[Politics] Brexit

[Westdene Seagull]

Well done, you scored a point. As I said, I'm retired so it doesn't affect me.

Nowt to do with 'scoring a point' and everything to do with your constant parroting of "we have a veto, we have a veto, we have a veto". Not on these directives we didn't.... obviously as we're leaving we can ignore them .... and that doesn't mean I think they were bad directives.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Yes, yes , waffle, waffle, idealist rhetoric. Rhubarb.
It was declared advisory before the vote. It should have remained so. Those are the facts . Anything further you add is irrelevant drivel.

And not allowing my opinion to be shouted down by the likes of you is not being closed minded . It’s sticking to my principles.

I answered with civility. And I thought it was leavers who were 'thick' etc. Have a good evening.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Nowt to do with 'scoring a point' and everything to do with your constant parroting of "we have a veto, we have a veto, we have a veto". Not on these directives we didn't.... obviously as we're leaving we can ignore them .... and that doesn't mean I think they were bad directives.

What is it that we cannot veto? Please explain how the new working time directive will differ from the previous one in 2004? Instead of whining about constant parroting, why not offer something to contribute to the thread that we can actually discuss.
Is it a good thing or bad thing?

 

[The Clamp]

I answered with civility. And I thought it was leavers who were 'thick' etc. Have a good evening.

You called me closed minded!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

It doesn't matter what politicians say or put on leaflets. The only thing that is legal is legislation and the Referendum Act 2015 said it was advisory.
Just last week the Court of Appeal ruled that if the referendum had been binding, it could've been declared corrupt and illegal.
The only thing that saved it was because it was advisory, so on that point you haven't got a prayer.

First thanks for the politeness of your post. Second, please can you show me a link to the Court of Appeal ruling please?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Asked if he can guarantee no-one will die as result of consequences of no-deal Brexit, Matt Hancock says 'we don't use word guarantee in NHS'


More lols

 

[Stat Brother]

TB you're just as bad at the digs. So come on then which employment laws was I talking about ?

And my point was that it should be OUR governments choice to implement employment rights not enforced on us by the EU.

The way this mess is panning out that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

First thanks for the politeness of your post. Second, please can you show me a link to the Court of Appeal ruling please?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...t-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-leave-electoral-commission-rules-a8806331.html

This also explains why the politicians were in such a hurry to invoke Article 50 (albeit delayed by Gina Miller's court case saying the government couldn't go ahead without Parliament's votes)
Theresa May's QC admitted she knew that Vote Leave had broken the law.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Yes, I believe a united Ireland is a good thing ( regardless of Brexit - it would also aid Brexit obviously ). Talks with the EU should have been harder ..... with a hard nosed negociator not the soft politicians we used. We should have told the EU what the timetable was .... not the other way round. And if they didn't like it then it would have been the two fingered salute. I assume you haven't watched the BBC programme on the last ten years of the EU to see how arrogant and flippant they are with democracy ? I have an admiration for Tusk and wish he was on our side ..... if only we'd have someone like him on our side then everything would have probably been different. As for the way forward ..... May's deal vs No Deal ..... bring on no deal.

1.) Have a government led by someone who campaigned to leave and actually believes leaving the EU is a good idea (A majority in cabinet also)

2.) Have an agreed position on our negotiating aims and goals and stick to it.

3.) Only trigger article 50 when we are ready.

4.) Make serious preparations from day one for a no deal scenario including allocating ££

5.) Don't call a General Election halfway through the process

Not saying we would have achieved everything we wanted or exited smoothly but we could hardly be in a worse position than we are now.

Thanks for your honest replies on what you would have done differently. You both seem to think that 'better' negotiators would have got the EU to let us 'cherry pick' more of the benefits. (Unsurprisingly, I would disagree and can't see anything further that the EU would have compromised on given a harder stance from Britain, as I can't see that they would have compromised on the principles that they have insisted they stick to all along.)

To [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] - Which leave campaigner do you believe should have led the government and how far should our 'no deal' planning have gone ? Should we have built the lorry parks, set up customs posts in NI and commissioned the IT systems to handle a 'no deal' from the very beginning (because it would obviously need long term investment and planning) regardless of the progress of talks ?

And to [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] - Do you still believe that we should go 'no deal' over TMs deal in 23 days time knowing what you now know ?

 

[melias shoes]

Utter, utter, utter bullshit.

Seriously - probably the wrongest post in a million-page thread full of wrongness.

You haven't the first idea EXACTLY what the other 17,399,999 people voted for. Not a clue.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...t-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-leave-electoral-commission-rules-a8806331.html

This also explains why the politicians were in such a hurry to invoke Article 50 (albeit delayed by Gina Miller's court case saying the government couldn't go ahead without Parliament's votes)
Theresa May's QC admitted she knew that Vote Leave had broken the law.

Thanks for the links. I can't find any other recent reports from mainstream press though. Just as I would doubt the slant on Brexit by pro Brexit papers, I will also regard these articles as biased as they are both from extremely Remain media organisations. I wonder why the Guardian hasn't reported this since December?

However, I accept the irony of the situation that if that is indeed the case as reported by the court, then the non legal nature of the referendum may have saved us all from another cursed referendum.

 

[Stat Brother]

Thanks for your honest replies on what you would have done differently. You both seem to think that 'better' negotiators would have got the EU to let us 'cherry pick' more of the benefits. (Unsurprisingly, I would disagree and can't see anything further that the EU would have compromised on given a harder stance from Britain, as I can't see that they would have compromised on the principles that they have insisted they stick to all along.)

To [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] - Which leave campaigner do you believe should have led the government and how far should our 'no deal' planning have gone ? Should we have built the lorry parks, set up customs posts in NI and commissioned the IT systems to handle a 'no deal' from the very beginning (because it would obviously need long term investment and planning) regardless of the progress of talks ?

And to [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] - Do you still believe that we should go 'no deal' over TMs deal in 23 days time knowing what you now know ?

A few months ago (so forgive my sketchiness) 5-Live were interviewing one of the big-wig football agents.
As an aside they asked him what he'd have done differently over sorting out this Brexit deal.

Everything he said sounded incredibly plausible and completely at odds with how the government has gone about the deal.

His main takeaway was he'd have highlighted the main sticking point, in this case the border, and made that deal.
Whatever and however long it took he'd have made that work for all parties, then used that as the framework for all negotiations going forward.

He felt everything else would have fallen into place because everybody knew exactly where they stood and understood each other well enough to cover all the rest of the give and take.


Instead we've had bravado, fudge, all change, stiff upper lip, arrogance, all change again, now panic.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A few months ago (so forgive my sketchiness) 5-Live were interviewing one of the big-wig football agents.
As an aside they asked him what he'd have done differently over sorting out this Brexit deal.

Everything he said sounded incredibly plausible and completely at odds with how the government has gone about the deal.

His main takeaway was he'd have highlighted the main sticking point, in this case the border, and made that deal.
Whatever and however long it took he'd have made that work for all parties, then used that as the framework for all negotiations going forward.

He felt everything else would have fallen into place because everybody knew exactly where they stood and understood each other well enough to cover all the rest of the give and take.


Instead we've had bravado, fudge, all change, stiff upper lip, arrogance, all change again, now panic.

And more and more votes. It's ironic that if May thinks she's going to lose, she moves the goalposts. Contempt of Parliament and a minority government and still she rules the roost. She is the problem.

[tweet]1103399477728165888[/tweet]

 

[ManOfSussex]

 

[Stat Brother]

Leave means:-

{with object} Allow or cause to remain.

‘the parts he disliked he would alter and the parts he didn't dislike he'd leave’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/leave

 

[Thunder Bolt]

View attachment 105374

Yes, ledbydonkeys are posting all these false promises from VoteLeave all around the country on big billboards.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Yes, ledbydonkeys are posting all these false promises from VoteLeave all around the country on big billboards.

View attachment 105377

I sincerely hope that they are also publicising the huge number of mistruths told by the remain campaign as well. I thought both campaigns were rife with exaggeration, didn't you?

 

[clapham_gull]

What's everyone's problem with chlorine washed chicken?

Many of the salad bags in the supermarket are chlorine washed but I don't see anybody complaining about them

It's not eating the chlorine that's the problem. It's the belief that it masks unhygienic / illegal practices in the supply chain.

Put in another way, the ban on chlorine in the EU is there to ensure the farmers abide by the rules. No one in Brussels is worried about you eating chlorine, it's eating what the chlorine has been used (or attempted) to wash off.

If you look at USA regulations they allow levels of all sort of nasties that are currently not allowed. The chlorine washing may be that not efficient.

There isn't any debate regarding what they want to export will be of lower quality. The only debate is whether the consumers will er.. "swallow it"

It's the same with beef from Australia. Yes it will be cheaper but will be full of hormones which are currently banned.

The low/no regulation brigade (i.e. Rees Mogg) think this is all fantastic, because it's all about consumer choice and not meddling Governments. For them Brexit is simply a means to an end.

He has taken the idea of the "individual" to an extreme end and quite obviously views British Companies as nasty socialist collectives.

If you are a farmer or a manufacturer who is currently benefiting from tariffs applied to non-EU goods you are akin to a unionised miner and your protectionist ways will be destroyed.

This of course being the man who thinks food banks are "charming".

Notice how he always talks about the benefits to consumers and little about the benefit to business ?

I'm amazed anyone has bought his anti-EU stance, it's a complete red herring, Read up on his fathers views or the economist who influences everything he says.

 

[Gwylan]

To [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] - Which leave campaigner do you believe should have led the government ?

I keep seeing this. It should be pointed out that May is PM because no leave campaigner wanted to go on a final ballot to members. If a leave campaigner wanted to lead the negotiations then maybe one of them should have stood up to May. And to be fair to her, she has appointed three secretaries for Brexit - all leavers

 

[pastafarian]

It's not eating the chlorine that's the problem. It's the belief that it masks unhygienic / illegal practices in the supply chain.

Put in another way, the ban on chlorine in the EU is there to ensure the farmers abide by the rules. No one in Brussels is worried about you eating chlorine, it's eating what the chlorine has been used (or attempted) to wash off.

If you look at USA regulations they allow levels of all sort of nasties that are currently not allowed. The chlorine washing may be that not efficient.

There isn't any debate regarding what they want to export will be of lower quality. The only debate is whether the consumers will er.. "swallow it"

It's the same with beef from Australia. Yes it will be cheaper but will be full of hormones which are currently banned.

The low/no regulation brigade (i.e. Rees Mogg) think this is all fantastic, because it's all about consumer choice and not meddling Governments. For them Brexit is simply a means to an end.

He has taken the idea of the "individual" to an extreme end and quite obviously views British Companies as nasty socialist collectives.

If you are a farmer or a manufacturer who is currently benefiting from tariffs applied to non-EU goods you are akin to a unionised miner and your protectionist ways will be destroyed.

This of course being the man who thinks food banks are "charming".

Notice how he always talks about the benefits to consumers and little about the benefit to business ?

I'm amazed anyone has bought his anti-EU stance, it's a complete red herring, Read up on his fathers views or the economist who influences everything he says.

The simple solution would be to only allow imports of high quality grain fed beef, such as currently enters the EU and here from Australia, USA and South America, considering the production of this sort of beef has increased and the EU have instigated negotiations to increase the quota of this sort of beef entering I cant see the problem with us following suit when entering trade talks after we have left.
The chlorinated chicken issue could be treated the same, initially the EU were only going to ban chlorinated chicken and allow US chicken that use other processes but the ban has effectively been a blanket one. Production processes have moved away from chlorinating chicken and only 25% of US processing plants now use it. A few years back the EU were going to lift the ban on chlorinated chicken (after EU scientists said it was safe for human consumption) by having extra labelling requirements placed on it to allow it in, but the big poultry producers of Holland and Germany lobbied very well and the commission proposal was dropped. You have to ask how terrible is chlorinated chicken if the commission were considering lifting the ban?
Seems to me there is compromise available.

You were doing quite well then went into a waffle about nasty socialist collectives and unionised miners revealing your chip on the shoulder biased stance