavers were fed being repeated as fact.

Don't worry, Maizie. Soon we'll have unicorns draped in St George flags frolicking round our fields, accompanied by bonging bells and eating bent bananas (and no bent immigrants in sight)! I'm looking forward to it!

I’m repeatedly bemused by the claims that Boris and his ‘accomplice’ are single handedly plotting, scheming, withholding, doing just about everything wicked and wilful that some posters above care to dream up. Policies may be decided on by the presiding government but it is the civil service that deliver them. The civil service have a stringent code of operation (the Civil Service Code) which requires honest, responsible service. They cannot be complicit with the accusations mentioned above. Decision on policy may be misguided and may need the senior civil service to attempt all mitigation of bad effect - but reality is all government is comprised of people just trying to do their best. Regrettably there have been some that just haven’t been good enough and over time too. The difference is that once the CS was left to get on with it (Yes Minister!!!!) but it’s not as simple nowadays.

US trade officials intend to prioritise negotiations with the EU, not the UK

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/us-is-looking-to-eu-before-post-brexit-trade-deal-talks-1-6508924

You seem to be a bit confused as to the roles of the Civil Service and the government, ENO.

Parliament is sovereign. Parliament can do anything it likes, either passing new legislation or amending existing legislation. In theory parliament (not the government) is able to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical by voting down proposed legislation that it thinks is unsuitable. In practice, any legislation or amendments that this government puts to parliament will pass because the tories have a huge majority. Even if there are a few tory dissenters it really won't make any difference to the ease with which their legislation will pass through parliament.

It is the role of the Civil Service to draft and implement proposed legislation. They are, in theory, politically neutral and have to do as they are told. Of course, we know that they 'advise' ministers and have the ability to frustrate ministers' intentions to a certain extent. But they are powerless to stop the government doing precisely what it wants, within the law. The law the government itself has absolute power to make or amend

The CAP. Has been good for food production in general and has been very flexible, regions have been able to choose how to run the system. For example Wales and Scotland have had very different systems to England.

All the problems with the system in England have been caused buy the way DEFRA have administered the system. The environmental schemes in particular have been a disaster because they were so restrictive and complicated the take up was very low. The payment system involved so many audits that were based on inaccurate data, late payment was common.

In the future farmers have been told that payments will be made for “environmental good” how that will be done in reality is anyone’s guess. If the past is an indicator DEFRA will want to micro manage everything and it will a beaurocratic morass

I have been watching ' live' coverage on BBC Parliament coming from the EU.

They are debating the 7 year The Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), sometimes known as the financial perspective.

They are not singing from one hymn sheet shall I say, some MEP 's are quite annoyed. CAP/ THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY is a bone of contention, as it always has been.

CAP is a very complicated subject to understand and there are some days of rancour coming up in the EU.

POGS in regard to your post @11:18 today, it, has always been that the European Parliament, the European Commission or any of the Councils of Ministers can have a "right ole bust-up" over any issue which always attracts headlines advising that the EU is on the edge of break up.

However, it has also always been that the European Union can build such problems into their now famous last-minute late-night gatherings at which a compromise or fudge (call it what you like) is brought about through often very blurry eyes.

And so the EU world continues to turn. ?

Grandad

'which always attracts headlines advising that the EU is on the edge of break up.'
---
I haven't personally seen any headlines saying the EU is on the edge of a break up.

Too true the E U has some ' right old ole bust ups'.

The MEP's in the debate today were making noises that they were against many proposals but as you quite rightly say ' And so the EU world continues to turn.'

Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Germany are not enamoured to be losing their Rebates as an example.

The other day I was watching the EU Parliament and the vicerol aimed at the UK over our rights to Fishing in UK Waters was unpleasant to see and hear quite frankly.

POGS, I would agree that there have been no recent headlines stating that the EU is on the verge of any breakup, but doubtless, the "Red Top" newspapers will be advising as such with the European Parliament now having to reset the EU budget.

However, I believe whatever the rows and "handbags at dawn" confrontations the EU will continue long into the future as it always has done, without Britain of course.

Although many in the U.K. would like to think so the EU is not on the brink of collapse, what we are seeing is a jostling for position now that more right wing sentiment is making itself felt. That’s hardly surprising given the over liberal migrant policies that have ruled for recent years, resulting in widespread resentment in the middle classes Europe wide.

Open borders and free trade with a level playing field remains everyone’s priority, without that the strongest will exploit the weaker nations. Britain leaving has created something of a hole in the finances and nobody wants to fill it, maybe that will result in a hard line trade deal with the U.K. as the EU looks inward. I’m sure the arguments between the liberal and conservative sides will be vigorous, in the end it will result in tougher policies across the board. They are likely to follow many other nations into self interest like the US and the U.K. not to mention Norway and the other EFTA countries.

Fisheries have been managed appallingly by the EU, maybe the U.K. will restore some kind of order, that is particularly contentious with several countries, however, that is not likely to increase the number of U.K. boats much, already many of the boats we have are crewed by migrants. The CAP policy adopted by each region has been badly abused by some countries, the aim of the CAP is to ensure food security and production standards at home rather than relying in imports, should we be arguing against that.

Anyone who believes that Javid will reduce Red Tape is a fool, he may well replace EU beaurocracy with U.K. rules, then at least we cannot blame the EU, less micro management, no.

Javid will not be doing anything much now he has resigned.

Maybe that why he was effectively sacked, too little red tape!.

Javid voted Remain, so he was always a marked man.

Also, surely it would be better to have a public school chap whose father-in-law is a billionaire than the son of a bus driver

This thread is obsolete now that Javid has gone...

Javid may have left the government but I think his reputation as a decent politician has been hugely enhanced.