The regulatory burden

[Fallowfield]

Really? Frankly I think that is simplistic. For what it's worth, we should go for a hard hard Brexit. The consequences?
We arrive at that magic day with no agreement. Billions of pounds/euros worth of product pile up on each side of the Channel. Nothing moving? Thousands of UK and EU companies going bankrupt? Total meltdown of the economies of the EU member nations and that of Great Britain? No money in the EU to pay the salaries of the gravy train mobsters?
It just won't happen.
Is it worth the risk? Too damned right it is. We have had our backs up against the wall before. Been threatened; suddenly seemed to have no friends, no hope.
But we prevailed and came through some very dark times.
Airbus and BMW making veiled blackmail threats. If they want to go, let them. GB used to make great cars and great aircraft. We still can.
Where's the money coming from you say? Think back to 1939. Amazing how the money can be found when we are threatened. Amazing how our stalwart farmers pulled hard to feed the nation in those troubled days. Done it once, we can do it again.
Hard Brexit - it's time to clean up and kick out all the deadwood. The mobsters in business suits, the overpaid (you know who they are!), the swindlers and bone idle. Time to put a backbone into our flabby nation. Time to take care of the poor, the sick and the homeless. Time to reward decent, hardworking and honest citizens.

Thankfully the Russians beat the Germans for us so we managed to survive that time.

I'm not sure the Russians will be so willing to help out this time.

 

[lazy farmer]

I did't mention anything about going to war with the EU, did I?

We are repeatedly told by the EU, that GB cannot be in a better position after leaving. Err, why not? Doesn't everyone aspire to make decisions that leave them better off?

As for Mr. Trump, who can possibly say how he would react to us having a no deal Brexit.

No but your option would leave us with few friends. Perhaps the IMF will help us. Cos although the markets will lend us money the interest charged as sure as night follows day will eat up the illusionary “brexit” dividend.

 

[DanniAgro]

so when Churchill had to go to roosevelt and beg for a massive loan before America joined in you are expecting trump to be as generous are you ?

Exactly - America either lent us the money ( only paid back finally a few years ago) or used lease/ lend, whereby they let us have war equipment on the never never. That's how we managed to eventually take the war to Hitler.

 

[lazy farmer]

Exactly - America either lent us the money ( only paid back finally a few years ago) or used lease/ lend, whereby they let us have war equipment on the never never. That's how we managed to eventually take the war to Hitler.

true we were broke. but we were only really able to take the war to hitler After germany declared war on the 500million people of America and the USSR. After The Russians held the line at Moscow and Leningrad After The USA started supplying huge amounts of kit. Our first real offensive operation -operation torch didn't start until nov 1942 and that was obstensively lead by the Americans. This fantasy that "we" took the war to Germany is patently wrong many commonwealth and American men died along side their british comrades. God help us if your twisted view of history is the reason we are going it "alone". when the reality of history is we collaborated to succeed.

 

[arbel]

Thankfully the Russians beat the Germans for us so we managed to survive that time.

I'm not sure the Russians will be so willing to help out this time.

Actually, you are probably wrong about that. Putin loves nothing better than a little skirmish outside of Russian territory, where he can showcase his military prowess, new weaponry and expand his empire. And Russia, with a GDP lower than that of Australia and an economy teetering on bankruptcy, seems able to find the pots of money
However, I did not expect my comments to provoke a discussion about who fought in or won WW2.
The focus is now on Brexit and the sooner the better. As for raising money to revitalise the UK economy, no need to put out a begging bowl. I seem to remember something called "quantitive easing".
Never quite got my head around that one, but it's been done before.
The dithering about Brexit is costing us billions. Just get on with it! Wasn't that how the vote panned out in the Referendum? It's not legally binding on the Government, but God help the politicians if they don't follow through.

 

[Walterp]

Interesting range of responses.

The Duck may, perhaps, smile wanly if he knew that my neighbour Sir Edward Dashwood (the Slebech Estate, and many others) has been injured by unwisely venturing too near an excavator when it was in work - best wishes to same, please come and shoot here again next year.

Godwin's Law applies, it seems, to TFF - what has regulation to do with the last war? Odd, though, that the myth of 'Britain standing alone' still retains so much purchase over the minds of Tories, even today, and in the face of both history and the evidence.

I wonder why this might be? Has the subsequent peace been so disappointing to them?

On the bigger question, I guess many people object to regulation because they want to do as they please.

Like Sir Edward, they risk nursing a sore head when it goes wrong.

 

[Hindsight]

Actually, you are probably wrong about that. Putin loves nothing better than a little skirmish outside of Russian territory, where he can showcase his military prowess, new weaponry and expand his empire. And Russia, with a GDP lower than that of Australia and an economy teetering on bankruptcy, seems able to find the pots of money
However, I did not expect my comments to provoke a discussion about who fought in or won WW2.
The focus is now on Brexit and the sooner the better. As for raising money to revitalise the UK economy, no need to put out a begging bowl. I seem to remember something called "quantitive easing".
Never quite got my head around that one, but it's been done before.
The dithering about Brexit is costing us billions. Just get on with it! Wasn't that how the vote panned out in the Referendum? It's not legally binding on the Government, but God help the politicians if they don't follow through.

Well the answer is that the UK government is unlike Russia not an autocratic state, well I hope not, though do wonder at times. Thus HMG has chosen to fund the NHS and not the MoD as indicated by Mrs May announcement last week of imminent tax rise and additional funding for the NHS. And then today by a rather smug Jeremy Hunt on Andrew Marr Show and an outraged Gavin Williamson quoted in the Sunday papers as threatening to bring down the Prime Minister.

And also in that the government last week in advance of the NATO meeting for the first time publicly mentioned (I imagine to sound out public views of hard line Tory/UKIPers) reducing UK military capability from 'tier1' which is another tacit indication that HMG is preparing the way for a reduced UK role in the world post Brexit as HMG is preparing for straightened financial position.

But as ever no one knows and time will tell. I do worry when folk indicate positive thoughts towards this new uprising of support for the people wanting 'strong leaders'; from Julius Ceasar to Bismarck and beyond this has never been good in the past for the common man.

 

[Cowabunga]

Interesting range of responses.

The Duck may, perhaps, smile wanly if he knew that my neighbour Sir Edward Dashwood (the Slebech Estate, and many others) has been injured by unwisely venturing too near an excavator when it was in work - best wishes to same, please come and shoot here again next year.

No, I'm not smiling. Safety first! However, it was HIS responsibility to keep well away from said excavator. His self preservation instincts that should have shouted "DANGER" in his inner ear. Employing a watcher, who might him/herself be put in danger by inattention or positioning, and who halves the productivity rate and adds maybe 30% to the labour cost of the job and yet didn't save a gormless Sir Edward, is hardly good use of labour, certainly not productive and didn't save the toff from himself.

Godwin's Law applies, it seems, to TFF - what has regulation to do with the last war? Odd, though, that the myth of 'Britain standing alone' still retains so much purchase over the minds of Tories, even today, and in the face of both history and the evidence.

I wonder why this might be? Has the subsequent peace been so disappointing to them?

On the bigger question, I guess many people object to regulation because they want to do as they please.

Like Sir Edward, they risk nursing a sore head when it goes wrong.

Sir Edward probably got injured because he was, to put it bluntly, an idiot [In this case], not because of regulation or a lack of regulations. The only regulation needed in this case was that nobody should go within 20m of working machines unless they make themselves known to the driver.

Which brings an incident that happened to me many years ago back to life. I was driving the tractor and forager on contract to another farm when a car with two people in suits came into the field where they had no right to be. I went past them twice, giving them zero attention to show that I was not pleased that they were in the working area and that I was not going to stop to talk to them. Next time I went past, this absolute idiot jumped on my tractor's steps as I was moving past them and opened the door. I stopped and he announced, guess what? He was a HSE inspector wanting to inspect my machines for safety and PTO guards.

I mean, these absolute idiots coming round and inspect us, possibly with a view to prosecution, and they do the most risky thing that anyone can do apart from dancing around on asbestos roofs with skylights, lecturing on safety when they do lunatic things like that.
If he did it these days I would have put him well in his place, be assured.

Guards were all fine by the way and the same two turned up on my own farmyard about a fortnight later, and were a bit more sheepish that time.

 

[DanniAgro]

true we were broke. but we were only really able to take the war to hitler After germany declared war on the 500million people of America and the USSR. After The Russians held the line at Moscow and Leningrad After The USA started supplying huge amounts of kit. Our first real offensive operation -operation torch didn't start until nov 1942 and that was obstensively lead by the Americans. This fantasy that "we" took the war to Germany is patently wrong many commonwealth and American men died along side their british comrades. God help us if your twisted view of history is the reason we are going it "alone". when the reality of history is we collaborated to succeed.

You're right to mention Hitlers great (for us) idea to invade Russia, which of course split his forces and attention, but we'd still have had to either surrender or fight it out if he had'nt done that. I don't see how the true fact that many commonwealth and American men died fighting for our side makes any difference either to the fact that we needed American money and equipment to fight.
All views of history are biased, based on the speakers beliefs.

 

[lazy farmer]

You're right to mention Hitlers great (for us) idea to invade Russia, which of course split his forces and attention, but we'd still have had to either surrender or fight it out if he had'nt done that. I don't see how the true fact that many commonwealth and American men died fighting for our side makes any difference either to the fact that we needed American money and equipment to fight.
All views of history are biased, based on the speakers beliefs.

Fair enough but there does seem to be rabbied minority lead by witless Boris whom appear to believe we won the war on our own so we will be fine on our own come dooms day.

 

[Wastexprt]

Yes, but it is a matter of degrees. The feeling of an ever-tightening noose.
I would agree that most regulations are needed to a certain extent, but what is not needed is the UK civil servant and VOSA and god knows who else, gold plating regulations. Prime examples are Farm Assurance, who add conditions regularly and certainly annually, as does DEFRA and HSE, despite there seldom being any actual statutory change to actual regulations. Only their interpretation of regulations and gold-plating seems to be at the root of it.

It's the guidance that I find more arduous than the Regulations. Regulations are consulted upon and Impact Assessment carried out. Yet additions, or amendments, to guidance, often available internally before it is released externally is subject to none of this. Amendments to guidance gives no time for people to adapt before the changes are discovered, this wastes time and money and breeds nothing but resentment.