NFU Brexit Remain £73,565 spend

[Wooly]

The appointment of Ms Batters as the new president of the NFU is to be applauded.

2. Ms Batters must be similarly A political and to that end, she must not support either Brexit or Remain. She must be wholly impartial.

.

Well it made radio 2 news, as a woman took the top spot for the first time ever. Not good for the 90% of farmers that detest the Red Tractor scam !

As for your point 2, why did the NFU donate so much money to the remain camp if they are impartial !?! Especially as the polls suggested a bigger percentage of their members favoured to leave.

 

[turbo]

Well it made radio 2 news, as a woman took the top spot for the first time ever. Not good for the 90% of farmers that detest the Red Tractor scam !

As for your point 2, why did the NFU donate so much money to the remain camp if they are impartial !?! Especially as the polls suggested a bigger percentage of their members favoured to leave.

Can you show us a link to the nfu giving money to remain

 

[Wooly]

Can you show us a link to the nfu giving money to remain

I will try and find the official link, but it was reported that they donated £73,565 to the remain group

 

[Clive]

Can you show us a link to the nfu giving money to remain

Did they really do that ? If so that’s shocking

 

[Wooly]

Found the link

http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/...eclarations/facebook.com/malmesbury.standard/

 

[Clive]

Found the link

http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/...eclarations/facebook.com/malmesbury.standard/

That is SHOCKING !

“Remain campaign donation” National Farmers' Union: £73,565

I also recall the TFF Brexit poll was 70plus % to leave ?

 

[turbo]

I will try and find the official link, but it was reported that they donated £73,565 to the remain group

That sounds like the amount of money they spent sending out the glossy book,I think I am correct in saying that the membership wanted the union to stay neutual during the campaign but the election rules said you could not and they had to come down on one side or the other

 

[turbo]

Found the link

http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/...eclarations/facebook.com/malmesbury.standard/

Thats not a donation ,its what they spent during the campaign

 

[Wooly]

Thats not a donation ,its what they spent during the campaign

On the side of remain ........

 

[turbo]

On the side of remain ........

you said they made a donation to remain witch it clearly wasnt,it what they spent during the campaign giving members imformation on both sides

 

[Sid]

On the side of remain ........

As an organisation they had to have a 'side'
Each county and region was asked their views for council to decide.(if i remember rightly) The Status Quo was deemed to be remain with leave being the change. All spending had to be accounted for .

 

[milkloss]

That sounds like the amount of money they spent sending out the glossy book,I think I am correct in saying that the membership wanted the union to stay neutual during the campaign but the election rules said you could not and they had to come down on one side or the other

As an organisation they had to have a 'side'
Each county and region was asked their views for council to decide.(if i remember rightly) The Status Quo was deemed to be remain with leave being the change. All spending had to be accounted for .

No, this is a rather annoying belief that crops up every now and again. There were several organisations that didn’t choose a side,The Church of England being one and several large businesses too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/End...om_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

 

[Sid]

No, this is a rather annoying belief that crops up every now and again. There were several organisations that didn’t choose a side,The Church of England being one and several large businesses too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/End...om_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

View attachment 636878

Did they spend ANY money at all on items explaining the possible outcomes of brexit?

 

[Tamar]

As an organisation they had to have a 'side'
Each county and region was asked their views for council to decide.(if i remember rightly) The Status Quo was deemed to be remain with leave being the change. All spending had to be accounted for .

Did they really need a side. All the polls at the time, including here and the Farmers Weekly, indicated that the majority of farmers wanted to leave, so they spent their money on remain!

Just like how many wanted Guy to win.....................and how many want rid of the RT farm Assurance.

Are the Council delegates actually in touch with their members ?

Now if the paying members actually had a vote, I would imagine we would have a union that more members would be happy with.

But what do I know.........I'm just a farmer.

 

[Sid]

Did they really need a side. All the polls at the time, including here and the Farmers Weekly, indicated that the majority of farmers wanted to leave, so they spent their money on remain!

Just like how many wanted Guy to win.....................and how many want rid of the RT farm Assurance.

Are the Council delegates actually in touch with their members ?

Now if the paying members actually had a vote, I would imagine we would have a union that more members would be happy with.

But what do I know.........I'm just a farmer.

Yes to spend any money on explaining how brexit may or may not affect your or my businesses with the possible outcomes.

They could have stepped back and not said anything at all.

Thats the facts. If you spent money on explaining brexit you had to sit in on a side. On the fence wasn't an option.

https://www.electoralcommission.org...ampaign-spending-and-donations-at-referendums

Read the rules

 

[turbo]

Did they really need a side. All the polls at the time, including here and the Farmers Weekly, indicated that the majority of farmers wanted to leave, so they spent their money on remain!

Just like how many wanted Guy to win.....................and how many want rid of the RT farm Assurance.

Are the Council delegates actually in touch with their members ?

Now if the paying members actually had a vote, I would imagine we would have a union that more members would be happy with.

But what do I know.........I'm just a farmer.

They didn’t spend their money on remain they spent the money giving members both sides of the argument,remember the study that they did but to be able to do it they had to be on one side or the other or couldn’t spend a penny giving members anything good or bad

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

They didn’t spend their money on remain they spent the money giving members both sides of the argument,remember the study that they did but to be able to do it they had to be on one side or the other or couldn’t spend a penny giving members anything good or bad

This is absolutely correct and the NFU had to abide by the rules.
The information that was put out was entirely factual and those of you who were members of the NFU and bothered to read it will have had a very clear view of the effects on each sector of agriculture.

There will always be some that believe "facts" to be favouring one side or the other, however what was crystal clear from the reports was that the livestock sector had far more to lose from being outside of the EU.

If the NFU had done nothing at all then I can just imagine the criticism it would have received about keeping members in the dark.

NFU membership has had the best opportunity of any people to understand the implications of Brexit as there have been meetings, briefings and up to date news available to all.

 

[Hilly]

This is absolutely correct and the NFU had to abide by the rules.
The information that was put out was entirely factual and those of you who were members of the NFU and bothered to read it will have had a very clear view of the effects on each sector of agriculture.

There will always be some that believe "facts" to be favouring one side or the other, however what was crystal clear from the reports was that the livestock sector had far more to lose from being outside of the EU.

If the NFU had done nothing at all then I can just imagine the criticism it would have received about keeping members in the dark.

NFU membership has had the best opportunity of any people to understand the implications of Brexit as there have been meetings, briefings and up to date news available to all.

I had to laugh at this, sorry Frank but ive been to some of the meetings etc saying no more.As for facts they have no one has a crystal ball not even the NFU but we do have hindsight and its no been that wondeerfull a ride the last 30-40 years in farming.

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

I had to laugh at this, sorry Frank but ive been to some of the meetings etc saying no more.As for facts they have no one has a crystal ball not even the NFU but we do have hindsight and its no been that wondeerfull a ride the last 30-40 years in farming.

Hilly, the fact sheets that were produced for the NFU were just that and not crystal ball gazing. They were taking the historical situation and showing the effects of what would effectively now be called a "hard" Brexit. So in that respect you are correct in that hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The point is that most politicians and business people have all realised that to go down this road will be a disaster hence the talk of transitional arrangements or interim deals.
The difficulty which these papers highlighted and is still completely relevant is if you are unable to trade in an unfettered way with the EU where are you going to find another market, especially for sheep meat that pays as much and is on your doorstep?

I do hope that whatever happens that the NFU keep the team in Brussels who are extremely knowledgeable and are able to brief officeholders, members and politicians.

Your point about things not being that wonderful over the last 30-40 years I would dispute as we have been relatively protected from the harshness of the market place apart from the unsupported sectors which have seen massive change. There are a lot of farmers who have survived due to SFP/BPS and not because they have been good at selling what they have produced or cut costs in order to make a profit.

The NFU have given their members the knowledge which in my book helps to make an informed decision if you wish to use it. Would you hugely expand your sheep flock and borrow lots of money if after March next year there was going to be a 40% plus tariff on your product so your returns halved?

 

[Hilly]

Hilly, the fact sheets that were produced for the NFU were just that and not crystal ball gazing. They were taking the historical situation and showing the effects of what would effectively now be called a "hard" Brexit. So in that respect you are correct in that hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The point is that most politicians and business people have all realised that to go down this road will be a disaster hence the talk of transitional arrangements or interim deals.
The difficulty which these papers highlighted and is still completely relevant is if you are unable to trade in an unfettered way with the EU where are you going to find another market, especially for sheep meat that pays as much and is on your doorstep?

I do hope that whatever happens that the NFU keep the team in Brussels who are extremely knowledgeable and are able to brief officeholders, members and politicians.

Your point about things not being that wonderful over the last 30-40 years I would dispute as we have been relatively protected from the harshness of the market place apart from the unsupported sectors which have seen massive change. There are a lot of farmers who have survived due to SFP/BPS and not because they have been good at selling what they have produced or cut costs in order to make a profit.

The NFU have given their members the knowledge which in my book helps to make an informed decision if you wish to use it. Would you hugely expand your sheep flock and borrow lots of money if after March next year there was going to be a 40% plus tariff on your product so your returns halved?

Time will tell what happens in the future, time will tell.