Cable Forum
Page 9 of 56 « First 5678 9 1011121319 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708171)

pip08456 02-10-2019 15:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36012539)
No 10 publishes Brexit plan for alternative to backstop.

[ATTACH]28081[/ATTACH]
Woulldn't it be more truthful to post the entire document?

denphone 02-10-2019 15:40
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012541)
Woulldn't it be more truthful to post the entire document?
Nothing to do with the truth at all as l just posted what l could as l did not see the second part of it.

Its as simple as that..

pip08456 02-10-2019 15:41
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36012542)
Nothing to do with the truth at all as l just posted what l could as l did not see the second part of it.

Its as simple as that..
And I screwed up and missed page 3, post edited.

denphone 02-10-2019 15:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012543)
And I screwed up and missed page 3, post edited.
Lets just say we both had a senior moment.:D

pip08456 02-10-2019 15:46
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36012544)
Lets just say we both had a senior moment.:D
Agreed!:D

spiderplant 02-10-2019 16:31
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
I still don't see page 2 here.

Meanwhile the BBC seem to have only managed to post pages 1 and 2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49909309

Hugh 02-10-2019 16:31
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36012536)
No idea mate, haven't seen any of those rush to the Supreme court (or lesser) to block a proposal from *insert name here* about staying in :p:
Just because you don’t know about them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist... ;)

Angua 02-10-2019 16:31
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012538)
Why doesn't Boris extend then call an election? Works both ways.
With all the adverts and promises over leaving on 31st October, Johnson cannot be seen to acceding to this law without a lot of squirming. Then it still needs a 2/3 majority in parliament to approve an election.

The opposition can see what a poisoned chalice Brexit is, so are steering the Government into doing the deed that they seem so keen on, but only on the oppositions terms. Corbyn wants Brexit, but not the responsibility of delivery.

pip08456 02-10-2019 16:35
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36012547)
I still don't see page 2 here.

Meanwhile the BBC seem to have only managed to post pages 1 and 2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49909309
All 3 pages are attached to my post above.

jfman 02-10-2019 16:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua (Post 36012549)
With all the adverts and promises over leaving on 31st October, Johnson cannot be seen to acceding to this law without a lot of squirming. Then it still needs a 2/3 majority in parliament to approve an election.

The opposition can see what a poisoned chalice Brexit is, so are steering the Government into doing the deed that they seem so keen on, but only on the oppositions terms. Corbyn wants Brexit, but not the responsibility of delivery.
The "promises", if such a thing exists from a proven liar, he could easily set aside (citing compliance with the law) and had his people vs Parliament election. Elect me to remove the shackles of a dead Parliament.

Sephiroth 02-10-2019 18:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012504)
Strange to hear the Conservative Party Chairman on the news this morning stating (without explicitly saying so) that they intend to break the law, by leaving on the 31st of October without a deal if the EU doesn’t accept the "extended border".

Also, last night, No 10 insisted if the EU did not engage with the UK's offer there would be no further negotiations until after it had left on 31 October.

Party of law and order?
A remainer's unwarranted twist on what was actually said.

Nobody said anything about breaking the law. In your mind it may be implicit because that's what you want to think.

However, it may well turn out the guvmin has found a loophole or way of not breaking the law that gets us out of the EU.

You need to be more objective and twist things less.

Hugh 02-10-2019 18:54
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012557)
A remainer's unwarranted twist on what was actually said.

Nobody said anything about breaking the law. In your mind it may be implicit because that's what you want to think.

However, it may well turn out the guvmin has found a loophole or way of not breaking the law that gets us out of the EU.

You need to be more objective and twist things less.

Pierre 02-10-2019 19:05
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36012537)
so am I and except the law that the democratically elected sovereign parliament made
Just not the result of a democratic vote, the largest democratic exercise over a single issue ever undertaken.

Hmmmmm..........

OLD BOY 02-10-2019 19:06
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012538)
Why doesn't Boris extend then call an election? Works both ways.
Because he said he would not do this.

jfman 02-10-2019 19:07
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36012564)
Because he said he would not do this.
And opposition parties have said they won’t bring down the Government before an extension. He should have faced up to the inevitable.

It’s funny how compromise is always for the other side.

OLD BOY 02-10-2019 19:08
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012555)
The "promises", if such a thing exists from a proven liar, he could easily set aside (citing compliance with the law) and had his people vs Parliament election. Elect me to remove the shackles of a dead Parliament.
The fact that he does not call for an extension seems to fly in the face of you wanting him to break his promise.

jfman 02-10-2019 19:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36012566)
The fact that he does not call for an extension seems to fly in the face of you wanting him to break his promise.
Shows he’s scared to put his hold agenda to the people. Brexit supporters know it.

I don’t know why you’re all so worried. If you are right we are leaving. If you are wrong... :confused:

OLD BOY 02-10-2019 19:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012565)
And opposition parties have said they won’t bring down the Government before an extension. He should have faced up to the inevitable.

It’s funny how compromise is always for the other side.
It is not at all inevitable. In fact, if he gets Brexit done, he may not go for an election at that stage. We will see.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012567)
Shows he’s scared to put his hold agenda to the people. Brexit supporters know it.

I don’t know why you’re all so worried. If you are right we are leaving. If you are wrong... :confused:
It shows nothing of the sort. Boris has just had an extremely successful conference. The public will have seen the difference between Corbyn's rant and Boris's vision for the future. It's also fair to say that Boris has called for an election several times now.

jfman 02-10-2019 19:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
He can force an election, by simply extending Brexit until after it. He could ask for an extension until the very day after if he wanted.

We'll be at the polls in November. The country is not governable. I suppose with his backers betting £8bn against Britain, why actively risk it?

Sephiroth 02-10-2019 19:33
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
@Hugh: I've never twisted anything. My view is well balanced.
Whereas your's is entirely a remainer's take with a bent to discredit leavers.

Carth 02-10-2019 19:34
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
I would think that by now, most people are aware that Boris has (had) no intention of asking for an extension.
Just because he's been 'ordered' to doesn't mean he wants to, and has probably not changed his stance about an extension.
Asking for an extension will gain him nothing - exactly the same as Corbyn if he accepted the election he kept shouting for.

Anyone who actually thinks Boris wants an extension is either incredibly stupid or a troll

I don't believe anyone here to be incredibly stupid ;)

Sephiroth 02-10-2019 19:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36012577)
I would think that by now, most people are aware that Boris has (had) no intention of asking for an extension.
Just because he's been 'ordered' to doesn't mean he wants to, and has probably not changed his stance about an extension.
Asking for an extension will gain him nothing - exactly the same as Corbyn if he accepted the election he kept shouting for.

Anyone who actually thinks Boris wants an extension is either incredibly stupid or a troll

I don't believe anyone here to be incredibly stupid ;)
I do!

jfman 02-10-2019 19:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36012577)
I would think that by now, most people are aware that Boris has (had) no intention of asking for an extension.
Just because he's been 'ordered' to doesn't mean he wants to, and has probably not changed his stance about an extension.
Asking for an extension will gain him nothing - exactly the same as Corbyn if he accepted the election he kept shouting for.

Anyone who actually thinks Boris wants an extension is either incredibly stupid or a troll

I don't believe anyone here to be incredibly stupid ;)
Of course he doesn't want to - no money in that for his pals/donors.

Similarly if he wanted a deal, which nobody believes but the exceptionally stupid, he'd go for an election promising to leave and use his new found majority to tell the EU that he's serious, give us a good deal or we go.

That's what someone acting in the best interests of the country would do.

Maggy 02-10-2019 20:16
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
If we leave without a deal and in bad faith who is going to want to deal with us..How can they trust us not to turn around and do the same with them?

1andrew1 02-10-2019 20:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36012581)
If we leave without a deal and in bad faith who is going to want to deal with us..How can they trust us not to turn around and do the same with them?
All that leaving without a deal means is we negotiate from a weaker position so will pay more for less. We'll still have to pay the EU what we agreed before they open negotiations.

jfman 02-10-2019 20:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36012581)
If we leave without a deal and in bad faith who is going to want to deal with us..How can they trust us not to turn around and do the same with them?
It'll be fine. America who have just slapped billions in tariffs onto the EU, because Boeing planes crash, will give us a deal.

Sephiroth 02-10-2019 20:31
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36012581)
If we leave without a deal and in bad faith who is going to want to deal with us..How can they trust us not to turn around and do the same with them?
What? In bad faith? It strikes me that the current proposal is made in good faith. If the EU reject it out of hand, how could it be us not acting in good faith?

pip08456 02-10-2019 20:33
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012567)
Shows he’s scared to put his hold agenda to the people. Brexit supporters know it.

I don’t know why you’re all so worried. If you are right we are leaving. If you are wrong... :confused:
If he is so scared why has he tried to get an election on more than one ocassion and each time the remainers have denied him.

Hugh 02-10-2019 20:34
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012576)
@Hugh: I've never twisted anything. My view is well balanced.
Whereas your's is entirely a remainer's take with a bent to discredit leavers.
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2019/10/1.gif

You used to suffer from false modesty - not anymore, you're perfect now... ;)

jfman 02-10-2019 20:35
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012585)
If he is so scared why has he tried to get an election on more than one ocassion and each time the remainers have denied him.
Because he was trying to force no deal through an election on which he could stipulate the date, hence no extension.

You know this, I'm not sure why you are demonstrating an inability to understand the blindingly obvious. It's beneath even you.

Sephiroth 02-10-2019 20:39
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012582)
All that leaving without a deal means is we negotiate from a weaker position so will pay more for less. We'll still have to pay the EU what we agreed before they open negotiations.
Assuming that the "what we agreed" is what was in May's withdrawal agreement, our Parliament never agreed it. So the UK never agreed anything.

Sure, the EU will try to set a price that amounts to the full £39 billion minus dues already paid, but those additional dues were to pay for the privilege of the transition period.

If the current offer from the guvmin forms the basis of a new deal, then I can't see us baulking on the dues.

If we crash out, then those "dues" are not owed but the EU will try to make them part of the price of a trade deal. My instinct is to tell them to do one - a nasty greedy step too far. If the EU negotiate with us on a fair, normal basis, then so much the better.

Fun still to be had, perhaps.

Pierre 02-10-2019 20:50
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012582)
All that leaving without a deal means is we negotiate from a weaker position so will pay more for less. We'll still have to pay the EU what we agreed before they open negotiations.
I don’t see why.

pip08456 02-10-2019 20:55
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012587)
Because he was trying to force no deal through an election on which he could stipulate the date, hence no extension.

You know this, I'm not sure why you are demonstrating an inability to understand the blindingly obvious. It's beneath even you.
I know it's only ardent remainers who want an extention.

1andrew1 02-10-2019 20:56
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012589)
I don’t see why.
I do.

Carth 02-10-2019 20:57
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
If, as people say, the current Backstop idea would put the UK into an inescapable tie in to the EU, then we wouldn't be out would we.

If, as the EU keep saying, the backstop must stay or exist in a manner acceptable to them (HA), it seems to me that they themselves are forcing the 'no deal'.

Of course, it must be said that the EU wouldn't want a deal that grants the UK any favours, but their only alternatives seem to be either a no deal or a half baked excuse of a deal that's not even a deal people want.

anyway, back to the second half . . . :tiptoe:

1andrew1 02-10-2019 21:02
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012590)
I know it's only ardent remainers who want an extention.
It's more that the country doesn't want no deal, not that it wants an extension.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36012592)
If, as people say, the current Backstop idea would put the UK into an inescapable tie in to the EU, then we wouldn't be out would we.

If, as the EU keep saying, the backstop must stay or exist in a manner acceptable to them (HA), it seems to me that they themselves are forcing the 'no deal'.

Of course, it must be said that the EU wouldn't want a deal that grants the UK any favours, but their only alternatives seem to be either a no deal or a half baked excuse of a deal that's not even a deal people want.

anyway, back to the second half . . . :tiptoe:
The UK was tasked with finding a workable alternative to the backstop agreed with Theresa May. Remember, this was significantly different from the EU's original suggestion of a NI-only backstop. How workable the UK's suggestions are will be evaluated now.

pip08456 02-10-2019 21:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012593)
It's more that the country doesn't want no deal, not that it wants an extension.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:58 ----------


The UK was tasked with finding a workable alternative to the backstop agreed with Theresa May. Remember, this was significantly different from the EU's original suggestion of a NI-only backstop. How workable the UK's suggestions are will be evaluated now.
Happy to know you speak for the Country Andrew.

Pierre 02-10-2019 21:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012591)
I do.
Good for you. Most insightful.

---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:11 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012593)
It's more that the country doesn't want no deal, not that it wants an extension.
You’re probably 48% right.

jfman 02-10-2019 21:22
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
It's impossible to say all 52% want no deal. Absolutely impossible.

pip08456 02-10-2019 21:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012599)
It's impossible to say all 52% want no deal. Absolutely impossible.
No-one said that though.

Dave42 02-10-2019 21:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012563)
Just not the result of a democratic vote, the largest democratic exercise over a single issue ever undertaken.

Hmmmmm..........
what a lie when have I ever said I didn't so you can stop telling lies right now

pip08456 02-10-2019 21:45
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36012537)
so am I and except the law that the democratically elected sovereign parliament made
If you do not accept it then you reject it.

jfman 02-10-2019 21:46
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012600)
No-one said that though.
Regardless. It's a statement of clear unambiguous fact.

1andrew1 02-10-2019 21:49
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012600)
No-one said that though.
100%-48%=52%.

Dave42 02-10-2019 21:49
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012600)
No-one said that though.
if you listen to like of LBC you hear some people saying that all leavers voted for a no deal not high percentage but some

pip08456 02-10-2019 21:50
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012606)
Regardless. It's a statement of clear unambiguous fact.
It's equally impossible to say they don't, so no unambiguous fact at all.

jfman 02-10-2019 21:53
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012609)
It's equally impossible to say they don't, so no unambiguous fact at all.
It's possible to say anything and be absolutely wrong, as you demonstrate in this very post.

pip08456 02-10-2019 22:00
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012610)
It's possible to say anything and be absolutely wrong, as you demonstrate in this very post.
Damn, I must be an uneducated leaver of low IQ.

Hugh 02-10-2019 22:21
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012611)
Damn, I must be an uneducated leaver of low IQ.
Just because some people do not have formal educational qualifications does not necessarily equate to them having a low IQ.

1andrew1 02-10-2019 22:27
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012611)
Damn, I must be an uneducated leaver of low IQ.
I don't think we can tell from your post which way you voted in the referendum or your level of education.

---------- Post added at 22:27 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012613)
Just because some people do not have formal educational qualifications does not necessarily equate to them having a low IQ.
Totally agree, often education is linked to class.

ianch99 02-10-2019 22:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012576)
@Hugh: I've never twisted anything. My view is well balanced.
Whereas your's is entirely a remainer's take with a bent to discredit leavers.
Hate to break this to you but Hugh is right and you are not. He is a Conservative but he often goes the extra mile to rise above the petty party politics.

Anyone who supports the views of John Redwood has so much work ahead of them to proclaim themselves as well balanced.

Chris 02-10-2019 22:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
topic please

ianch99 02-10-2019 22:38
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36012577)
I would think that by now, most people are aware that Boris has (had) no intention of asking for an extension.
Just because he's been 'ordered' to doesn't mean he wants to, and has probably not changed his stance about an extension.
Asking for an extension will gain him nothing - exactly the same as Corbyn if he accepted the election he kept shouting for.

Anyone who actually thinks Boris wants an extension is either incredibly stupid or a troll

I don't believe anyone here to be incredibly stupid ;)
Wow, the truth at last. I salute you ..

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012599)
It's impossible to say all 52% want no deal. Absolutely impossible.
Correct. There is/never has been a mandate for No Deal. Those that claim this are either misled or disingenuous.

---------- Post added at 22:38 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

Just to recap on Mr Johnson and his aims: you either accept that he wants a Deal and is negotiating in good faith or you believe, as Mr Cummings as alluded, this exercise is a sham and is designed to show the electorate that he "tried" and the EU is at fault for No Deal.

Now, if you honestly believe the former then it can only be on faith and not evidence. If you believe the latter, they I commend your perception and honesty.

Pierre 03-10-2019 07:09
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012599)
It's impossible to say all 52% want no deal. Absolutely impossible.
It’s also impossible to say “the country” doesn’t want no deal.

---------- Post added at 07:06 ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36012602)
what a lie when have I ever said I didn't so you can stop telling lies right now
Sorry, you’ve always given the impression of an ardent remainer. Apologies if I have mis-read that. You agree with me then that Brexit must be delivered?

---------- Post added at 07:07 ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36012608)
if you listen to like of LBC you hear some people saying that all leavers voted for a no deal not high percentage but some
Well if they say it, it must be true...........

---------- Post added at 07:09 ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 ----------

Looks like Boris’s new plan has been slapped down.

Time to buy in the popcorn. ( in bulk in case we leave with no deal)

Maggy 03-10-2019 08:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49914326

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49909866

So let's debate the proposal.Please.

ianch99 03-10-2019 08:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012626)
It’s also impossible to say “the country” doesn’t want no deal.

---------- Post added at 07:06 ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 ----------



Sorry, you’ve always given the impression of an ardent remainer. Apologies if I have mis-read that. You agree with me then that Brexit must be delivered?

---------- Post added at 07:07 ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 ----------



Well if they say it, it must be true...........

---------- Post added at 07:09 ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 ----------

Looks like Boris’s new plan has been slapped down.

Time to buy in the popcorn. ( in bulk in case we leave with no deal)
This Google trend for searches referencing No Deal Brexit proves you wrong:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFifRe2X...jpg&name=small

No Deal was not discussed or researched during the 2016 referendum and, as such, has no legitimacy being forced on the majority of the country that does not want it.

jfman 03-10-2019 08:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012626)
It’s also impossible to say “the country” doesn’t want no deal.
Nobody asked them. Either in a GE or a referendum. Ministers of the Crown assured us we would get a deal, the easiest deal in history.

Hugh 03-10-2019 10:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Re-hashing old arguments, which is not the point of this thread.

Move on, please, and discuss developments.

Sephiroth 03-10-2019 11:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012599)
It's impossible to say all 52% want no deal. Absolutely impossible.
... as impossible to say whether the 48% are still Remainers.

Anyway, seems like the EU is cutting some slack on the Boris plan. .

jfman 03-10-2019 12:04
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012640)
... as impossible to say whether the 48% are still Remainers.

Anyway, seems like the EU is cutting some slack on the Boris plan. .
It's almost as if a second referendum is the answer!

Chris 03-10-2019 12:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012642)
It's almost as if a second referendum is the answer!
Almost, but not quite. Once you acknowledge that one referendum is indecisive, all that follow it become indecisive. You call a second one, it delivers a contrary result, and where are you? A score draw, and the demands for a replay begin.

The political declarations made prior to the 2016 referendum stated that the Government would deliver on the result. I think - I hope - we are all politically mature enough to understand that delivering a simple majority on a binary question then leaves the government a great deal of latitude over exactly what constitutes ‘delivery’. I think we all understood that we were leaving the details to the government, and the demands for a second referendum simply don’t work as an appeal to a sort of Swiss political tradition of holding referendums on the minutiae of every question, no matter how earnestly they are dressed up as such. They are simply an attempt to win an argument already lost.

papa smurf 03-10-2019 12:23
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36012643)
Almost, but not quite. Once you acknowledge that one referendum is indecisive, all that follow it become indecisive. You call a second one, it delivers a contrary result, and where are you? A score draw, and the demands for a replay begin.

The political declarations made prior to the 2016 referendum stated that the Government would deliver on the result. I think - I hope - we are all politically mature enough to understand that delivering a simple majority on a binary question then leaves the government a great deal of latitude over exactly what constitutes ‘delivery’. I think we all understood that we were leaving the details to the government, and the demands for a second referendum simply don’t work as an appeal to a sort of Swiss political tradition of holding referendums on the minutiae of every question, no matter how earnestly they are dressed up as such. They are simply an attempt to win an argument already lost.
An argument that has been done to death over the past three years,it's time to move on from this circular, dog chasing it's own tail argument.

Pierre 03-10-2019 14:16
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36012632)
This Google trend for searches referencing No Deal Brexit proves you wrong:

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

No Deal was not discussed or researched during the 2016 referendum and, as such, has no legitimacy being forced on the majority of the country that does not want it.
Oh well, if google says so, argument over then. well done.

Damien 03-10-2019 14:38
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The official Vote Leave website also mentioned a deal and a free trade area

ianch99 03-10-2019 15:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36012643)
Almost, but not quite. Once you acknowledge that one referendum is indecisive, all that follow it become indecisive. You call a second one, it delivers a contrary result, and where are you? A score draw, and the demands for a replay begin.

The political declarations made prior to the 2016 referendum stated that the Government would deliver on the result. I think - I hope - we are all politically mature enough to understand that delivering a simple majority on a binary question then leaves the government a great deal of latitude over exactly what constitutes ‘delivery’. I think we all understood that we were leaving the details to the government, and the demands for a second referendum simply don’t work as an appeal to a sort of Swiss political tradition of holding referendums on the minutiae of every question, no matter how earnestly they are dressed up as such. They are simply an attempt to win an argument already lost.
I am not sure if I am allowed to refute these points but here goes. :)

Your first sentence implies these two events are similar and comparable. The first was based on aspiration and misinformation, the second would be be based on fact-based, real world conclusions. Actual solutions in the real world with real, information-based consequences.

Your second point is breathtaking in its contradiction. In the context of a decision that changes 40+ years of macro structural & social policy, the words "politically mature" would never coexist with the term "simple majority on a binary question". Granted, this is the outcome you prefer but please don't try and wrap it up in pretence of legitimacy.

OLD BOY 03-10-2019 15:31
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36012648)
The official Vote Leave website also mentioned a deal and a free trade area
It is irrelevant. The vote was to leave and if an acceptable deal is not available, we leave without one. End of.

:D

ianch99 03-10-2019 15:35
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012640)
Anyway, seems like the EU is cutting some slack on the Boris plan. .
Reuters disagrees with you:

UK's Brexit proposal rebuffed in Brussels as 'no basis' for a deal

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36012650)
It is irrelevant. The vote was to leave and if an acceptable deal is not available, we leave without one. End of.

:D
Not if the democratically elected, sovereign UK Parliament has anything to do with it.

Pierre 03-10-2019 16:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36012649)
I am not sure if I am allowed to refute these points but here goes. :)

Your first sentence implies these two events are similar and comparable. The first was based on aspiration and misinformation, the second would be be based on fact-based, real world conclusions. Actual solutions in the real world with real, information-based consequences.

Your second point is breathtaking in its contradiction. In the context of a decision that changes 40+ years of macro structural & social policy, the words "politically mature" would never coexist with the term "simple majority on a binary question". Granted, this is the outcome you prefer but please don't try and wrap it up in pretence of legitimacy.
Would you be happy to have a 2nd referendum, with the exact same question as 2016. Accepting that in the knowledge if Leave won, a "no deal" Brexit would be a legitimate course of action?

There won't be a 2nd referendum, but if there was, any referendum that didn't ask the exact same question would illegitimate, IMO.

If as Labour would want to negotiate a deal, and then campaign against it, in referendum that gave you the choice of Remain or Leave in a deal that would be BRINO in the highest order (because that is all they would get). That's not a real choice to give the people, and hello Brexit party.

Remain or Leave (regardless) is the only real choice you can offer, and then if Leave won that would be the end of it and if Remain won, well the Brexit party potentially becomes the 2nd biggest party in the UK and it carries on.

I think the point Chris was making is, if we don't leave, properly and decisively now. Things will just get worse over time.

The political future could end up being Brexit Party v Libdems.

nomadking 03-10-2019 16:44
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The "deal" on offer from the EU is only meant to be an interim one. It's about the phase between leaving the EU and any ongoing future deal. It is totally irrelevant to discuss what people voting leave or remain wanted. The only pertinent aspects of past voting intent, are anything that would be ongoing. The Leave side would almost certainly have been against the backstop, and possibly some of those that voted Remain.

Again the Leave side would almost certainly have been against aspects of the Political Declaration that goes with the Withdrawal Agreement, and possibly some of those that voted Remain.
Eg
Quote:
79. The future relationship must ensure open and fair competition. Provisions to ensure this should cover state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and commensurate with the overall economic relationship.
Would Labour be happy with the EU limiting UK State Aid?

It means whatever measures the EU applies that hamper business(well they don't seem to have any designed to help or reduce costs), we would have to apply them as well. Is that acceptable, especially considering we wouldn't have a say on them in the first place. Does anybody seriously think that "open and fair competition" isn't whatever that is set out by the EU, and NOT a 2 way process where the UK could pass a law that reduced or even increased business costs and the EU has to follow suit? It's one-way traffic.

Any proposed 2nd referendum about the "deal" could only be about the Withdrawal Agreement, and that ends Dec 31st 2020. So what would be the point of that? A vote for the "deal" is still essentially a vote to Leave at the end of next year. So what would those on the Remain side vote for? You'd have to have a THIRD referendum to vote on any proposed post-2020 deal. Just gets even more silly than it is already.

jfman 03-10-2019 17:09
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Theresa May's backstop was an equally interim measure. All they've done is moved the gun to point the other way. Holding the Single Market hostage. Indeed, by people who believe the Earth was formed 3000 years ago, and don't like Catholics. What does Europe have plenty of?

Pierre 03-10-2019 17:19
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012656)
Theresa May's backstop was an equally interim measure. All they've done is moved the gun to point the other way. Holding the Single Market hostage. Indeed, by people who believe the Earth was formed 3000 years ago, and don't like Catholics. What does Europe have plenty of?
You been at the Turps again?

nomadking 03-10-2019 17:35
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012656)
Theresa May's backstop was an equally interim measure. All they've done is moved the gun to point the other way. Holding the Single Market hostage. Indeed, by people who believe the Earth was formed 3000 years ago, and don't like Catholics. What does Europe have plenty of?
"Unless and until" is NOT an interim measure. If it is an interim measure then it can safely be removed, can't it? The sole intention of the backstop is for it to be there in one form or another, for ETERNITY.
From the publication, well known for being anti-Irish, "The Guardian"
Quote:
The Irish goal was to get the border into a legally binding withdrawal agreement – Dublin’s point of maximum leverage – rather than future trade relations, when Dublin would struggle to be heard.
Why should the interests of the other 26 EU countries be held hostage by Ireland?


Northern Europe has plenty of Protestants. They were the ones fighting alongside William of Orange, who also had the support of that well known anti-Catholic, Pope Alexander VIII.

jfman 03-10-2019 17:50
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Are the interests of the EU member states being held hostage by Ireland? Or is that your hyperbole?

As far as I can tell Irish interests and EU interests are aligned, the integrity of the Single Market.

nomadking 03-10-2019 18:09
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012661)
Are the interests of the EU member states being held hostage by Ireland? Or is that your hyperbole?

As far as I can tell Irish interests and EU interests are aligned, the integrity of the Single Market.
The EU currently deals with newly created EU borders, so why couldn't it now? Surely the Withdrawal Agreement must be better for the other 26, than hard Brexit.

As the Guardian article states, the Irish got the others to agree under FALSE pretences. If it was about the single market, then the EU would have initiated it and NOT the Irish. How on earth is it right that the EU can IMPOSE a customs union for ETERNITY without explicitly stating that? Where has Parliament voted for that? Where is the agreement to that sets that out, other than the 3 little words of "unless and until"?

jfman 03-10-2019 18:16
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012663)
The EU currently deals with newly created EU borders, so why couldn't it now? Surely the Withdrawal Agreement must be better for the other 26, than hard Brexit.

As the Guardian article states, the Irish got the others to agree under FALSE pretences. If it was about the single market, then the EU would have initiated it and NOT the Irish. How on earth is it right that the EU can IMPOSE a customs union for ETERNITY without explicitly stating that? Where has Parliament voted for that? Where is the agreement to that sets that out, other than the 3 little words of "unless and until"?
The Guardian article says no such thing. So much spin here I’m surprised you aren’t too dizzy to type.

I’m surprised tiny little old Ireland can trick such a hegemonic technocratic force as the EU to be fair.

Where does the EU deal with newly created borders in any manner other than a manned land border, with customs checks?

pip08456 03-10-2019 18:16
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012663)
The EU currently deals with newly created EU borders, so why couldn't it now? Surely the Withdrawal Agreement must be better for the other 26, than hard Brexit.

As the Guardian article states, the Irish got the others to agree under FALSE pretences. If it was about the single market, then the EU would have initiated it and NOT the Irish. How on earth is it right that the EU can IMPOSE a customs union for ETERNITY without explicitly stating that? Where has Parliament voted for that? Where is the agreement to that sets that out, other than the 3 little words of "unless and until"?
Ireland in a way have pushed the EU into a catch 22 situation. The other smaller states in the EU are watching to see if the EU sticks up for the "little guy", if it doesn't it risks the break up of the EU.

Roll on 31st Oct. We'll know then.

nomadking 03-10-2019 18:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012665)
The Guardian article says no such thing. So much spin here I’m surprised you aren’t too dizzy to type.

I’m surprised tiny little old Ireland can trick such a hegemonic technocratic force as the EU to be fair.

Where does the EU deal with newly created borders in any manner other than a manned land border, with customs checks?
So it copes with newly created land borders with customs checks. What would be new or different? Still leaves TWO land-sea borders for the Irish to contend with, English Channel and Irish Sea.
Quote:
Some EU members needed wooing. “There was a feeling that people in Europe had forgotten about Northern Ireland … we needed to re-educate them,” said a source.
Varadkar cited an Irish Times article about a 1972 IRA attack on a customs post. Ministers racked up air miles courting support and invited counterparts to visit the border.

Damien 03-10-2019 18:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36012650)
It is irrelevant. The vote was to leave and if an acceptable deal is not available, we leave without one. End of.

:D
Fine. I am just saying that when people say that Leave voters knew No Deal was a real possibility, even what they voted for, I think there will be quite a few of them who didn’t as it wasn’t a centrepiece of the Leave campaign.

Now some did, some may not have but have come around to the idea and those that are against maybe should have know better. Just saying No Deal was not widely talked about.

jfman 03-10-2019 18:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012667)
So it copes with newly created land borders with customs checks. What would be new or different? Still leaves TWO land-sea borders for the Irish to contend with, English Channel and Irish Sea.
I’m not sure your argument. Once goods are smuggled into the Republic in the absence of checks the single market is under threat. End of.

nomadking 03-10-2019 18:52
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36012668)
Fine. I am just saying that when people say that Leave voters knew No Deal was a real possibility, even what they voted for, I think there will be quite a few of them who didn’t as it wasn’t a centrepiece of the Leave campaign.

Now some did, some may not have but have come around to the idea and those that are against maybe should have know better. Just saying No Deal was not widely talked about.
The "deal"/Withdrawal Agreement has nothing to do with Leave or Remain voting issues. It is part of the Leave(article 50) procedures. It is an optional part of the journey to the destination of Leave. It wasn't a case of "vote leave" and we leave the next day.

The only purpose of the Remain side having a strong opinion on the "deal", is to change the final destination. They might prefer a "less bumpy" route, but that doesn't explain the strength of their support for the "deal" and their determination to impose it.

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012670)
I’m not sure your argument. Once goods are smuggled into the Republic in the absence of checks the single market is under threat. End of.
And that doesn't happen with any other EU border? How did horse meat masquerading as beef get into the UK from the EU?

What is wrong with having checks? Wherever the "border" is set, ie Irish Sea or NI, then there will be checks.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but still there are checks and other assorted EU imposed problems.

jfman 03-10-2019 19:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The integrity of your border isn’t an EU imposed problem.

As I’ve said before would we be happy for illegal migrants to cross an open border into Great Britain?

Sephiroth 03-10-2019 19:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012642)
It's almost as if a second referendum is the answer!
Probably if Boris can't get us out on 31-October.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36012650)
It is irrelevant. The vote was to leave and if an acceptable deal is not available, we leave without one. End of.

:D
... and what's more, Cameron said publicly that the choice was to remain in the EU or "leave altogether".

nomadking 03-10-2019 19:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012674)
The integrity of your border isn’t an EU imposed problem.

As I’ve said before would we be happy for illegal migrants to cross an open border into Great Britain?
So how do illegal immigrants get into the EU in the first place? They currently get into the UK from France and Ireland. The EU is the biggest threat to the integrity of the UK border.



Imposing a customs union comes from Ireland via the EU. The UK and NI will not get a say on any changes. Strange that all the people complaining about Trump wanting to ensure the integrity of the US border, are pretty much the same ones complaining about the integrity of the EU border.:rolleyes:

jfman 03-10-2019 19:45
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012677)
So how do illegal immigrants get into the EU in the first place? They currently get into the UK from France and Ireland. The EU is the biggest threat to the integrity of the UK border.

Imposing a customs union comes from Ireland via the EU. The UK and NI will not get a say on any changes. Strange that all the people complaining about Trump wanting to ensure the integrity of the US border, are pretty much the same ones complaining about the integrity of the EU border.:rolleyes:
I’ve no issue with the USA controlling migration effectively if it’s done in a humane way. Hell even the left wing part of me likes large state funded projects. It’s not an effective way to do it though - given it’ll be a fence for the most part a Mexican with wire cutters is on his way. It’s a big expensive dog whistle to his racist supporters.

Nor am I complaining about the integrity of the EU border - we voted to leave and establish a border - I don’t see why they should make it easier for us to do so by allowing us to ignore our obligations to prevent smuggling over the border.

I really don’t know why people who understand the dangers of the movement of people over borders so well can’t understand the dangers of the illegal supply of cheap, substandard goods.

pip08456 03-10-2019 19:54
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Adam Parsons a Sky europe correspondant has an interesting article.

To get a Brexit deal you first need to solve a paradox

nomadking 03-10-2019 20:05
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012679)
I’ve no issue with the USA controlling migration effectively if it’s done in a humane way. Hell even the left wing part of me likes large state funded projects. It’s not an effective way to do it though - given it’ll be a fence for the most part a Mexican with wire cutters is on his way. It’s a big expensive dog whistle to his racist supporters.

Nor am I complaining about the integrity of the EU border - we voted to leave and establish a border - I don’t see why they should make it easier for us to do so by allowing us to ignore our obligations to prevent smuggling over the border.

I really don’t know why people who understand the dangers of the movement of people over borders so well can’t understand the dangers of the illegal supply of cheap, substandard goods.
Cheap, substandard goods ALREADY get into the UK and EU. Are following UK rules going to lead to cheap, substandard goods? We ALREADY have to accept EU goods that we consider substandard because they follow lower set EU rules.


Not sure that the backstop is legal in terms of Article 50 and the Withdrawal Agreement. The WA is an optional interim phase to LEAVING. The backstop is not interim, and at the very least extends beyond the period covered by the WA. Any backstop related issues are the subject of the SECOND SEPARATE deal/agreement.

Link

Quote:
Two agreements
The EU and the UK have two years to negotiate a withdrawal agreement setting out the arrangements for how the country will leave the Union, while “taking account of the framework of the future relationship with the Union”. The arrangements setting out the framework for future relations will be part of a separate agreement, which could take considerably longer to negotiate.

jfman 03-10-2019 20:08
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012684)
Cheap, substandard goods ALREADY get into the UK and EU. Are following UK rules going to lead to cheap, substandard goods? We ALREADY have to accept EU goods that we consider substandard because they follow lower set EU rules.
Do we plan to raise standards? Can we guarantee this?

Quote:
Not sure that the backstop is legal in terms of Article 50 and the Withdrawal Agreement. The WA is an optional interim phase to LEAVING. The backstop is not interim, and at the very least extends beyond the period covered by the WA. Any backstop related issues are the subject of the SECOND SEPARATE deal/agreement.

Link
If it wasn’t legal it wouldn’t exist as an idea. They wouldn’t, with the best will in the world, be relying on you to discover it.

pip08456 03-10-2019 20:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012686)
Do we plan to raise standards? Can we guarantee this?



If it wasn’t legal it wouldn’t exist as an idea. They wouldn’t, with the best will in the world, be relying on you to discover it.
Its an idea that has been rejected several times by parliament.

jfman 03-10-2019 20:14
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012692)
Its an idea that has been rejected several times by parliament.
And? They’ve rejected no deal too and that doesn’t count for much.

Hugh 03-10-2019 20:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012675)
Probably if Boris can't get us out on 31-October.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------



... and what's more, Cameron said publicly that the choice was to remain in the EU or "leave altogether".
He also said he would remain at Downing Street regardless of the result of the EU referendum.

pip08456 03-10-2019 20:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012693)
And? They’ve rejected no deal too and that doesn’t count for much.
And would that be because they do not wish to honour the the result of a referendum that they decided they would by passing the withdrawal act?

jfman 03-10-2019 20:42
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012695)
And would that be because they do not wish to honour the the result of a referendum that they decided they would by passing the withdrawal act?
Circular argument. Honouring the referendum result doesn’t have an arbitrary time limit.

nomadking 03-10-2019 20:44
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012686)
Do we plan to raise standards? Can we guarantee this?

If it wasn’t legal it wouldn’t exist as an idea. They wouldn’t, with the best will in the world, be relying on you to discover it.
It is illegal unless they've changed the definition of "transitional" and "limited in time", along with "unambiguously". It certainly is outside the remit of any Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement.

From my previous link

Quote:
Any transitional agreement must unambiguously be limited in time;

We are unlikely to lower standards that much, if at all. Other countries have lower standards and they export to the EU.


AFAIK At the moment we can set higher standards for UK producers, but we still have to accept imports from the EU that are below that standard. Eg in the past we tried to block UHT milk from France that didn't meet our standards. The EU said we had to accept it, because it met EU standards.

jfman 03-10-2019 21:02
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012697)
It is illegal unless they've changed the definition of "transitional" and "limited in time", along with "unambiguously". It certainly is outside the remit of any Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement.

From my previous link

We are unlikely to lower standards that much, if at all. Other countries have lower standards and they export to the EU.
Export legally, and presumably products that adhere to EU standards?

I note you’re use of “we are unlikely”; that isn’t certain. The EU Single Market will not survive if it’s to be left with what you consider likely not or otherwise.

Quote:
AFAIK At the moment we can set higher standards for UK producers, but we still have to accept imports from the EU that are below that standard. Eg in the past we tried to block UHT milk from France that didn't meet our standards. The EU said we had to accept it, because it met EU standards.
Do we hold our values high enough to set UK standards above EU ones at present?

Grateful for examples of this, if we do.

nomadking 03-10-2019 21:24
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012698)
Export legally, and presumably products that adhere to EU standards?

I note you’re use of “we are unlikely”; that isn’t certain. The EU Single Market will not survive if it’s to be left with what you consider likely not or otherwise.



Do we hold our values high enough to set UK standards above EU ones at present?

Grateful for examples of this, if we do.
Doesn't matter one little jot whether our current or future standards are lower or higher. The EU copes with differences at the moment.


Quote:
Regulatory differences
Highlights of the document include:
  • Sow stalls, banned in the UK in 1999 and partially banned across most of the rest of the EU, are still legally permitted in the US, Canada and Brazil
  • In the UK, 40% of sows are outdoors and 90% of indoor sows and 60% of finishing pigs are kept on straw. But very few, if any, pigs are kept outdoors or on straw indoors in the rest of the EU, apart from in Sweden, or the rest of the world
Quote:
Danish welfare legislation and standards
Although Danish animal welfare legislation is linked to EU Directives, in many areas it exceeds these requirements. Some examples include the mandatory provision of showering systems for most categories of pigs and requirements for fixed or drained flooring rather than the more traditional type of fully slatted floor. In addition, there are specific requirements for hospital pens and vehicles for transporting pigs.
Quote:
The net result is that animal welfare conditions in the Union fall short of a level playing field which is required to sustain the enormous economic activity that drives the treatment of animals in the European Union” (European Commission, 2012).

1andrew1 03-10-2019 21:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012698)
Do we hold our values high enough to set UK standards above EU ones at present?

Grateful for examples of this, if we do.
Queuing at bus stops. Driving on the correct side of the road. Apologising to those who barge into us. :D

jfman 03-10-2019 21:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012701)
Doesn't matter one little jot whether our current or future standards are lower or higher. The EU copes with differences at the moment.
Differences controlled across maintained borders, using customs inspections, etc.

Not what we are proposing long term.

I do admire Denmark for having higher standards. Not sure your point...

nomadking 03-10-2019 21:58
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012704)
Differences controlled across maintained borders, using customs inspections, etc.

Not what we are proposing long term.

I do admire Denmark for having higher standards. Not sure your point...
If the EU can cope with a newly created 900+km border, then they can cope with a smaller NI one. It's for THEM to deal with. We can ship out whatever we want, whether the EU accepts something is up to them.
Denmark has to accept products with lower standards from WITHIN the EU.


The Withdrawal Agreement has NOTHING to do with "long term" or the future. That is the subject for a potential FUTURE agreement, which has not been set out and negotiations cannot even start until after we've left the EU.

Article 50.2
Quote:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
Quote:
Article 50 compels only the EU to seek a negotiation, not the withdrawing member state.
The WA is optional.


A "Withdrawal" cannot have any ongoing conditions. That goes with the definition of the term. Be interesting to be able point all this out to certain quarters, so they can use it. Not likely to be that many of them around here. The problem is that there is no Leave equivalent of Gina Miller.

Carth 03-10-2019 22:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
ahh blow it, no idea what I'm prattling on about, all deleted now

. . . sod it, back to gaming :P

pip08456 03-10-2019 23:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36012709)
ahh blow it, no idea what I'm prattling on about, all deleted now

. . . sod it, back to gaming :P
Don't blame you.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:01.
Page 9 of 56 « First 5678 9 1011121319 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum