The Word For World Is Data: Agriculture, Fisheries & Environment

There's a useful summary of views of the talking heads representing some of the areas of the UK in relation to Brexit in this article (picture ref/source above): What rural organisations are saying about Brexit

• Agriculture
• Environment
• Wildlife (Conservation/Biodiversity)
• Rural Businesses & Policy

Fisheries is not mentioned in the above article but it's popped up in the legacy news-media regarding: 

Summaries of opinions:-

- Meurig Raymond, NFU president thinks the news will lead to a period of “uncertainty” in vital areas of farming.
 NFU launches post-Brexit options paper and member survey

- David Caffall, Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) chief executive thinks that Vote Leave poses huge questions for Britain’s agricultural supply industry
BREXIT – Meeting with The Secretary of State, and the AIC Board’s Preliminary Thoughts

- Martin Baxter, IEMA’s, an international membership organisation, committed to global sustainability, chief policy advisor thinks the vote to leave raises questions for business businesses, professionals and the wider public on environmental protection policy.
 Environment & Sustainability Professionals Reveal Top 10 Views on “Brexit”

- Simon Gooderham, director of rural surveyor and estate agent, Cheffins, says predicting the long-term impact is difficult, but that the result could impact on farmland lettings and sales markets

- Ross Murry, president of membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales, CLA believes farmers and rural business will create opportunities outside of the EU.

- Sean Wensley, president of the British Veterinary Association (BVA), thinks the UK’s decision to leave the EU will have a “significant impact” on veterinary regulation, education and animal welfare.

- David Nussbaum CEO of WWF-UK thinks the vote to leave the EU brings “risks and uncertainties” for Britain’s wildlife and wild places.
WWF responds to EU referendum result


- Dr Mike Clarke, RSPB's chief executive thinks that the UK must continue to "act internationally, and look to forge comprehensive international agreements for nature conservation and the environment".
Brexit implications for wildlife friendly farming: long-term opportunity, short-term jeopardy

- The Wildlife Trusts said that following the result, the challenges faced by the UK’s wildlife are as "great as they have ever been". 
An initial response to the EU Referendum result

I've included some extra links expanding on the summaries provided for Environment, Wildlife and Agriculture. Of additional note, the Rural Policy (Joint-Up Policy) and Veterinary (Regulations specifically).

Instead of rehashing all the above information to tentatively consider:-

• It's short-hand to put all the above policy areas into a simple question: "How much money do they get in the EU and how much, more or less, do they get out of the EU (Brexit)? Very convenient.
• Distinguish: The data on the arguments themselves for or against Brexit and how this supports or detracts from this new position. Compared to the opinions of the people who work in these areas and deal with both: Data and Money.
• To consider again distinctions: Each policy has it's own priority (here they merge as they're related) but each fits within the total policy vision: The democratic Brexit vote to Leave. On both counts sub and super have to fit with each other.
• Information gaps and biases will likely have to be identified inter-distinguishing the policies above as well as their intra-distinctions. Good policy will do this and move on. Politics will temper good policy possible of course.
• Complexity is highly apparent in these areas.
• Ignorance in most of the public is highly apparent for these areas. This also applies to the Legacy News-Media and our professional politicians too.

There's some really good information in all the above. But as you can see in the summary considerations there's a huge tangle to contend with. It's highly confusing and complex. However applying our ever trusty context:-

If you read FLEXCIT and these chapters on these policies, you'll notice that the research considers both the policy itself as well as the surrounding politics. A major part of the policy is regulations from our EEA "members of" (as opposed to "access to" (FTA)). Secondly the common theme within FLEXCIT the work itself is the second tier of origin of this at global level of regulations and interactions between tiers (including domestic), which is mentioned in Dr. RAE North's most recent monograph series:

LEAVE ALLIANCE: Brexit Monograph 6 - Post-Brexit regulation ~ Dr. RAE North:-

"As to whether the UK would gain any relief from leaving the EU – even supposing the Government could be prevailed up on to repeal the CCA - one can compare its situation to that of a victim in a horror movie, trapped alive in a coffin. Having broken through the lid in a bid to escape, he finds to his consternation that there is another lid. This "double lid" is, on the one hand, the EU treaty obligations and, on the other, the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol. Breaking through the EU legislative layer simply reveals the second "lid"of the Kyoto Protocol."

Indeed, the Mongraph on Trade Barriers was tentatively discussed in one of the Treasury Committee Oral evidence: The UK's future economic relationship with the European Union, HC 483

"There is a distinction and, quite rightly, the point raised about agriculture is a very serious one and one that has not been properly addressed.  When it comes to the Doha Round etc.  on the negotiation of quotas and also subsidies, and subsidy caps, these are held not by individual member states but by the Commission.  Therefore, theoretically, when we leave we will not be able to subsidise our farmers unless we negotiate a settlement with the EU as to an apportionment of the subsidy cap.

Likewise, on quotas, the quota is  held by the Commission, and therefore there will be a negotiation.   One can imagine a trade-off where some of the member states will be quite anxious to offload as much quota, say beef quota, as they can on the UK as a condition for our exit.   We would find ourselves unwillingly forced to take that as a  quid pro quo for other concessions.  This is  an area that is quite possibly going to be time-consuming."  

This itself is another level above the actual policy itself, the negotations framework adding complexity itself concerning Agriculture and Brexit at this level.

Familiarity built over time helps create an intellectual architecture or context without which it's likely these regulations feel horrendously alien and unfathomable. Some comparisons to graphics of data can maybe help visualize what these regulations are supposedly designed to achieve, I hope. We can use the excellent European Environment Agency website's resources:-

Here's the Interactive Data Viewer page from which the above snap-shots are merely an indication of. You can see there's vast amounts of data information gathering that in turn fuel our activities: Agricultural policy (natural variations in production and trends); social policy connection education research for people on these issues and so forth such as Biodiversity indicators or chemical pollutants in the EEA groups.

It's worth looking at Europe as a map of people additionally; from wikipedia:-

Population Density Map of Europe

The statistic given at the European Environment Agency on Agriculture (land use and budget):-

"Farming has a big influence on Europe's landscapes and the quality of its environment. With farmers managing almost half of the EU's land area, the agricultural sector is a major source of pressure on Europe's environment.

Over the past five decades, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - accounting for around half of the EU budget.

Farmers represent only 4.7% of the European Union's (EU's) working population, yet manage nearly half of the EU's land area. Farming has a big influence on Europe's landscapes and the quality of its environment."

So there can be little mistake that Agriculture is a huge policy area that also interacts across a wide range of other related policy areas (Environment). Europe itself is a highly populated and high density continent which therefore requires high food security and high environmental impact. All of this is ripe for regulations and the use of data to construct policy. To quote FLEXCIT Chapter 12.0 Agriculture:-

Agriculture in the UK (EU/EEA)

"The second policy we look at, in this fourth phase, is agriculture. The food and farming sector is important to the UK economy, with the whole food chain contributing £85 billion per year to the economy and 3.5 million jobs. In policy terms, it is dominated by the European Union and its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Financially, this is the most important policy in the EU. It is also the most complex, made more so by the need to ensure conformity with WTO agreements." 

Agriculture In Norway & Iceland (EFTA/EEA)

"However, while the EU average total subsidy is about 18 percent of farming income, Norwegian farmers gain just short of 60 percent, only just ahead of Switzerland, while Iceland farmers are paid just short of 50 percent. In other words, those European farmers who are outside the EU benefit from much higher subsidies than those within the European Union."

Agriculture In New Zealand (neither or "global trade/WTO meme")

The "poster child "for advocates of subsidy-free farming is New Zealand, the government of which in 1984 abruptly terminated farm payments, ostensibly driven by a commitment to the free-flow of global market forces. Expected outcomes were improved economic efficiency and more effective use of land. But the changes occurred outside the framework of a coherent national policy for rural development, resulting in diverse and unexpected outcomes.

The reason to quote these comparative "pictures" directly from FLEXCIT (once again with huge gratitude) is to come back to that question of "Money" mentioned at the beginning. It seems to me whichever way the UK chooses for the Agriculture Policy, it's a policy that is particularly sensitive to subsidy or social consideration not only capitalist consideration: Namely it's multi-dimensional where money is one dimension only and not even the bottom-line: The Environment I suspect is?

For example, to briefly look at FLEXCIT: 13.0 Fisheries:-

"The starting point of the Paterson review was the recognition that, prior to UK entry to the EEC,  the British fishing industry had been a model of sustainability.  Yet, after decades of the CFP, areas of the most fertile and productive fishing grounds in the world were being threatened with closure. Others were producing yields well short of their potential capacity, whilst ever-increasing restrictions were being imposed on British fishermen."

"Therein lies the essence of the post-exit settlement.  Leaving the EU, per se, is no solution in itself.  EU policies require individual replacement, each with something better.  And fisheries provided a useful example.  Largely self-contained in policy terms, it is a test bed for policy development, and as an example of the complexity of the repatriation process."  

"One of those wider issues was the protection of the environment.  It was argued this was not incompatible with safeguarding the fishing industry.  Over-fishing and other abuses damage the marine environment and also damage the long-term economic value of a fishery.  Therefore environmental protection was regarded not as an adjunct to a fisheries policy but as an inherent part of it."

"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK EEZ are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments. Fishermen have no inherent rights to the fish and other aquatic creatures in these waters and no inherent rights to the property so gained. There is, however, a distinction between inherent rights and acquired rights."

 More discussion on monitoring and collection of data: FLEXCIT 13.7 Enforcement, monitoring and sanctions

If we look at the last paragraph and look at the map of Europe above, we notice that nations are different from each other, they're also "non-uniform distribution" in people, resources and of course cultural developments. In effect they have different needs from each other as well as holding some things in common, given we're all people of a common species to be scientifically accurate. Equally concerning dealing with this historic situation of nation states, the reality of the environment or part of the world we share must be managed to everyone's benefit. It probably serves policy in a more superior way when:-

• We use good data to understand our impact on the world
• We take responsibility locally on our place in the world
• We collaborate with our neighbours to meet mutually beneficial outcomes on the above.

It's interesting, given the post-Referendum reaction. Before, the various stake-holders in these policy areas, apart from Fisheries, would likely be resistant to the idea of change and reconsideration. Given the result, there's a shift in tone from these groups: They want to seize the positive opportunities and avoid the negative dangers and emphasise this combination of "vector and velocity".

The points I tentatively consider above, I think we now reach the question of information/misinformation, confusion/ignorance:-

1. On the one hand we have the groups such as Friends of the Earth below
How can we make Brexit work for the environment? ~ Craig Bennett

2. And on the other hand we have other opposite groups such as ex-leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage:-

My heart F*! bleeds for these groups (on Immigration read Scribblings From Seaham: Integration): It all fits within the idea of layers of different communication described in the previous blog as if it were a rainbow:What People Don't Want Is Not To Be Not Confused. I can't be bothered to describe the sentiments and hyper-emotionality. There's so much in FLEXCIT I would like to include and discuss in this blog but for the sake of brevity and communicating a few basic ideas (the bullet points at the beginning) and then trying to provide the research and reasoning behind those tentative considerations; it's time to finish this blog and before long move this post's content to a new website and focus even more specifically on this area, usefully in connection to Brexit.

For Friends of the Earth (money and their prebuilt political constituencies), for The Guardian likewise and for Farage/UKIP once again. But are they actually communicating anything of actual value?

By contrast the conclusion I have is that it's a positive step from the Government to signal they are carrying on with the present subsidies of money to Science and to Agriculture:-
Chancellor Philip Hammond guarantees EU funding beyond date UK leaves the EU

Finally, to look at a more specific area within "Agriculure/Environment" (DEFRA):

On the Environment, likewise a more proactive approach than whinging:

Forestry in England inquiry launched

"The forestry sector contributes some £1.7 billion a year to the economy and indirectly supports 43,000 jobs. Woods and forests, particularly ancient forests, provide many environmental benefits including enhancing biodiversity and supporting a range of ecosystem services such as water management and climate control.
In addition, forests provide recreational and amenity value to society."

Even within the above policy areas and then within a sub-policy of those: Forestries we see whether or not we're asking the right question and in the right order and concerning the specifics of the policy and it's complexity (and groups' own political colours). Interestingly, if you read FLEXCIT and on 12.0 Agriculture, Forestries is a component that demonstrates the flexible and continuous properties of FLEXCIT as a plan very well:

"This did not stop the agriculture council discussing the EU's (then) new forest strategy,  which  aimed  "to  cut  through  the  mass  of  rules  governing  the protection of forests".  That strategy was announced on 20 September the day after the ECA's report, with a 17-page report calling for a new forestry "framework".  The document conceded that, in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, there was no reference to specific provisions for an EU forest policy. 

Thus, on technical, financial and legal grounds, the UK could disengage, without prejudice to other programmes, and without any significant political implications. "

It's time to stop whinging uselessly or indeed reading the click-bait Legacy News-Media but if one considers themselves several things:-

• A Voter
• A Voter with an especial interest in a specific area
• A Voter who has a set of skills, or even the time and energy alone

To then as our Prime Minister Theresa May said, "Make A Success Of It" [Brexit]:-

For example on Forestries already:-

• The curious case of the Dartmoor Forest Plan has just become more curious
• The Dartmoor Forestry Plan. Questioning Conventional Thinking
• Dartmoor Forest Plan (Forestry Commission Consultation Plan) 
• Trees For Life

This is far more useful if people take this upon themselves (millions who can do so than) relying on the voices of "experts" (check: Are they experts or authorities? Are they secondly the applicable experts to the problem?!) who are still bumbling around concerning the merits or perils of "Brexit Options" as perhaps more adeptly handled but still stumbling around in this discussion concerning "Least-Worst Fashionable Opinions". This has been mentioned recently over at EUReferendum.com a number of times recently... .

• Brexit: the disappearing option 
• Brexit: the kleptocracy of the IEA
• Brexit: the "stupid" filter
• Brexit: shambles at the top

Beyond 2020: The Sweet Spring of Real Democracy!

Building a Wildlife Pond: "The Sweet Spring Of Water For Wildlife."

After the Referendum, I've already made plans to build a Wildlife Pond. There's plenty of advice and instructions from which to learn and take inspiration from, online such as this excellent one from The Rural Gardener: "How To Build Your Own Wildlife Pond 1" and indeed extending the concept to add a "How To Build Your Own Wildlife Pond 2 - Adding A Stream". I've been doing various part-time work this Summer including some gardening and mowing lawns (so plenty of time outside in the Summer sun (and rain!)) and the above instructions and elsewhere and direct advice from people allow me to conclude that I know enough to be able to put that information into action and do this work (having earned enough cash to do so (hopefully no more than £150)!). From my mentioned experiences, I can't help but notice how people seem obsessed with having finely cut lawns; afterall I get paid to mow them every two weeks, particularly at this time of year when the grass can grow into majestic "Savannahs" of the British Isles, if left uncut!

It got me thinking, it may not be for everyone, but if all these gardens (big ones particularly) created some garden ponds with surrounding "wetland edges" and again surrounding "mini savannah edges" that then connected eventually towards the hedges and/or trees at the edge of the gardens, the calculation in increase in wildlife that this might lead to compared to the by comparison "green deserts" of finely mowed lawns with their various versions of ornamental-only (low biodiversity) "topiary" (the yellow meadow ants don't seem to mind the lawns so much)?? I appreciate mown lawns have other utilities but a portion of a garden given over to Wildlife (especially the larger or lesser used gardens and ponds are a hazard for young children), but the "appearance" of nature/green managed by people vs the "information value" contained in biodiverse wildlife gardens always strikes me as incredibly disparate: The former to me is "empty" and so many suburban districts have a kind of dead energy to them, whereas the latter is "alive" or "vital".

I can't help but conclude people seem very oblivious to the land they live in; perhaps less so to the house prices, however (and doubly so to their rise and fall)? Mown lawns are part of the assets that need the occasional management incurred cost and the nature of grass is to keep on top of it, I suppose, so the equipment does not break and incur extra costs such as petrol and spare parts etc. But the question to ask: The bit of land in peoples' temporary possession, how do they conceive it to be and how about after they leave it?

So I intend to create one and then calculate the biodiversity and maybe systematize this information some more if possible but also so that I can enjoy the richness in wildlife that this will bring. As The Rural Gardener says above, "Nature does the rest" or "finds a way".

So goodbye EU, Brexit and Referendum... and to be honest: Good riddance!

1975:Labour's Peter Shore on Project Fear - "The message that comes out is fear, fear, fear" 

There's plenty of evidence that the 1975 Referendum was a horrible exercise in deception and industrial scaled propaganda against people and used similar FUD tactics to today. In 1994 the Norwegians experienced similar tactics:-

"Learn what it feels like to be used/duped by poliicians early": This stuff from Norway in 1994 is excellent material to educate children: First with the Yes Campaigns claims and "how true and good they appear", then hit them with this stuff from >20yrs ago saying similar things!

The fog of ignorance

Scribblings From Seaham summarizes the ignorance today in the public very well above. As for today, 2016, it becomes tedious hearing David Cameron and George Osborne being allowed to lie by Vote Leave as such:-

• "There is no Brexit Plan if you vote Leave".
• "Brexit is unknown and full of uncertainty."
• "Leave have said they will leave The Single Market."

Vote Leave allow these premises to dominate all other utterances which then lead to:-

• "Trade will collapse if we vote Leave: An action of self-harm!"

Jesus Wept!

Of course even more deadly is that this allows incontrovertible "experts" & certified "good people" to wade in:-

• Nobel Laureate Economists (decision-workers)!
• Scientists and Universities (brain-workers!) 
• Save The Children! (It's their future hence their decision)
• Business Entrepreneurs and other Names (Ian McEwan the latest dunderhead duckspeaking)
• EU Legal Experts (ffs...!)

Leave is then left with (lol!):-

• The Left-Behind!
• The old (who honestly cares about them anymore, a weight on the NHS...)
• Racists against immigration who'll go out and gun down an MP (female) in broad daylight.
• Johnson, Farage, Galloway...

The other big issue I have with this, is the problem people seem to have separating themselves and their direct relation to the EU with the universal perspective that is possible too.

For example, from my above "Wildlife Pond" project you can tell I'm very keen on wildlife, th environment and conservation. In fact these are areas that by and large I tend to agree quite a lot with the EU on!

One of the reasons is simple:-

EU Referendum: to be a sovereign power

Is well worth a full read. I hazard to comment on the politics directly, but my own idea is that Sovereignty is to do with three elements:-

• Land
• People
• Rules

The land will be here when we've all passed through, hopefully for the new/next people. People need space to live (same with wildlife). How we all organize that space is via our common rules. I like to think Sovereignty is therefore effectively using rules of some sort in some way to make the land and people better today and tomorrow than they previously were ie for all to flourish at once? In the past we've had "Divine Rule" then we've had "Monarch Rule" and today we have so called "Parliamentary Sovereignty" where instead of by Holy Book or Crown, Politicians Discuss amongst themselves how the rules are made. Tomorrow if we build it I think we'll have "Real Democracy" which is the "spring of water" from which Sovereignty will be more highly distributed amongst people discussing rules more with each other according to their direct knowledge more applied to themselves and across the land (and our seas of course) in this part of the world.

The measure of success will be how well run the UK and British Isles are compared to other parts of the world, more likely less fortunate (and wise) than our selves in such a case? One of the results here will be less requirement for large groups of people for protection (from other such large groups) and smaller higher quality groups of people administering themselves more locally more responsibly and specifically and hence beneficially.

So irrespective, I think that the EU as an idea is outdated, though it has some things that may work but are certainly open to more political debate: 
 
UK agriculture would be better off outside the EU at the Oxford Farming Conference January 2016

Fishing Speech

Environment Speech 

Particularly by the people who live and make a livelihood here and who lay claim to the benefit of their future generations too - which must include the consideration on how to look after the land and sea, also.

There's a lot of room for improvement here and indeed that does not mean throwing out what is already good such as the various international environmental regulations that the UK would need to continue to conform with and possibly participate with more directly out of the EU?

The final thing is that the current process of democracy itself seems full of flaws in politics and economics (the power of governments over peoples' money for example...). To come back to Sovereignty and quote Dr. RAE North:-

"And this is where The Harrogate Agenda comes in. The group that has been so careless of their powers, and so indifferent to the prospect of recovering them can hardly be trusted to safeguard them for all time, and not to repeat their give-away. Thus, it is we the people who must recover our sovereignty, wresting it from Parliament which has been so reluctant to use it on our behalf.

That is the back story. Parliament is sovereign, supposedly holding it trust for the people. But, in failing to exercise it, the people themselves must act, and demand the recovery of powers that Parliament has so carelessly given away. And then, with the horse firmly back in the stables, we must bolt the door.

We the people, on Thursday, must make a start in recovering our sovereignty – not from Brussels, but from Westminster. We the people are sovereign, and this week we have an opportunity to exercise it. And if we don't, we the people have only ourselves to blame."  

I think people remain ignorant and hence feel "powerless" to the bunch of politicians in Westminster, only because they choose to remain oblivious to the potential and possibility surrounding them everywhere: The UK is a fortunate part of the world and very hospitable and "green and pleasant", it just takes a few "good ideas" and some work by a lot of people and lots of small positive changes can add up to a lot of positive change: Something politicians always promise and never deliver to people: They can't, but people probably could if they thought about it and decided they wanted to.

The Betrayal Of Britains Fishing - Booklet

The Betrayal of Britain's Fishing to the European Union ~ John Ashworth

The Betrayal of Britain’s Fishing – Booklet now available

"Readers who appreciated John Ashworth’s excellent series of articles on the Common Fisheries Policy will be delighted to know that the eight pieces he wrote for this website have been edited into a single booklet, which is now available free of charge (although any contributions would be greatly welcomed).

If you live in near a fishing port, it will be a particularly useful booklet to distribute, but even if you don’t, what has happened to our fishing industry does not stand alone. This well-researched and hard-hitting account of the destruction of our fishing fleet by government ministers and civil servants epitomises everything that is wrong with our membership of the EU and provides a very powerful reason as to why we should vote to leave. Please contact admin [at] campaignforanindependentbritain [dot] org [dot] uk if you wish to order copies."

 
You can read the above booklet at the link provided or order a physical copy of the booklet by John Ashworth via The Campaign For An Independent Britain (CIB) again using the link or email contact address above.

I previously blogged about this subject and John Ashworth's work as it was being written up at CIB. There's a very very strong reason why it is one of the best works ever produced on Brexit or the EU and with respect to Fisheries as a Political Argument, possibly the best I have personally read. I think I am right in being able to successfully convey this reasoning via the efficacious illustration that I hope will be immensely valuable for framing and structuring conceptual understanding to the work and the factual research and details it's based upon and the core principles from which it continuously refers and repeats and rigorously demonstrates - in reality:-

Useful 'Thinking Framework' for John Ashworth's magnificent work

The Booklet is only 31 pages in total length including supplementary pages. Please take time to sit down and read it and think about it. If you do, you'll have, I'm absolutely sure and confident, understood the core arguments of the EU Referendum and Brexit as applied to a specific policy area: Fisheries. But the principles are transferable to all other policy areas; and hence it is an encapsulation of the complete argument - By reading this booklet you will have successfully learn the core or "kernel" of the political argument concerning the UK's Referendum on its EU membership and its alternative, Brexit; by which you will be informed enough to know how to vote either "Remain" or "Leave".

This booklet really is that valuable.

Many Thanks to John Ashworth for producing such a useful work.