Will exit from the EU make Repeal easier

[Judgemental]

If we regain our soverignty and the Supreme Court cannot be overruled by some obscure and wholly unknown court in Luxembourg, will there be a chance that the Hunting Act 2004, be reviwed by a British Supreme Court populated by Judges who are British Nationals?

 

[skint1]

I personally doubt it, regardless of the personal feelings (and habits) of these people in high places- it would not be politically expedient for them to support an activity that the vast majority of people in the UK are dead set against. Whether the majority against hunting are ignorant of the facts, or townies or whatever is immaterial, they can't be seen to support it

 

[Goldenstar]

I think exit from the EU will make government so busy that repeal won't get a look in.

 

[Alec Swan]

'And with one bound, he was free', simply won't apply to our leaving the EU, unravelling the complex and interwoven laws, rules and dictates will take years to achieve, and even though I fully support Hunting, we will have much more on our plate and of far greater importance than whether we chase a fox about the countryside, mostly in circles and with a load of dogs!

Sorry J_m, but no, I don't think that whether we stay in the EU or leave, will have any bearing upon the 2004 Hunting Act, and perhaps it shouldn't. We will have far greater concerns than what many would see as an irrelevance.

Alec.

 

[skint1]

I think exit from the EU will make government so busy that repeal won't get a look in.

An even better point. As GS and Alec have said... it will take years to unpick it all. One good thing (from a selfish perspective) if they're busy doing that it may slow down their dismantling of the public sector generally

 

[Judgemental]

'And with one bound, he was free', simply won't apply to our leaving the EU, unravelling the complex and interwoven laws, rules and dictates will take years to achieve, and even though I fully support Hunting, we will have much more on our plate and of far greater importance than whether we chase a fox about the countryside, mostly in circles and with a load of dogs!

Sorry J_m, but no, I don't think that whether we stay in the EU or leave, will have any bearing upon the 2004 Hunting Act, and perhaps it shouldn't. We will have far greater concerns than what many would see as an irrelevance.

Alec.

Alec good morning, good to talk it's while since we had anything worth discussing or debating.

I will confess to something of a hidden agenda in my post, in that I will put a large amount of money on Boris being our next Prime Minister and that David will resign on 24 June 2016 when the British people vote to leave the EU.

Boris will immediately be elected leader and will immediately call a General Election, despite this parliament not having run it's full term. Where this is a change of incumbent leader in a Fixed Term Parliament the new incumbent can go to the country.

The Conservatives will win with a resounding majority, Mrs Sturgeon will be finessed by Boris into agreeing English votes for English laws and a vote to Repeal the Hunting Act 2004 can be put to the House of Commons in September, which will be carried by a majority of at least 65.

Boris will be eager to throw that bone to the farmers and landowners who will be about to lose all their EU subsidies and single farm payments.

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec good morning, good to talk it's while since we had anything worth discussing or debating.

……..

Boris will be eager to throw that bone to the farmers and landowners who will be about to lose all their EU subsidies and single farm payments.

Were we to leave the EU then the SFPs would be funded from our own coffers and would be a considerable saving on the funds which we currently hand over to the EU, so it's wrong to say that SFPs will come to an end, because they can't and won't.

Otherwise, your propositions are interesting and points which I hadn't considered! 'IF' we leave the EU and 'IF' Cameron resigns, then as you say, were Boris to be voted in (I've yet to really get my head around that, but we'll see!), then going to the Country would make for perfect sense. I feel that Boris would 'walk it'!

I'll admit to being a little concerned at the level of power which Mrs. Sturgeon has. That we have a section of Gt. Britain which has such power and that it can exert the influence which it does, with little thought for the good of GB in its entirety, should have us concerned. Even considering that this Referendum works on a one-man-one-vote principle, for most Scots, being as Northern Ireland and rather on the fringe, to have such an influence over the majority, and that's us, is wrong. Perhaps we should have encouraged Independence which would have allowed them to make their own 'arrangements'.

The argument returns to the discussion of 'Tribes', and I'm wondering if autonomy isn't such a bad thing, after all, and after all, isn't that what Devolution's about, returning the ability to be autonomous to those who are most affected?

Hunting? It's no more than a tool in the Sturgeon armoury, and such power should be wrested from her.

Alec.

 

[HashRouge]

Alec good morning, good to talk it's while since we had anything worth discussing or debating.

I will confess to something of a hidden agenda in my post, in that I will put a large amount of money on Boris being our next Prime Minister and that David will resign on 24 June 2016 when the British people vote to leave the EU.

Boris will immediately be elected leader and will immediately call a General Election, despite this parliament not having run it's full term. Where this is a change of incumbent leader in a Fixed Term Parliament the new incumbent can go to the country.

The Conservatives will win with a resounding majority, Mrs Sturgeon will be finessed by Boris into agreeing English votes for English laws and a vote to Repeal the Hunting Act 2004 can be put to the House of Commons in September, which will be carried by a majority of at least 65.

Boris will be eager to throw that bone to the farmers and landowners who will be about to lose all their EU subsidies and single farm payments.

But do you really think, if the scenario you describe were to occur, that repealing the hunting ban would be anywhere other than at the bottom of a very, very long agenda? The government would be having to deal with a new leader, a general election AND dealing with the fallout of leaving the EU. I'd say there would be much more important things to deal with than repealing the hunting ban, which I can't really see being any consolation whatsoever to farmers losing EU subsidies (I mean really, are they supposed to think, well, I've got no money, but at least I can hunt foxes, yay!). Surely the government will be needing to do other things, like looking at substitutes for the subsidies (I admit I don't know the ins and outs of what subsidies farmers receive from the EU and how they are going to be replaced by the government). And I don't know where you have come up with the figures you mention...a majority of a least 65? How on earth do you figure that?

And no, I am not in favour of repeal, though I try to listen to the arguments on both sides and be as open-minded as possible.

 

[Judgemental]

Were we to leave the EU then the SFPs would be funded from our own coffers and would be a considerable saving on the funds which we currently hand over to the EU, so it's wrong to say that SFPs will come to an end, because they can't and won't.

Otherwise, your propositions are interesting and points which I hadn't considered! 'IF' we leave the EU and 'IF' Cameron resigns, then as you say, were Boris to be voted in (I've yet to really get my head around that, but we'll see!), then going to the Country would make for perfect sense. I feel that Boris would 'walk it'!

I'll admit to being a little concerned at the level of power which Mrs. Sturgeon has. That we have a section of Gt. Britain which has such power and that it can exert the influence which it does, with little thought for the good of GB in its entirety, should have us concerned. Even considering that this Referendum works on a one-man-one-vote principle, for most Scots, being as Northern Ireland and rather on the fringe, to have such an influence over the majority, and that's us, is wrong. Perhaps we should have encouraged Independence which would have allowed them to make their own 'arrangements'.

The argument returns to the discussion of 'Tribes', and I'm wondering if autonomy isn't such a bad thing, after all, and after all, isn't that what Devolution's about, returning the ability to be autonomous to those who are most affected?

Hunting? It's no more than a tool in the Sturgeon armoury, and such power should be wrested from her.

Alec.

Taking the historical track record of the Conservative party in the last fifty years, I am fairly sure there is going to be an internecine war of words.

We are at opposite side of England and Wales, yet I dare say you would, as I do, find it difficult to find anybody who is minded to stay in the EU

Boris is a leader and only yesterday, I had three youngish chaps doing some contracting work and they all said, "Boris comes across as telling it like it is and they said, if he can run London, he is more than capable of running the country". Whereas, David is 'posh' but tries to play down his 'poshness', which they find very embarrassing and I am talking about the working class perception of him. As the boys said, Boris makes them laugh.

Frankly I believe this whole referendum is going to dissolve into a pre-general election campaign and pre-prime ministerial election.

I agree with your comments about Mrs Sturgeon which are very correct and worrying. Boris is probably the best person to deal with her.

As for the hunting, if we have a general election this back end, I am certain the Conservatives will have a resounding majority and Mrs Sturgeon, coupled to the SNP will be more or less emasculated so far as their influence in the House of Commons is concerned.

 

[Welly]

To answer the original question no, the hunting act is one of the things you can't blame the EU. They still hunt with hounds!

 

[Judgemental]

To answer the original question no, the hunting act is one of the things you can't blame the EU. They still hunt with hounds!

Yes but what contribution have the EU made to lifting the ban and helping towards repeal. None.

 

[Alec Swan]

I suspect that Cameron has committed political suicide, regardless of how the Referendum swings. By the end of July, Cameron will be finished, you mark my words!

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

I suspect that Cameron has committed political suicide, regardless of how the Referendum swings. By the end of July, Cameron will be finished, you mark my words!

Alec.

You are probably right.

It appears that the political hyenas are circling. For a Lord Chancellor to openly disagree with The Incumbent Prime Minister is wholly unique.

In those circumstances a General Election is inevitable.

We, Parliament, must regain our/it's unimpeachable sovereignty.

 

[Judgemental]

But do you really think, if the scenario you describe were to occur, that repealing the hunting ban would be anywhere other than at the bottom of a very, very long agenda? The government would be having to deal with a new leader, a general election AND dealing with the fallout of leaving the EU. I'd say there would be much more important things to deal with than repealing the hunting ban, which I can't really see being any consolation whatsoever to farmers losing EU subsidies (I mean really, are they supposed to think, well, I've got no money, but at least I can hunt foxes, yay!). Surely the government will be needing to do other things, like looking at substitutes for the subsidies (I admit I don't know the ins and outs of what subsidies farmers receive from the EU and how they are going to be replaced by the government). And I don't know where you have come up with the figures you mention...a majority of a least 65? How on earth do you figure that?

And no, I am not in favour of repeal, though I try to listen to the arguments on both sides and be as open-minded as possible.

Hashrouge it will take about four years to dismantle our membership of the EU

If the Countryside Alliance and MFHA are wise, they will recommend a vote to leave the EU

Single Farm payments will be replicated when the UK government has full sovereignty over their own affairs.

Eleven years have past since the Hunting Act 2004 and with a decent majority in the Commons, the issue would be totemic and worth a punt of anybody's money.

 

[JanetGeorge]

If the Countryside Alliance and MFHA are wise, they will recommend a vote to leave the EU

And if the CA or MFHA make a recommendation, I'd be tempted to do the opposite! Basically, it's none of THEIR business what WE do with our vote!

 

[Isbister]

Yes but what contribution have the EU made to lifting the ban and helping towards repeal. None.

There's no reason why the EU ever should have got involved. Let's not forget, the law was passed by a lawfully and democratically elected government. If it is wrong and unpopular - which of course it is with some of the electorate - then the law must be changed from within. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

 

[Alec Swan]

I suspect that should we leave the EU, then Cameron will consider falling on his sword, BJ will quite probably (but for reasons that I don't understand) walk it, should there be a General Election with BJ on the crest of a wave and a huge (or at least usable) majority, then repeal is a possibility.

I suspect that that's what will be the EU influence. A bit round about, I grant you, but I can see the possible logic!

Alec.

 

[chillipup]

OP, Please can you tell me why it is so important to you that the 2004 act be repealed?

 

[Sandstone1]

There are far more people against hunting than there are for it. I very much doubt it will ever be repealed.
Also there are far more important issues to deal with. Issues that effect everyone. Not just a few who wish to chase a Fox around the countryside.

 

[popsdosh]

OP, Please can you tell me why it is so important to you that the 2004 act be repealed?

I do agree with you however I suspect for different reasons. I have long said it is best left alone . A compromise has been reached where most hunts can still continue under the act and within the law . Why keep going back there it will only make it a game of political tennis changing every time the government changes. I opposed the original ban however wont be joining any campaign to repeal the act there is no point you just drag the whole thing up again and the general public are just sick of it.

On the question of europe in my opinion it will be the worst thing ever for the countryside in the uk if we get out. As much as I hate the form filling etc agriculture in this country had such a boost from our original entry and that whole thing will be reversed as I dont care what they say they will not have a second thought about the people who work in the countryside. If you want proof of that just look at the fiasco that is happening at the moment with SFP its not europes doing it the British government and the total cock up they have made of it.
If you want proof of what pulling out of the EU may do to you ,I suggest those of you with pension investments get an up to date valuation of your pension pot and see where that stands as most of that fall is due to uncertainty over if we will stay in the EU . Do you really think the other member states will just stand back without administering some form of pay back for us leaving. Sorry were in there its to late after the event to change your mind again

 

[Countryman]

I do agree with you however I suspect for different reasons. I have long said it is best left alone . A compromise has been reached where most hunts can still continue under the act and within the law . Why keep going back there it will only make it a game of political tennis changing every time the government changes. I opposed the original ban however wont be joining any campaign to repeal the act there is no point you just drag the whole thing up again and the general public are just sick of it.

Then you are very lucky your hunt is able to 'continue' - many are finding it very difficult, and there is very little legal recourse to prevent disruption if you happen to be targeted every single weekend.

I completely agree it needs to be taken off the political agenda - it can't be a football, changed by each incoming government. Therefore a basic repeal alone is not the answer - but some sort of replacement, (Lord Donohughe wants to introduce a "Cruelty to Wildlife" bill for instance - or delegation to a regulating authority etc may be the answer.

 

[popsdosh]

Then you are very lucky your hunt is able to 'continue' - many are finding it very difficult, and there is very little legal recourse to prevent disruption if you happen to be targeted every single weekend.

I completely agree it needs to be taken off the political agenda - it can't be a football, changed by each incoming government. Therefore a basic repeal alone is not the answer - but some sort of replacement, (Lord Donohughe wants to introduce a "Cruelty to Wildlife" bill for instance - or delegation to a regulating authority etc may be the answer.

I do agree with you as you say repeal is not the answer and until we have one keeping it below the radar to me is the best course of actiom.
To be honest the Antis still targeting hunts really makes them look fools and goes to prove what we knew all along ,it really is not about foxes!

 

[Alec Swan]

…….. Lord Donohughe wants to introduce a "Cruelty to Wildlife" bill for instance - or delegation to a regulating authority etc may be the answer.

There will always be a group who feel that any form of wildlife management is cruel, so Lord Donoghue's proposal is approaching lunacy and it will achieve no more than further division. Shall I, one day perhaps, be compelled to take a qualified veterinary surgeon with me when I go to roost shoot pigeons, or when I travel to Ireland to walk up snipe?

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

Quite who determined that The Referendum Campaign should be for four months needs to have their reasons closely examined.

Apart from, as I have already predicted we have already seen internecine 'warfare' within the Conservative party.

I confidently predict that journalists and the media, are going to run out of subject matter and they will turn their attention to the Common Agricultural Policy.

Thus the excessive and generous amount of money that is given to Landowners, Farmers and any tom, dick or harry, that owns or tenants a few acres. Or principally thousands of acres probably worth about £10,000.00 per acres in which there is some opulent mansion or farmhouse, filled with inherited antiques etc.

I confidently predict, that because of the almost forensic examination in the next four months of this money and farmers/landowners 'benefits' in the form of the Single Farm Payment etc, which is largely spent on new 4 x 4's, hunt subscriptions and in a few cases new machinery, the whole scandalous system, will be brought very graphically to the attention of the many, who do not enjoy this 'feather bedded' lifestyle.

So much so, that as a result whether it is IN or Out of the EU, at the end of the day there will be a latter day Agrarian Revolution, because 'the people' will wake up to a very complex system that only benefits a minority to the tune of £1,300,000,000,000 (£1.3 billion) of some 275,000 farmers and already very wealthy landowners out of a total population of 56,000,000,000. people.

Such money would be better spent on hospitals, schools and the national infrastructure.

I am merely stating facts and the sooner all those in the countryside and farming wake up to the notion that 'the gravy train' will shortly hit the buffers, the better!

what I find remarkable is that Comrade Corbyn is happy with the billions paid to farmers and landowners for doing nothing.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

So much so, that as a result whether it is IN or Out of the EU, at the end of the day there will be a latter day Agrarian Revolution, because 'the people' will wake up to a very complex system that only benefits a minority to the tune of £1,300,000,000,000 (£1.3 billion) of some 275,000 farmers and already very wealthy landowners out of a total population of 56,000,000,000. people.

Such money would be better spent on hospitals, schools and the national infrastructure.

…….. .

There are times J_M, when as fond of you as I am, your level of stupidity astounds even me, and I'm generally of a most tolerant nature, you'll accept I'm sure! The simple fact is that without the subsidising of our food industry, and by 'us', then 'we' would no longer be able to afford the food which we produce.

Alec.

 

[popsdosh]

A lot depends who you think is really being subsidised maybe!
Is it the farmer or the consumer with a cheaper and guaranteed food supply. The argument could go on forever. Love to know what these billions are doing really because at the moment farmers are having to pay for animal food on credit cards because thats the only credit they have left. Maybe its ok to burn down the rain forest to produce more cheap food to flood this country with . That moneys no good to anybody if you dont have food to eat see how long we last then.

 

[ycbm]

Do you really think the other member states will just stand back without administering some form of pay back for us leaving.

Yes.

For the simple reason that they export 61 BILLION pounds or more to us than we do to them. They need us more than we need them. Simples.

The French wine industry has never recovered from our boycott of their wine after they refused to take our beef.

 

[Judgemental]

There are times J_M, when as fond of you as I am, your level of stupidity astounds even me, and I'm generally of a most tolerant nature, you'll accept I'm sure! The simple fact is that without the subsidising of our food industry, and by 'us', then 'we' would no longer be able to afford the food which we produce.

Alec.

Alec, I cannot agree for one simple reason.

When we were conned into voting for the Common Market in 1975, the price of agricultural land was about £500.00 per acre, give or take. It is now about £10,000.00 per acre give or take depending upon the quality.

Allowing for inflation and improved farming methods, there is still a massive disparity between the value in 1975 and now.

The reason, inflated subsidies that are fundamentally intended for poor, sheep and subsistence farmers in the Mediterranean type countries, have pushed land prices to absurd levels. Subsidies that have been usurped by the French and Germans, subsidies that were never intended for our farming methods, climate and substantially larger holdings than the rest of Europe.

If the subsidies are taken away the price of land will fall, as will tenanted farm rents and as a result the cost of production will fall and therefore the cost of food will fall by about £700.00 per household annually.

I will go further. My sources estimate the price of average agricultural land to fall to about £3,500.00 - £4,000.00 per acre if we vote to leave. If we vote to stay, because of the hiatus and investigation by non-agricultural busybodies, that the referendum campaign will generate, agricultural land will fall to about £5,000.00 per acre. Tenanted rental values will fall, although Tenant Right in-goings and outgoing values will remain more or less as they are currently. Largely because of the likely demand for tenanted land at lower levels. Owner occupied land will not be seen as the investment it once was, because British farmers will have to compete with the rest or the world, particularly where grain is concerned.

 

[popsdosh]

It wont happen because land for agriculture is a diminishing resource and the price will hold up it may drop off a little but not much. However it will always creep up . If your Hypothesis is true why are land values not dropping at the moment because agriculture has been losing money like a drain for 2yrs running now. The largest distortion to land values and rents in recent years has come from the energy sectors. I think the thing you conveniently forget is that with a rising world population we soon wont be able to feed ourselves let alone worry about the prices. USA actually supports its farmers at a higher level than within europe nowadays and land values of equal quality land is not far off our levels.
If you are in fact correct we had better all say a prayer for James Dyson et al who have also distorted the land market hugely by the tax breaks they get for investing their personal family pension funds in agricultural land at in effect up to a 40% discount( now hold best part of 30,000 acres all farmed by them.) or for example the Mormon church who have bought up large areas around here because religious organisations dont pay tax. These buyers arent letting this land they are farming it. However this has very little to do with support money.

Bye the way if you think the price of food will drop by £700/household your on some funny substance as the price of food is already subsidised by europe it will in truth have to go up . I will let you into a secret at present we would be better off not farming the land and producing crops at all but its not in our make up to do that and at the end of the day its not just us but all our suppliers as well.

 

[JDee]

The EU (as already stated) had nothing to do with the hunting ban so being in or out isn't going to make a difference.
The majority of people don't understand hunting and don't want too, they just see it as mindless slaughter so its unlikely to ever get a majority vote to change anything
The UK countryside is shrinking all the time, the population keeps growing people have to live somewhere, shortage of land pushes the price up.
The UK produces only about half of the food it eats so remove the benefits of trade with EU countries then the cost of anything grown there and shipped to the UK markets will cost more
I'm wondering what a difference its going to make to all the field scale fruit and veg growers who rely on an eastern European workforce, coming out of the EU is going to make hiring them more complicated again