Cornish Farmer Voted Leave

[stringvest]

Interesting on Radio 4 Friday. Farmer voted leave. Can't remember word for word, Said the common agricultural policy is a complete joke. People/investors are allowed up fields and leave them set aside yet collect revenue? He is not allowed to grow things and has to leave land set aside. Maybe he couldn't grow courgettes in the recent shortage incase he offended a greek fisherman?

If a free range hen is kept indoors 12 weeks of a year, it is no longer a free range bird, therefore all the packaging, descriptions etc have to be changed (a worry in the bird flu event). If a farmer lets his chickens run free for 3 weeks out of four, they are NOT FREE RANGE because Europe says so?? Hmmmm

[Loz]

stringvest Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If a farmer lets his chickens run free for 3 weeks out

> of four, they are NOT FREE RANGE because Europe

> says so?? Hmmmm

Why on earth would someone construct a farm where chickens only get free range access three weeks out of four?

[rendelharris]

Sounds a fairly typical anti-EU complaint: there are differing definitions of free range in different jurisdictions, but any reasonable person would agree that a free range chicken is one which has continual access to an outdoor range during daylight hours. This farmer's complaining that he doesn't let his chickens have that access 25% of the time and so the horrid EU won't let him call them free range.

When we leave the EU there will still be government regulations and food standards, and I'll be very surprised if it will be permitted to label as free range chickens kept locked indoors for one week in every four.

"Maybe he couldn't grow courgettes in the recent shortage incase he offended a greek fisherman?" - you've inadvertently been very funny there; I know you're trying to parody EU regulations but in fact that's a brilliant parody of unjustified anti-EU sentiment.

[JoeLeg]

The legally required standards of 'free range' are pretty elastic. It doesn't mean the hens are outside all day, scratching around for natural food. It means they still live in barns, but have access to the outside. Not quite the same thing. There's a lot of 'interpretation' in farmers which allow them to call their eggs free range.

This is an EU law, granted, and it's been challenged recently because of the risks of disease amoung fowl, which has caused some farmers to want to keep their flocks inside longer than normal. So I can see why the EU would be a target over this. But two questions - would British law neccesarily be any different? And is this actually a bad law? Personally I think there should be exceptions made if there is disease control involved, but generally stringent standards in food production are a good thing.

I take issue with the idea promulgated by the farmer that leaving the EU will solve the issues farming faces in the UK; I'm not going to drone on again repeating things I've said in other threads, suffice to say that farming in this country is on far more trouble than politicians want to admit, and if it is to survive in any meaningful form them post-Brexit the government absolutely must lavish resources and cash on it to ensure we don't become even more dependant on food imports.

[KidKruger]

I expect EU countries and EU visitors won't want our eggs anyway, they can't be assed to try and figure out what the UK/English/Scottish definition of 'free range' is at any point in time (it may keep changing, which will put-off potential buyers who want consistency/certainty/predictability).

It'll be easier to just buy from another EU country, where the standards are known and understood.

I'm sure same will apply for many other farming / other sector products.

If anyone thinks the world's gonna be really interested enough to digest a whole bunch of distinct definitions, specific to 'independent' UK, they're dreaming.

UK is on the arse-end of Europe and its expectations of special treatment once it leaves EU are facile and ego-driven.

[steveo]

Didn't the Cornish just vote to not receive a half billion annual EU grant?

Reimbursing them might be quite low on Ms May's list

[BrandNewGuy]

stringvest Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting on Radio 4 Friday. Farmer voted leave.

> Can't remember word for word, Said the common

> agricultural policy is a complete joke.

> People/investors are allowed up fields and leave

> them set aside yet collect revenue? He is not

> allowed to grow things and has to leave land set

> aside. Maybe he couldn't grow courgettes in the

> recent shortage incase he offended a greek

> fisherman?

Well, set-aside was abolished in 2008, so maybe he should keep up. EU farming payments are now based on size of farm under agriculture/pasture so, yes, there's no need to actually grow anything in order to get your cheque. But there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

[TheCat]

Its interesting to me that I note comments on this page (from people who seemingly support the Remain side), suggesting that if EU laws were to be removed, then 'we will still have food standards' and 'why would British laws be any different?'

But often commenters on the same side of the fence are concerned that when it comes to things such as human rights, the environment & climate change, workers protections etc etc...then suddenly losing the EU laws is the worst thing in the world, and on those issues, the British government cant be trusted to manage things reasonably?

So which is it? Do we believe that the British government will make reasonable laws on their own? or do we believe they will go 'off deep-end' without Big Brother from the EU watching?

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But often commenters on the same side of the fence

> are concerned that when it comes to things such as

> human rights, the environment & climate change,

> workers protections etc etc...then suddenly losing

> the EU laws is the worst thing in the world, and

> on those issues, the British government cant be

> trusted to manage things reasonably?

>

> So which is it? Do we believe that the British

> government will make reasonable laws on their own?

> or do we believe they will go 'off deep-end'

> without Big Brother from the EU watching?

Both, clearly. When it comes to reasonably non-contentious issues such as the definition of free-range eggs, the government will probably be happy to leave current regulations in place, with other issues such as human rights and workers' protection they have already signalled their intention to abolish current EU legislation.

You're setting up rather an obvious and weak straw man, nobody on either side has ever suggested that the government will rewrite the entire statute book post-leave, but many have expressed their fears over those parts they will rewrite: see here for a recent example: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/21/top-lawyers-warn-of-human-rights-crisis-after-brexit

[JoeLeg]

TheCat - I feel you're putting up a little bit of a strawman argument there, but then again maybe I wasn't clear, so let me clarify my view.

On certain things - and I believe egg production is one of these - I doubt very much that the law would change overly. I suspect the government would simply translate existing, EU standards into British law. Indeed there are many areas where I hope they'll do that. Concerning food production, given that mis-management can result in disease and poisoning on a potentially wide scale, I'd be surprised if they didn't follow existing legislation closely.

But there are other areas - notably where there are profits to be made by businesses, such as workers rights and other things you mention - where I'm less optimistic.

So when I say 'would British law be any different' what I'm really asking is if Stringvest really believes that post-EU these issues will cease to occur? I doubt it, personally.

[JoeLeg]

Seems rendel was saying pretty much the same as me at the same time. Sorry...

[TheCat]

I agree with both of you that we should be much more concerned with human rights and workers protections than the labeling of our eggs....but I find the automatic assumption that the 'evil' tories are chomping at the bit to tear our rights away, a tad alarmist.

Oh, and can we please stop labelling something a 'Strawman' just because you don't find it as interesting or important as someone else might - all it does it serves to belittle someone else's concerns or questions, before you have even begun to engage.

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree with both of you that we should be much

> more concerned with human rights and workers

> protections than the labeling of our eggs....but I

> find the automatic assumption that the 'evil'

> tories are chomping at the bit to tear our rights

> away, a tad alarmist.

>

> Oh, and can we please stop labelling something a

> 'Strawman' just because you don't find it as

> interesting or important as someone else might -

> all it does it serves to belittle someone else's

> concerns or questions, before you have even begun

> to engage.

Well, it's funny that Joe and I should both have used the same phrase. It's not one I use often and it is often abused as a term, but in this case it exactly fitted what you did: a straw man is "an intentionally misrepresented proposition" - you proposed that there is a binary choice of either saying that the British government can be trusted to make reasonable laws or that they will go off the deep end without EU supervision, when you know full well that nobody has suggested that will happen. The cap does fit, in this instance.

[JoeLeg]

Look, it comes across as a bit of a 'strawman' because what it looked like was that you're setting up your argument so that we can only agree what you say or contradict ourselves. I accept that isn't what you meant to do, but it just looked like that.

The stories aren't inherently evil, and no one has said that, nor that they are somehow eager to remove rights (again, that's a bit 'strawman'), but it's hard not to be worried that protections which we gained as a direct result of Europe may now be at risk because of corporate interests in this country. And those concerns are genuine.

[JoeLeg]

Look rendel, we must stop meeting like this, people will talk...

[Angelina]

As for farming standards in EU it is a myth that animals are safe and happy. Animal abuse is rife and don't pretend otherwise. Out of sight/ out of mind.

There are regulations but they are not enforced.

Compassion in World Farming - www.ciwf.org.uk

UK is better placed to set up it's own laws and standards than it is to influence the multi EU countries required to make any changes - particularly as animal welfare is low on its list.

Having said that, there are certain things that the EU has put in place which UK would not have done on it's own.

It's swings and roundabout.

As consumer - you have power over what you buy and I would hope that your exercise your right and make your choices with your money - as it's clear you actually have little influence otherwise.

[JoeLeg]

Angelina sums it up very well. If you as a consumer want to influence animal welfare on farms, vote with your wallet.

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Look rendel, we must stop meeting like this,

> people will talk...

:-)

[TheCat]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

we can only agree what you say or contradict ourselves.

I just call that good debating:)

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> stringvest Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If a farmer lets his chickens run free for 3

> weeks out

> > of four, they are NOT FREE RANGE because Europe

> > says so?? Hmmmm

>

> Why on earth would someone construct a farm where

> chickens only get free range access three weeks

> out of four?

Some sort of crop/livestock rotation ?

[Seabag]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree with both of you that we should be much

> more concerned with human rights and workers

> protections than the labeling of our eggs....but I

> find the automatic assumption that the 'evil'

> tories are chomping at the bit to tear our rights

> away, a tad alarmist.

>

> Oh, and can we please stop labelling something a

> 'Strawman' just because you don't find it as

> interesting or important as someone else might -

> all it does it serves to belittle someone else's

> concerns or questions, before you have even begun

> to engage.

Thing is Cat, you're one of the people who voted leave, who uses a certain language.

> "evil tories are chomping at the bit to tear our rights

> away..."

I've seen other stuff "like children stamping their feet" etc...

And it's not the kind of language that engages me in conversation. It puts you into the 'tit' department of the leave campaigners.

It's why I told you to sling your hook before, and if you're looking for a more engaged conversation, rather than these "off the end of a plank/over a cliff" type ones, then maybe try writting as if we're pretty much all on the same page.

Not in a language designed to annoy people who don't happen to agree with the way things are, or with what's being being proposed.

Thank you.

[Seabag]

stringvest Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting on Radio 4 Friday. Farmer voted leave.

> Can't remember word for word, Said the common

> agricultural policy is a complete joke.

> People/investors are allowed up fields and leave

> them set aside yet collect revenue? He is not

> allowed to grow things and has to leave land set

> aside. Maybe he couldn't grow courgettes in the

> recent shortage incase he offended a greek

> fisherman?

> If a free range hen is kept indoors 12 weeks of a

> year, it is no longer a free range bird, therefore

> all the packaging, descriptions etc have to be

> changed (a worry in the bird flu event). If a

> farmer lets his chickens run free for 3 weeks out

> of four, they are NOT FREE RANGE because Europe

> says so?? Hmmmm

Maybe give this a read, then come back and post something on straight bananas or combine harvesters.

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

[TheCat]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thing is Cat, you're one of the people who voted

> leave, who uses a certain language.

>

> > "evil tories are chomping at the bit to tear our

> rights

> > away..."

>

> I've seen other stuff "like children stamping

> their feet" etc...

>

> And it's not the kind of language that engages me

> in conversation. It puts you into the 'tit'

> department of the leave campaigners.

>

> It's why I told you to sling your hook before, and

> if you're looking for a more engaged conversation,

> rather than these "off the end of a plank/over a

> cliff" type ones, then maybe try writting as if

> we're pretty much all on the same page.

> Not in a language designed to annoy people who

> don't happen to agree with the way things are, or

> with what's being being proposed.

>

>

>

> Thank you.

Well at least the language I use, of which you so disapprove, doesn't include me calling people juvenile names.

That's the type of language which doesn't engage me in a conversation I'm afraid.

[Seabag]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seabag Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > TheCat Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I agree with both of you that we should be

> much

> > > more concerned with human rights and workers

> > > protections than the labeling of our

> eggs....but

> > I

> > > find the automatic assumption that the 'evil'

> > > tories are chomping at the bit to tear our

> > rights

> > > away, a tad alarmist.

> > >

> > > Oh, and can we please stop labelling

> something

> > a

> > > 'Strawman' just because you don't find it as

> > > interesting or important as someone else

> might

> > -

> > > all it does it serves to belittle someone

> > else's

> > > concerns or questions, before you have even

> > begun

> > > to engage.

> >

> >

> > Thing is Cat, you're one of the people who

> voted

> > leave, who uses a certain language.

> >

> > > "evil tories are chomping at the bit to tear

> our

> > rights

> > > away..."

> >

> > I've seen other stuff "like children stamping

> > their feet" etc...

> >

> > And it's not the kind of language that engages

> me

> > in conversation. It puts you into the 'tit'

> > department of the leave campaigners.

> >

> > It's why I told you to sling your hook before,

> and

> > if you're looking for a more engaged

> conversation,

> > rather than these "off the end of a plank/over

> a

> > cliff" type ones, then maybe try writting as if

> > we're pretty much all on the same page.

> > Not in a language designed to annoy people who

> > don't happen to agree with the way things are,

> or

> > with what's being being proposed.

> >

> >

> >

> > Thank you.

>

> Well at least the language I use, of which you so

> disapprove, doesn't include me calling people

> juvenile names.

>

> That's the type of language which doesn't engage

> me in a conversation I'm afraid.

See, there you go again, being a tit

"foolish, stupid and ineffectual person," 1934, British slang, popular 1950s-60s, crossed over to U.S. with British sitcoms. It probably developed from twit (v.) in the sense of "reproach," (1520s, twite), but it may be influenced by nitwit.

[TheCat]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> See, there you go again, being a tit

>

> "foolish, stupid and ineffectual person," 1934,

> British slang, popular 1950s-60s, crossed over to

> U.S. with British sitcoms. It probably developed

> from twit (v.) in the sense of "reproach," (1520s,

> twite), but it may be influenced by nitwit.

Mate, I honestly think you have me mixed up with someone else. I've never had a debate/arguement with you on this forum. You've never told me to 'sling my hook', nor have I used the language you referenced regarding stamping of feet. I notice you did have words on another thread with a poster called 'Cat in a hot tin bus', who did use those words you refer to...but that poster is not me.....

Perhaps you don't agree with what I've said, but your reaction seemed a tad aggressive for someone's I've never argued with before....