Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

SantaCruz

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`m British and only look at the express brexit articles for comedy value because no one takes that rag seriously!..Do they??:pac:

Clearly millions of Brits do, sadly.

I honestly can't believe how deliberately obtuse people can can though - is anybody other than the blessed Cartman arguing that getting rid of regulation was not one of the driving forces for Brexit going back decades?

Timberrrrrrrr

SantaCruz wrote: »

Clearly"b] millions of Brits do,[/b] sadly.

I honestly can't believe how deliberately obtuse people can can though - is anybody other than the blessed Cartman arguing that getting rid of regulation was not one of the driving forces for Brexit going back decades?

Daily Express sales figures circa 300,000, hardly "millions "

Eric Cartman

SantaCruz wrote: »

Clearly millions of Brits do, sadly.

I honestly can't believe how deliberately obtuse people can can though - is anybody other than the blessed Cartman arguing that getting rid of regulation was not one of the driving forces for Brexit going back decades?

I havent argued that it wasnt, that was always one of the big promises, and the reason many wealthy business owners voted for it.

My argument is just that maybe they won't completely cast off all food safety regulations just because brussels isnt watching and nobody has any evidence to say they specifically will.

SantaCruz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Daily Express sales figures circa 300,000, hardly "millions "

That would be paper copies of the Daily Express, right?

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/the-sun-overtakes-mail-online-to-become-uks-biggest-online-newspaper-brand-latest-comscore-data-shows/

The figures are from 2018, but should be reasonably close to today. The Express sees over 12 million monthly unique visitors. For context, that's three times what the Times gets.

SantaCruz

Eric Cartman wrote: »

My argument is just that maybe they won't completely cast off all food safety regulations just because brussels isnt watching and nobody has any evidence to say they specifically will.

Well then we are in agreement, because as I said initially, food will still be regulated. It is the nature of the regulation that is at stake.

Will it be less regulated, more permissively regulated? I'd suggest he evidence - from the words of the power brokers, the Brexit backers, the Brexit politicians, the anti-EU thinktanks etc. etc. suggest that will be the case.

And that's before we get into external pressures from potential trade partners like the USA.

CelticRambler

Eric Cartman wrote: »

My argument is just that maybe they won't completely cast off all food safety regulations just because brussels isnt watching and nobody has any evidence to say they specifically will.

No-one has said they'll cast off all food safety regulations, but that doesn't mean they won't weaken oversight as part of a trade deal with, for example, the US; or that they'll downgrade surveillance measures as a result of Brexit-related recruitment difficulties.

You're arguing that things won't be catastrophic because the British aren't deliberately aiming for the worst case scenario; the rest of us are pointing out that the EU deliberately aims for the best possible case and the British (in the form of PM Johnson) have quite specifically said that they do wish to deviate from the regulations that achieve that objective.

davedanon

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and chlorine washed bagged salads are on our supermarket shelves , but ofcourse everyone will completely go mad after brexit.

As has been pointed out already, the issue isn't the chlorine-washing per se. The difference between salad ingredients and raw chicken, in food-poisoning terms, is like the difference between a pea-shooter and a bazooka. The issue is that chlorine-washing with chicken is seen as concealing unsafe hygiene practices earlier in the food-preparation chain.

Igotadose

CelticRambler wrote: »

No-one has said they'll cast off all food safety regulations, but that doesn't mean they won't weaken oversight as part of a trade deal with, for example, the US; or that they'll downgrade surveillance measures as a result of Brexit-related recruitment difficulties.

The worst thing about Brexit is that it changes the status quo. The question is, is it for the better, or the worse? Food requirements will change because treaties will be created from some basis, probably from scratch, and end up somewhere.

Does anyone believe that the treaties that result will be better than they are right now in effect today? If so, why? Because there's been ZERO fact published to date to that effect by HMG, who are responsible for their negotiation.

It's really simple. Chlorinated chicken's a metaphor for uncertainty.

Plus, once things change, the carry-on effect is unknown, in attitude, laws and future negotiations. What happens if, for example, the number of EU migrants to the UK plummets, will the natives take on the jobs of, say, picking fruit? Driving cabs? Working in hotels?

Will that drive prices up? If the UK's fishing rights are further eroded during negotiations, because that's traded off for financial services opportunity, will fishing cease to be a viable industry in the UK?

RobMc59

Igotadose wrote: »

The worst thing about Brexit is that it changes the status quo. The question is, is it for the better, or the worse? Food requirements will change because treaties will be created from some basis, probably from scratch, and end up somewhere.

Does anyone believe that the treaties that result will be better than they are right now in effect today? If so, why? Because there's been ZERO fact published to date to that effect by HMG, who are responsible for their negotiation.

It's really simple. Chlorinated chicken's a metaphor for uncertainty.

Plus, once things change, the carry-on effect is unknown, in attitude, laws and future negotiations. What happens if, for example, the number of EU migrants to the UK plummets, will the natives take on the jobs of, say, picking fruit? Driving cabs? Working in hotels?

Will that drive prices up? If the UK's fishing rights are further eroded during negotiations, because that's traded off for financial services opportunity, will fishing cease to be a viable industry in the UK?

Instead of migrants coming from the EU they will come from further afield which is a risky strategy by the UK as EU citizens 'buy into' the whole thing whereas others probably couldn't care less.
With fishing likely to become part of negotiations current arrangements will probably continue(ie:EU fishing within UK waters will continue)so grand statements of taking back control of our fishing territory are false.
The US have various other methods of cleaning and disinfecting food and food production areas which are very worrying.

threeball

RobMc59 wrote: »

Instead of migrants coming from the EU they will come from further afield which is a risky strategy by the UK as EU citizens 'buy into' the whole thing whereas others probably couldn't care less.
With fishing likely to become part of negotiations current arrangements will probably continue(ie:EU fishing within UK waters will continue)so grand statements of taking back control of our fishing territory are false.
The US have various other methods of cleaning and disinfecting food and food production areas which are very worrying.

The way they farm beef is also highly problematic and unethical. Fed completely unnatural products, sick animals that go to ground just pushed into a corner with machinery to die. Fed all sorts of hormones. Its all about profit.

cryptocurrency

DubInMeath wrote: »

Why would an Irish person be interested in attending such an event other than having a first hand look at turkeys celebrating Christmas?

Why do you speak for all Irish people and can't you imagine there is plenty of Irish people who don't like the EU

timetogo1

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why do you speak for all Irish people and can't you imagine there is plenty of Irish people who don't like the EU

Plenty? I suppose you're right.
Thankfully they're in the minority. No matter what the cause you can find plenty of people on both sides.

cryptocurrency

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why do you speak for all Irish people and can't you imagine there is plenty of Irish people who don't like the EU

Where did I claim to speak for all Irish people?

Why would someone who wants Ireland to leave want to go over to England for a celebration?

By the way still waiting for your evidence to back up your claim that you can't avail of the public health service because you have private medical insurance.

Eric Cartman

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why do you speak for all Irish people and can't you imagine there is plenty of Irish people who don't like the EU

I think there are plenty of people in Ireland who dont like what the EU has become but we dont have the national sense of imprealism or the perceived superiority complex to actually dare try go it alone.

I do not think an ‘irexit’ vote would ever succeed and Im very thankful for that. I would however count myself as a euroskeptic and were there a vote to somehow convert the EU back to its EEC levels of influence, oversight and function I would champion it front and centre as would a lot of people, thats a vite that might pass but were not full of ourselves enough to overlook the disasterous reality of leaving.

FrancieBrady

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think there are plenty of people in Ireland who dont like what the EU has become but we dont have the national sense of imprealism or the perceived superiority complex to actually dare try go it alone.

I do not think an ‘irexit’ vote would ever succeed and Im very thankful for that. I would however count myself as a euroskeptic and were there a vote to somehow convert the EU back to its EEC levels of influence, oversight and function I would champion it front and centre as would a lot of people, thats a vite that might pass but were not full of ourselves enough to overlook the disasterous reality of leaving.

Can you itemise what it is you don't like about the EU's 'levels of influence'?

I.E. Influences that we are not involved with formulating and legislating for, ourselves?

The UK was not some passive victim of an evil EU...it was largely and equally responsible for the EU being what it is. The were the drivers of the project in many respects. One of the last major things it did before the 2016 referendum was to block reform of CAP because their wealthy farmers would lose out.

Tony EH

RobMc59 wrote: »

Instead of migrants coming from the EU they will come from further afield which is a risky strategy by the UK as EU citizens 'buy into' the whole thing whereas others probably couldn't care less.

Anyone that thinks that inward migration will end as a result of Brexit is a fool and if they voted to leave based (even partly) on that, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

The vast majority of immigration into Britain comes from outside the EU and the EU has no control over it. So, people coming from India, Pakistan, Africa, Russia, The Ukraine, China, etc, will still be coming. Probably in greater numbers too. Plus, those people are far more likely to stay in Britain than EU migrants, many of which tend to move on after a period.

The Right in Britain love cheap labour, it drives down wages and conditions and increases profit for owners. Meanwhile their voter base dislike foreigners coming into their country. It's a triumph of manipulation. So the Tories and other right wingers may bang on about mass immigration and being "swamped" etc, but the reality is is that Britain has been setting the vast majority of the policy for years. Not the EU.

davedanon

Yes, it was Britain's decision alone to allow in loads of Eastern Europeans, mainly Poles. Nothing to do with the EU. Also, the likes of former colonies such as India, with whom Boris hopes to do wonderful trade deals, have a number 1 topic on their agenda: immigration to the UK.

davedanon

davedanon wrote: »

Yes, it was Britain's decision alone to allow in loads of Eastern Europeans, mainly Poles. Nothing to do with the EU.

so nothing at all to do with the free movement of people thing that is one of the core tenants of the EU?

davedanon

Aegir wrote: »

so nothing at all to do with the free movement of people thing that is one of the core tenants of the EU?

Not sure, but I'm pretty sure they consciously decided to try and attract people in, more so than other countries.

SantaCruz

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why do you speak for all Irish people and can't you imagine there is plenty of Irish people who don't like the EU

Well yes, you do have the remnants of the Catholic far right in that camp. Nice folks.

SantaCruz

Aegir wrote: »

so nothing at all to do with the free movement of people thing that is one of the core tenants of the EU?

The same free movement that allows millions of British pensioners retire in Spain and Portugal?

Or the *perception* of free movement shovelled down their throats for a generation by a despicable (foreign-owned) right-wing press?

davedanon

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why do you speak for all Irish people and can't you imagine there is plenty of Irish people who don't like the EU

Since we're all offering our opinions without proof, my what I reckon is that there's a vast majority of people who are utterly indifferent to the EU, with a small number actively in favour, and an equally small number who share your views. Overall, if you sat people down and forced them to express an opinion, I'd say a large majority would be in favour of the EU and us staying in it - but the conversation might go something like this:

"Ehhhh, dunno. I suppose it's alright, like. Never really thought about it one way or another..."

joseywhales

SantaCruz wrote: »

Well yes, you do have the remnants of the Catholic far right in that camp. Nice folks.

Wouldn't a right wing Catholic want closer ties to the Vatican and Europe?

PopePalpatine

joseywhales wrote: »

Wouldn't a right wing Catholic want closer ties to the Vatican and Europe?

'Member Coir and their spiel about EU-imposed "abortionplexes"? I 'member.

davedanon

joseywhales wrote: »

Wouldn't a right wing Catholic want closer ties to the Vatican and Europe?

Fascists gonna fascist.

fly_agaric

cryptocurrency wrote:

Why do you speak for all Irish people and can't you imagine there is plenty of Irish people who don't like the EU?

timetogo1 wrote: »

Plenty? I suppose you're right.
Thankfully they're in the minority. No matter what the cause you can find plenty of people on both sides.

No, he (she?) is not right on this - yet more "Tales from the crypto".

The EU is popular here

(press blurb based on a year 2018 Eurobarometer survey)

Eurobarometer: 85 per cent support for EU in Ireland

Below results from the Spring 2019 Eurobarometer:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/files/be-heard/eurobarometer/2019/closer-to-the-citizens-closer-to-the-ballot/report/en-eurobarometer-2019.pdf

Chart on p.16 of the PDF report - Generally speaking do you think that Ireland's membership of the EU is a _____ thing:

A Good (thing): 83 %
A Bad (thing): 3 %
Neither a good or a bad (thing): 12 %
Don't know: 2 %

It is at 60 % "bad/neither" and 28 % "good" for our neighbours in the UK so quite a chasm.

A good measure of public agreement with positions like kow-towing to the DUP/Tory Brexiters during the withdrawal negotiations and agreeing with Brexit/promoting Irexit (as we see in posts on this thread) would be support for candidate with these views in the EU elections in Dublin.

It was 2,539 votes in a poll of 379,292 (0.67 %). The electorate was 884,118.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/european-election/dublin

SantaCruz

joseywhales wrote: »

Wouldn't a right wing Catholic want closer ties to the Vatican and Europe?

Why? What does the Vatican have to do with the EU?

VinLieger

Aegir wrote: »

so nothing at all to do with the free movement of people thing that is one of the core tenants of the EU?

Your talking about the immigration controls afforded them by the EU they refused to make use of under succesive governments?

davedanon

"Tales from the crypto"

hahaha

fly_agaric

Aegir wrote: »

so nothing at all to do with the free movement of people thing that is one of the core tenants of the EU?

The other very large & wealthy EU countries (Germany, France) had transition periods of 7 years (so the accession states would have had full freedom of movement only since about 2011*, but of course Poland etc. were a lot wealthier than when they joined the EU in 2004 by then).

*(Going by numbers on this wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union)

I think only UK, Ireland and Sweden had the "open door" full EU freedom of movement from day 1 so they had a large surge of immigration of young people who wanted "out" right away (and the rest is history for the UK).