Farmers should have known Brexit impact
IT IS THOUGHT that farmers voted for Brexit by a margin slightly higher than the national average.
I’m afraid I cannot muster sympathy for Brexit-voting farmers who, more than most of the general population, should have seen through the obvious lies of the leave campaign.
Farming Minister at the time of the referendum, George Eustice, said that leaving would give the country more funds that could be used to protect farmers and the environment. Owen Paterson, Secretary of State of The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2012-2014, claimed that farmers’ subsidies would be protected and even increased. Yeah, right!
Farmers should have known that you cannot put a price on the value of free trade. They should have known that there would be no financial benefit to leaving.
Even if leaving would have resulted in us having more money, didn’t they smell a rat when it was suggested that this extra money be spent on the NHS?
They were promised a ‘bonfire of red tape’ once the UK had left the
EU. Shouldn’t they have realised that leaving a trading bloc would make the reverse true?
Who did the fruit and vegetable growers think would pick their produce once EU nationals were no longer made welcome?
The leave campaign pointed to the ‘advantage’ of being able to trade with the rest of the world.
Farmers were already trading with the rest of the world as a result of deals negotiated on our behalf by the EU. They must surely have known that the reason for not trading with such countries such as Australia and the USA was because their standards are much lower than those set down by the EU.
If our farmers want to compete with cheaper, inferior products, then they must lower their standards. However, should they reduce their standards, they would no longer be able to trade with the EU. They must have known that!
I’ve always maintained that, generally speaking, Joe Public had no idea of the repercussions that Brexit would cause. I doubt that even many MPs had much of an idea.
Farmers should have known better.
Sue Quinlan
MAKE SECOND CHAMBER A REGIONAL BODY
MOST of us are proud that we live in a democratic country, but do we? Members of Parliament and the
Government can be elected with less than 50% of the votes cast so how can either represent the views of the majority and the ‘will of the people’?
We have a second chamber (an unelected House of Lords) that can stifle legislation proposed by the elected Government. The basis of appointment to the Lords is open to question and is not democratic.
It has been suggested that a ‘first past the post’ voting system ensures a strong government which has no need to take account of other parties and differing views to survive.
Surely with today’s technology (but don’t ask The Post Office) we can have a voting system with a transferable vote in which our second or even third choice can be taken into account if our first vote is not a winner.
An elected government would then be more likely to have a majority of those voting, for them and their agenda.
If we need a second chamber then why not look to choose from those we have already ‘democratically’ elected into local government.
There are parts of our United Kingdom, and not just the obvious ones, who may feel they are not truly represented in a London-based Westminster. The cancellation of the High Speed Rail link between Birmingham and the North of England just one example. A second chamber made up from regional representatives (perhaps based online) would also give regions the opportunity to come together to support matters important to them.
Our democratic system of government (and MPs) is far better than those of many other countries, but it can and should be improved. Just don’t expect whoever is in government to lead the way.
Name and address supplied
WHAT WOULD WE GET FROM LABOUR TAXES?
UNDER Blair and Brown the basic tax rate on income was 30%. It is now 20%. If Labour get back into power they will put it back to the level 30% on day one – the shock to families will be enormous, that rate makes overtime not worthwhile.
They talk of getting the NHS back on its feet. Would be nice if the
X-rays and electronic images they take and tell us about over the phone could again be shown to us in a face-to-face meeting with it on the screen, but the NHS has gone remote from patients, in many places remote from parking.
What precisely would we get for that extra 10p in the pound income tax?
Sue Doughty