Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly, why would the UK want to import products that are less safe than what is currently available.

It wouldn't necessarily be that they would want to but it may be a price they have to pay in order to get an agreement on another part of the deal.

UK want low tariff or tariff free rates on goods in to America, America says yes but you have to allow us to sell meat products in to UK.

While cheaper than UK sourced meats, these are produced under less regulation in the US than what exists in the UK meaning greater risk for consumers.

Market forces will likely mean that many will end up eating the US meats because they are more price conscious than quality conscious and so it becomes defacto acceptable that less safe products are more widely consumed.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly, why would the UK want to import products that are less safe than what is currently available.

Why is the US replacing current safeguards for food, aerospace, workplace and the environment with lower standards? Because those in power see it as a way to make themselves richer. Ditto for the UK.

I don't really understand the US talking about food standards as part of a deal, while at the same time talking about how the GFA must be protected.

They are mutually exclusive.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly, why would the UK want to import products that are less safe than what is currently available.

There's alot (maybe a majority) in the Conservative party that would I'd say.
They would no doubt argue the products will all be "safe enough" anyway. They are just removing overly strict regulations, getting rid of bureaucratic rules that are impeeding the magic of the invisible hand (stopping businesses from making more profits).
My memory of watching Conservative Euro-sceptics fulminating on the likes of Newsnight over the decades prior was that it always came back to evils of "Brussels Red Tape" for them, the Working Time Directive, the Common Agricultural Policy (and all the heavy regulation of food production that goes along with it) and the likes...In any case it creates a big problem for us even if the product standards are not provably less safe in specific cases, just different (and enforced, or not enforced as the case may be in a different way).

20silkcut

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Which is why it's better that they're out of the EU and we stay in. Also we need to become champions of the European project and drop the pretence of neutrality.

I have to say Sinn F seem to have some sort of weird blind-spot when it comes to neutrality -- they, of all people, should know just how damn difficult the British state could make it for Ireland yet they still mouth off about neutrality like we even have the capacity to defend it.

If UKIP in their current form turn out to be an electoral success ( not an outrageous possibility) and are indicative of where Britain is heading then Irish neutrality is out the window.

Am I right in saying the RAF are effectively the defenders of Irish airspace at the minute.

How would this country survive if we had to actually spend money on defending ourselves.

Neutrality whilst surrounded by friendly regimes has saved us a fortune.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

It wouldn't necessarily be that they would want to but it may be a price they have to pay in order to get an agreement on another part of the deal.

UK want low tariff or tariff free rates on goods in to America, America says yes but you have to allow us to sell meat products in to UK.

While cheaper than UK sourced meats, these are produced under less regulation in the US than what exists in the UK meaning greater risk for consumers.

Market forces will likely mean that many will end up eating the US meats because they are more price conscious than quality conscious and so it becomes defacto acceptable that less safe products are more widely consumed.

I don't see British farmers taking plans to import low grade food products lying down, could cause a huge consumer backlash if "less safe" produce was imported.

20silkcut

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't see British farmers taking plans to import low grade food products lying down, could cause a huge consumer backlash if "less safe" produce was imported.

British farmers are a very tiny lobby.
Remember the foot and mouth crisis where the disease was allowed run rampant in the U.K.
Ireland nearly came to a standstill.

An Ciarraioch

Rather topically in relation to food, the humble Lindt Easter egg exemplifies how European trade patterns will be affected by Brexit - a Swiss company makes the main egg in Italy, with mini-eggs in Germany, and the packaging for Ireland is done in London, presumably that would be done in Germany too in the event of no deal?

fly_agaric

Read yesterday that a joke candidate may run against Nigel Farage in the European elections.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lord-buckethead-reveals-plans-to-stand-against-nigel-farage-in-the-euro-elections-a4122341.html

I'm unsure if candidates like will help much (and may damage non Euro-sceptic candidates by fragmenting their vote even further).

I'm cynical and have doubts if people (in the UK) who will carry a snappy poster for an exciting fair-weather protest march, or sign a pointless internet petition will actually show up at the polling booth in larger numbers this year to do the boring plumbing job of voting.

You always just end up casting the ballot for dry individuals + parties you won't 100 % agree with, and in a PR election thinking quite negatively about the nut-jobs/incometents/liars that you want to keep out of power as opposed to those who you want to actively vote in. It's not exciting at all but is more important.

Polls seem to show that between the Conservatives, the single issue Brexiteers and the new look "alt right" style UKIP about 45-50 % of the seats the UK return will likely be quite virulently anti EU + disruptive (vs merely Euro-sceptic...).

There will likely be more anti-EU/populist/far right "politicians" in other countries returned for them to hook up with too + generate even more chaos.
I hope the more centrist politicians that are running things at the moment are not going to regret their cowardice not forcing the issue with the UK and bringing things to a resolution (of some sort) before the current EU elections.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

Read yesterday that a joke candidate may run against Nigel Farage in the European elections.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lord-buckethead-reveals-plans-to-stand-against-nigel-farage-in-the-euro-elections-a4122341.html

I'm unsure if candidates like will help much (and may damage non Euro-sceptic candidates by fragmenting their vote even further).

I'm cynical and have doubts if people (in the UK) who will carry a snappy poster for an exciting fair-weather protest march, or sign a pointless internet petition will actually show up at the polling booth in larger numbers this year to do the boring plumbing job of voting.

You always just end up casting the ballot for dry individuals + parties you won't 100 % agree with, and in a PR election thinking quite negatively about the nut-jobs/incometents/liars that you want to keep out of power as opposed to those who you want to actively vote in. It's not exciting at all but is more important.

Polls seem to show that between the Conservatives, the single issue Brexiteers and the new look "alt right" style UKIP about 45-50 % of the seats the UK return will likely be quite virulently anti EU + disruptive (vs merely Euro-sceptic...).

There will likely be more anti-EU/populist/far right "politicians" in other countries returned for them to hook up with too + generate even more chaos.
I hope the more centrist politicians that are running things at the moment are not going to regret their cowardice not forcing the issue with the UK and bringing things to a resolution (of some sort) before the current EU elections.

Could be used as a bargaining chip in the next round talks between the UK & EU to ease back a bit on the Backstop (sufficient to get unionists onboard)to avoid the possibility of having such a disruptive force in the EU parliament.


The EU may see that a small step back may be a price worth paying to avoid months or years of disruptive behaver.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

fly_agaric wrote: »

Read yesterday that a joke candidate may run against Nigel Farage in the European elections.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lord-buckethead-reveals-plans-to-stand-against-nigel-farage-in-the-euro-elections-a4122341.html

I'm unsure if candidates like will help much (and may damage non Euro-sceptic candidates by fragmenting their vote even further).

I'm cynical and have doubts if people (in the UK) who will carry a snappy poster for an exciting fair-weather protest march, or sign a pointless internet petition will actually show up at the polling booth in larger numbers this year to do the boring plumbing job of voting.

You always just end up casting the ballot for dry individuals + parties you won't 100 % agree with, and in a PR election thinking quite negatively about the nut-jobs/incometents/liars that you want to keep out of power as opposed to those who you want to actively vote in. It's not exciting at all but is more important.

Polls seem to show that between the Conservatives, the single issue Brexiteers and the new look "alt right" style UKIP about 45-50 % of the seats the UK return will likely be quite virulently anti EU + disruptive (vs merely Euro-sceptic...).

There will likely be more anti-EU/populist/far right "politicians" in other countries returned for them to hook up with too + generate even more chaos.
I hope the more centrist politicians that are running things at the moment are not going to regret their cowardice not forcing the issue with the UK and bringing things to a resolution (of some sort) before the current EU elections.

Could be used as a bargaining chip in the next round talks between the UK & EU to ease back a bit on the Backstop (sufficient to get unionists onboard)to avoid the possibility of having such a disruptive force in the EU parliament.


The EU may see that a small step back may be a price worth paying to avoid months or years of disruptive behaver.

The DUP will always be disruptive.

Leroy42

People seem to be making the mistake the the average person will make a choice on standards, that they will not accept chlorinated chicken or whatever.

But it won't be the individual consumer that makes the choice, not unless they have the money to make the choice.

The 'choice' will be made by the NHS, by schools, by company canteens, by food providers at sports events. And then when price pressure forces the likes of Tesco etc to start competing with other supermarkets they will label the food 'produced in the UK' and then the consumer will have no choice.

It is a fallacy, spread by the likes of JRM, that people will have a choice. Do 'working families' in Sunderland really make much choice between organic free range feed chicken or the normal chicken in Tesco's? Maybe some do, but the majority don't except for maybe special occasions.

reslfj

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU may see ....

The EU27 is sick and tired of the UK's way to negotiate, without any stated goal, without any agreement and with negotiators that hasn't even understood or even read the basics of the negotiation agenda.

So don't play hardball. To you it's "Aye, Aye" - you may even try "Aye, Aye, Sir" - or by all means head for the cliff.

After all "Survival of the fittest" is an old English discovery.

Lars

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see British farmers taking plans to import low grade food products lying down, could cause a huge consumer backlash if "less safe" produce was imported.

British farmers will have a hell of a lot more to worry about when their CAP subsidies disappear and aren't replaced by Westminster handouts. And again, if you want to see how effective a farmers' lobby is in the Brave New World outside the EU, look at American farmers. Hammered by Trump's tariff war with China, they were promised a bailout to make up for loss of earnings, then the same Trump shut the government down so the farmers couldn't draw down funds for buying stock and seeds. Small farmers in the US are going out of business at a rapid rate, with their farms being bought up by ... you've guessed it, corporate "farmers" and pension-funds - the same "1%" that already own half the land in England.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

People seem to be making the mistake the the average person will make a choice on standards, that they will not accept chlorinated chicken or whatever.

But it won't be the individual consumer that makes the choice, not unless they have the money to make the choice.

The 'choice' will be made by the NHS, by schools, by company canteens, by food providers at sports events. And then when price pressure forces the likes of Tesco etc to start competing with other supermarkets they will label the food 'produced in the UK' and then the consumer will have no choice.

It is a fallacy, spread by the likes of JRM, that people will have a choice. Do 'working families' in Sunderland really make much choice between organic free range feed chicken or the normal chicken in Tesco's? Maybe some do, but the majority don't except for maybe special occasions.

Consumer choice is a myth.

If you eat out, there is no doubt that much of the dodgy food is supplied through the catering trade. Chicken and beef sold through the main supermarkets in Ireland is all Bord Bia sourced, so where do the non Bord Bia sourced meats go? The wholesale food market that supplies the likes of hospitals, restaurants, pubs, etc. And then there is factory produced 'convenience' processed food.

The UK have been responsible for Mad Cow disease, foot and mouth, and plenty of other food scandals all because they are in search of cheap food. They invented the abominable Chorley Wood loaf, where the indigestible bread is produced in hours instead of days.

If there is way to make food cheap, then the UK will find it and sell it to unsuspecting shoppers. We suffer from processed food that is cheap and poisonous. That is why so many are obese.

Spanish Eyes

Even if the Brexit Party cleans up in the EP elections, I still doubt that a UK Brexit will happen.

It is really just a gut feeling, and others may disagree with me. But Parliament has so far rejected the WA and No Deal. Wonder what's next so.

Anyway, to me, the worst outcome for Farage and co. is a full on Brexit, their cause will be over then surely.

CelticRambler

fly_agaric wrote: »

Polls seem to show that between the Conservatives, the single issue Brexiteers and the new look "alt right" style UKIP about 45-50 % of the seats the UK return will likely be quite virulently anti EU + disruptive (vs merely Euro-sceptic...).

There will likely be more anti-EU/populist/far right "politicians" in other countries returned for them to hook up with too + generate even more chaos.
I hope the more centrist politicians that are running things at the moment are not going to regret their cowardice not forcing the issue with the UK and bringing things to a resolution (of some sort) before the current EU elections.

This is a concern that I share, and it's probably the one reason above all others that I would want to see the UK not take part in the EP elections, or be gone out of the parliament pretty soon afterwards.

But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we will (or "need to") see the break-up of the United Kingdom within a decade or so. The UK has become a toxic and dysfunctional alliance of discontent constituent countries. Two (arguably three, or even four, if we consider Devon-Cornwall as a legitimate statelet) have a clear national identity, and a path towards independence marked out.

The problem is England; all the problems are "England". If it was a reasonable proposal to break up the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, then there is no reason not to work towards the break-up of the (no-longer) United Kingdom. NI can re-unite with the RoI (precedent = East Germany); Scotland, Wales and Cornwall can become independent and re-join the EU in due course (precedent = Slovenia, Lithuania) and England ... well, England will probably be the Serbia of the Northwestern Isles until they come to their senses.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

Could be used as a bargaining chip in the next round talks between the UK & EU to ease back a bit on the Backstop (sufficient to get unionists onboard)to avoid the possibility of having such a disruptive force in the EU parliament.


The EU may see that a small step back may be a price worth paying to avoid months or years of disruptive behaver.

There is a (small) chance that the EU position towards the UK/Brexit could be shifted in ways that would damage Ireland (and the EU itself) after the elections. I don't think any threats from the UK or the UK electing more wreckers could work to cause that. Some larger realignment of the EU parliament and changes in the EU commission composition would be needed.
It would need an exceptional result for all the right wing anti-EU populists around Europe (as well as in the UK) to cause it though, and it looks unlikely at the moment going on polls.

https://ig.ft.com/european-parliament-election-polls/

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Post deleted. Please don't just paste videos here. Link was broken in any case.

From this depressing Irish Times article today in Thatcher's hometown of Grantham:

“It’s not just poorer people who voted to leave; it goes right through society. And especially those of us who are actually quite bright. The Remainers go on as if we somehow didn’t know what we were doing.”- Marietta King, chairman of the local Ukip branch and a member of the party’s national executive committee

Eh, Marietta, all the evidence - and I do mean all - very strongly indicates that people who voted for Brexit were anything - and I do mean anything - but "bright". Rees Mogg, Johnson, and Farage, however, were all sufficiently bright enough to position themselves as proponents of a Brexit ideal, rather than take up positions in government where they'd have to try and implement something approaching their ideal - a task which they knew could never be fulfilled. So, yeah, "bright" in that sort of short-term, self-protecting, populist opportunist way. At any rate, put up one, real-world, undisputed "on balance" benefit of Brexit in action. Just one.

The Brexiteers are, to a person it seems, sticking by uttering these "It will be better" claims, even when they know that each and every one of the claims have been blown out of the water by facts/realpolitik/awareness of British dependency. The anti-Brexit crowd are giving arguments, all the Brexiteers can give are assertions that do not stand up to any even superficial examination.

I don't know if anybody else is following it but The New York Times coverage of Brexit has been consistently damning and acerbic about its abject stupidity. There's almost universal agreement that the Brexiteers are harking back to imperial glory. The comments section of each article has bristled with contempt and derision at the English for what they are doing.

Take this article from the multi-Pulitzer Prize winning Thomas L. Friedman (and then click on the 1791 comments in the right-hand corner for a taster):

Thomas L. Friedman, 'The United Kingdom Has Gone Mad:The problem with holding out for a perfect Brexit plan is that you can’t fix stupid.'

or this:

James Meek, 'Dissecting the Dreams of Brexit Britain'

or this:

Sam Byers, 'Britain is drowning itself in nostalgia'

Also, this very informative article on which EU areas would suffer most from a no-deal Brexit:

Where Europe Would Be Hurt Most by a No-Deal Brexit

Also, if, as many have said, the quid pro quo of a US deal with Britain is an acceptance of inferior US food standards, how are we going to stop shops/butchers/supermarkets/restaurants in Dublin or Cork from bringing that cheaper product into our food chain from the North? That's a really serious issue, and not just for farmers in the republic. Let Brexit Britain England knock itself out with chlorinated chicken and chlorinated everything else but our food chain's health better not be brought down with them.

backspin.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know if anybody else is following it but The New York Times coverage of Brexit has been consistently damning and acerbic about its abject stupidity. There's almost universal agreement that the Brexiteers are harking back to imperial glory. The comments section of each article has bristled with contempt and derision at the English for what they are doing.

Take this article from the multi-Pulitzer Prize winning Thomas L. Friedman (and then click on the 1791 comments in the right-hand corner for a taster):

Thomas L. Friedman, 'The United Kingdom Has Gone Mad:The problem with holding out for a perfect Brexit plan is that you can’t fix stupid.'

or this:

James Meek, 'Dissecting the Dreams of Brexit Britain'

or this:

Sam Byers, 'Britain is drowning itself in nostalgia'

Also, this very informative article on which EU areas would suffer most from a no-deal Brexit:

Where Europe Would Be Hurt Most by a No-Deal Brexit

A pretty good comment from the NY Times article.

'What I don't get is Ms. May keeps banging on about failing Democracy if Brexit doesn't happen. A vote that was non-binding, that was powered by really huge lies (that the other side admitted almost at once after the vote) and had almost no detail. Further, apparently, Democracy is also shattered if the British people take time to hold a second vote now that there are facts and details. Who knew that British Democracy with such a delicate flower. It managed to survive two world wars, but a second vote on a world-changing-issue is just too much...'

Enzokk

So Brexit seems to be going well within the Tory party:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1120445181969481733

You remember that plan that has been shown to not be feasible or the technology be available and that has been rejected? Let's go for that once more and maybe the EU will compromise again at the 100th last minute this week.

iguana

murphaph wrote: »

I think the EU's (especially Tusk's) policy of "containment" and damage limitation is the correct one, for now. We must see what sort of people the UK electorate sends to Brussels to represent them (I'm almost certain they will do so) and then react accordingly. If the British electorate send a bunch of Brexit Party MEPs we should give them what they want and show them the door as soon as we are moderately ready. If they have a good turnout and elect mostly pro-EU MEPs who work with us then we should clearly see that as a sign or even a cry for help and look at further delay of Brexit if requested to further assist in its death of natural causes.

Hopefully enough people in the UK actually realise that there is an election for MEPs that they can and should vote on. A totally eye opening thread here on how utterly clueless the British population is about the democracy of the EU.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3557057-eu-elections-how-to-vote

boggerman1

iguana wrote: »

Hopefully enough people in the UK actually realise that there is an election for MEPs that they can and should vote on. A totally eye opening thread here on how utterly clueless the British population is about the democracy of the EU.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3557057-eu-elections-how-to-vote

It's fair depressing reading them comments.from not knowing if they had mep's to did I actually vote for EU elections while also voting in the last local elections.the British education system has a lot to answer for,that the rag newspapers' have led to this sort of blindness and stupidity

Tell me how

Enzokk wrote: »

You remember that plan that has been shown to not be feasible or the technology be available and that has been rejected? Let's go for that once more and maybe the EU will compromise again at the 100th last minute this week.

The events in Derry of last week mean that anyone advocating a frictionless issue free border at this point is blatantly saying that they do not care about the safety or lives of people in the North.

iguana

boggerman1 wrote: »

It's fair depressing reading them comments.from not knowing if they had mep's to did I actually vote for EU elections while also voting in the last local elections.the British education system has a lot to answer for,that the rag newspapers' have led to this sort of blindness and stupidity

I was open mouthed reading some of the comments. And at least those posters are for the most part people trying to educate themselves now. The sad thing is that I suspect huge swathes of the population are far more clueless and will continue to be.

EKRIUQ

Now that they adverted one of the most influential decisions since world war 2, do you think it's just go play out like next summer holidays, back mid September bit of a panic until October 31st and then another extension.

Sam Russell

EKRIUQ wrote: »

Now that they adverted one of the most influential decisions since world war 2, do you think it's just go play out like next summer holidays, back mid September bit of a panic until October 31st and then another extension.

I do not think there will be another extension.

Next October, there will be a new Commission, with a new Commission President. Also there will be a new European Parliament, with a new EP President. I am not sure whether Michel Barnier will still be in place. The European Council will be the same though.

So, the players will be different on the EU side. The rules may also be different - for example, will the Brits be asked to leave the room for any discussions re the budget, etc.

I think, depending on the make up of the UK MEPs, it could well be - Revoke or Good bye, since the WA will still not be ratified. Of course, it could well be GE time or 2nd vote.