ChatterBank2 mins ago
Another Brexit Benefit You May Have Missed
This Nottinghamshire fruit farm was producing about 800 tonnes of soft fruits, employing up to 140 workers (mostly from the EU).
Thanks to Brexit, they can no longer attract the workers.
Ms Starky (the farm’s sales director) said ‘We have sold our growing frames abroad, so perhaps in Romania or somewhere they are growing strawberries for our supermarkets with our frames, which is ironic.’
You can bet all such farms throughout the UK are facing the same problem due to Brexit.
https:/
Thanks to Brexit, they can no longer attract the workers.
Ms Starky (the farm’s sales director) said ‘We have sold our growing frames abroad, so perhaps in Romania or somewhere they are growing strawberries for our supermarkets with our frames, which is ironic.’
You can bet all such farms throughout the UK are facing the same problem due to Brexit.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//I’m expecting the Brexiteers to post an equal number of Brexit success stories//
Why do you expect that?
People who voted to leave voted for change, and all that comes with it. I cannot speak for anybody else, but I didn't vote to leave in the expectation of being better off or worse off as a result. My financial position was not even a minor consideration in my decision (which I made in 1992).
The EU is a protectionist organisation. It protects its members from competition from outside and it even protects them from each other. To do this it has built up a complex web of legislation - much of it nothing to do with trade at all - by which all its members are bound and which (disgracefully in my opinion) each has allowed to reign supreme over their own domestic law. So it is no surprise that it will make trading with "third countries" such as the UK as difficult as possible. Anybody who voted in the belief that it would not was foolish and if they did so on the advice of politicians they were extremely foolish.
So here's the rub - I don't care whether Brexit makes me better or worse off (and in any case, all the indications so far are that it has done neither). But I do care - very much - about who determines the legislation that governs this country, its businesses and its people. You obviously don't and that's your privilege; you'd far rather hope to be better off by the country sacrificing that responsibility.
As I have said continuously, the success of Brexit is assured because the UK is no longer a member of the EU. It is likely to remain that way for some time to come and people like the strawberry farmer in the article you cited, and you, who seemingly cannot get over the country's decision even though it was made seven years ago, will have to adapt to the new order. Continually posting articles like the one here will simply turn people away from your posts. I'm not at that stage yet because I still don't believe you have quite grasped my point so I'll keep trying - for now.
Why do you expect that?
People who voted to leave voted for change, and all that comes with it. I cannot speak for anybody else, but I didn't vote to leave in the expectation of being better off or worse off as a result. My financial position was not even a minor consideration in my decision (which I made in 1992).
The EU is a protectionist organisation. It protects its members from competition from outside and it even protects them from each other. To do this it has built up a complex web of legislation - much of it nothing to do with trade at all - by which all its members are bound and which (disgracefully in my opinion) each has allowed to reign supreme over their own domestic law. So it is no surprise that it will make trading with "third countries" such as the UK as difficult as possible. Anybody who voted in the belief that it would not was foolish and if they did so on the advice of politicians they were extremely foolish.
So here's the rub - I don't care whether Brexit makes me better or worse off (and in any case, all the indications so far are that it has done neither). But I do care - very much - about who determines the legislation that governs this country, its businesses and its people. You obviously don't and that's your privilege; you'd far rather hope to be better off by the country sacrificing that responsibility.
As I have said continuously, the success of Brexit is assured because the UK is no longer a member of the EU. It is likely to remain that way for some time to come and people like the strawberry farmer in the article you cited, and you, who seemingly cannot get over the country's decision even though it was made seven years ago, will have to adapt to the new order. Continually posting articles like the one here will simply turn people away from your posts. I'm not at that stage yet because I still don't believe you have quite grasped my point so I'll keep trying - for now.
//So if the company you run or work for goes belly-up due to Brexit – according to Brexiteers it’s the fault of the company and nothing to do with Brexit.//
Why does it matter what the cause is? Companies have to adapt. They've had seven years to do so. Some have managed it quite well, others haven't. Many who haven't have failed for the same reasons as your strawberry farmer - they were addicted to cheap imported labour (provided courtesy of our membership of the EU) which has the effect of either depressing pay for the people who want to work, or making benefits more attractive for those who don't. Ask a few people in the construction industry about the problems they have with this issue.
Why does it matter what the cause is? Companies have to adapt. They've had seven years to do so. Some have managed it quite well, others haven't. Many who haven't have failed for the same reasons as your strawberry farmer - they were addicted to cheap imported labour (provided courtesy of our membership of the EU) which has the effect of either depressing pay for the people who want to work, or making benefits more attractive for those who don't. Ask a few people in the construction industry about the problems they have with this issue.
16.01 NJ "Companies have to adapt . They have had seven years to do so" ....The Tory Party Has had thirteen years to Govern and adapt .They screwed up on the first six years, and they have screwed up even more so on the additional seven Brexit years. Who you gonna blame when they go belly up, next year ???? NJ. eh!
//...why he wastes so much time on you is beyond me//
Candy from a baby, baz, candy from a baby.
But to be honest, those of us who voted to leave have been ostracised, belittled and insulted for seven years. We’ve been accused of being racists, xenophobes, “Little Englanders”, dinosaurs and far worse. We’ve had to listen to condescending, arrogant creeps, such as LBC’s James O’Brien, who believe that the 17m who voted to leave are knuckle dragging ignoramuses.
I’m none of those things. I've studied the EU's "mission creep" over many years and I don't like what I see. I’ve set out my stall clearly enough and explained why I voted to leave. So to continually hear that I’ve caused a disaster of epic proportions to the country I quite like and which I’ve lived in all my life (unlike some of my critics) is very wearing (especially when it isn’t true) and up with it I will not put.
So, when I see posts like this I usually bite. Everybody voted the way they did for a myriad of different reasons and I've stated quite plainly why I wanted out. The reasons given by those who voted to remain can usually be condensed down to one main reason - they didn't want anything to change in case it caused too much trouble. For me seeing the UK out of the EU was far more important than worrying about what queue I join when visiting the EU (especially when most of the places I go to have only one) or worrying about strawberry growers who can’t cope without cheap imported labour.
Candy from a baby, baz, candy from a baby.
But to be honest, those of us who voted to leave have been ostracised, belittled and insulted for seven years. We’ve been accused of being racists, xenophobes, “Little Englanders”, dinosaurs and far worse. We’ve had to listen to condescending, arrogant creeps, such as LBC’s James O’Brien, who believe that the 17m who voted to leave are knuckle dragging ignoramuses.
I’m none of those things. I've studied the EU's "mission creep" over many years and I don't like what I see. I’ve set out my stall clearly enough and explained why I voted to leave. So to continually hear that I’ve caused a disaster of epic proportions to the country I quite like and which I’ve lived in all my life (unlike some of my critics) is very wearing (especially when it isn’t true) and up with it I will not put.
So, when I see posts like this I usually bite. Everybody voted the way they did for a myriad of different reasons and I've stated quite plainly why I wanted out. The reasons given by those who voted to remain can usually be condensed down to one main reason - they didn't want anything to change in case it caused too much trouble. For me seeing the UK out of the EU was far more important than worrying about what queue I join when visiting the EU (especially when most of the places I go to have only one) or worrying about strawberry growers who can’t cope without cheap imported labour.
I gave up feeding Gulliver et al some time ago. As NJ has said many times, they don't understand that the whole point is being free. Some businesses won't react well, some will. Eventually standing on our own feet will benefit all of us. I also never considered personal finances, it is the principle that counts. Our 'don't like having to think/fend for ourselves' brigade will just have to get used to it, pull their socks up etc. if they want to prosper.
Sadly, Gulliver etc., can't understand this.
If Gulliver reacts to this - I shall ignore, as usual. Don't offer food.
Sadly, Gulliver etc., can't understand this.
If Gulliver reacts to this - I shall ignore, as usual. Don't offer food.
a) it has been discussed and so we know the company did not go belly up "because of Brexit" so with your conjecture shown to be false the statement loses it's foundation.
b) North Korea is not a democracy but is ruled by a tyrant, in case that went unnoticed. It means any close comparison is invalid.
b) North Korea is not a democracy but is ruled by a tyrant, in case that went unnoticed. It means any close comparison is invalid.
He's doing a fine job of it too bobbinwales. How can someone who has moaned, whined and whinged about the result for many years say to someone else that they are bad losers. Just like you I don't reply to many of their posts these days as they just say the same thing day after day and very rarely answer questions put to them.
//...without having to abide by rules imposed on us, say through being members of a trading block or international body such as NATO, UN, ECHR etc...//
When did NJ ever mention any of those bodies? It is the European Union which was my sole concern.
Of the bodies you mention:
The UK's membership of NATO is vital for obvious reasons. NATO does not impose laws on its members which claim supremacy to domestic law. They require contributions to mutual defence capabilities, which is perfectly reasonable.
The United Nations is a waste of time and a complete joke. Other than to provide employment for politicians and diplomats it serves no useful purpose. But it does not impose laws on its members and any rulings it makes in accordance with its conventions are advisory only and it has no powers to enforce them. I've no objection to the UK being a member of the UN if it keeps politicians happy.
As far as the European Convention on Human Rights goes, I would prefer the UK to withdraw from it. It is outdated and is now being manipulated for purposes for which it was never intended. Although the UK usually abides by its court's decisions, similarly its rulings are advisory, with no powers of enforcement. However, it is not of a great concern to me as the current government is introducing measures which will bypass some of the features of the ECHR's Articles when necessary in the UK's best interests.
Trading agreements are bilateral affairs between two or more nations. They are mutually agreed to be in the interests of both parties. There are, of course, compromises to be made and trading rules to be complied with. But these rules do not usurp domestic law, they do not involve the free movement of people without constraints and they do not require the UK to forfeit its right to legislate in many areas.
So, do you see the difference? Perhaps not, especially when I read this:
// – how’s that one going for North Korea?//
When did NJ ever mention any of those bodies? It is the European Union which was my sole concern.
Of the bodies you mention:
The UK's membership of NATO is vital for obvious reasons. NATO does not impose laws on its members which claim supremacy to domestic law. They require contributions to mutual defence capabilities, which is perfectly reasonable.
The United Nations is a waste of time and a complete joke. Other than to provide employment for politicians and diplomats it serves no useful purpose. But it does not impose laws on its members and any rulings it makes in accordance with its conventions are advisory only and it has no powers to enforce them. I've no objection to the UK being a member of the UN if it keeps politicians happy.
As far as the European Convention on Human Rights goes, I would prefer the UK to withdraw from it. It is outdated and is now being manipulated for purposes for which it was never intended. Although the UK usually abides by its court's decisions, similarly its rulings are advisory, with no powers of enforcement. However, it is not of a great concern to me as the current government is introducing measures which will bypass some of the features of the ECHR's Articles when necessary in the UK's best interests.
Trading agreements are bilateral affairs between two or more nations. They are mutually agreed to be in the interests of both parties. There are, of course, compromises to be made and trading rules to be complied with. But these rules do not usurp domestic law, they do not involve the free movement of people without constraints and they do not require the UK to forfeit its right to legislate in many areas.
So, do you see the difference? Perhaps not, especially when I read this:
// – how’s that one going for North Korea?//
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music18 mins ago
Death Of Three Young Ladies Backpacking...
News26 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.