Brexit (Old)

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is that simple, actually. Leave means leave. A concept that so many remainers don't seem to be able to get their heads around.

Clearly it doesn't though does it. This isn't about leavers or remainers, it's about protecting the country.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

17.4 million people (a majority) voted to LEAVE the EU. What wasn't on the ballot paper does not change that. The fact that the politicians are a useless bunch of self-serving idiots is an unfortunate element in delivering the public's mandate.

It does, the ballot should have been explicit in detail.

If a DIY store offers you the choice of a copper or a plastic pipe. you then select one

You don't then get to kick off if it's the wrong size or fitment, you should have asked and made sure at the time of purchase.

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

We are not getting anything from the EU - that is OUR money they are giving back, minus their cut.

Well, apart from, freedom of movement, right to reside, protection of food standards, collaboration on scientific research, cheaper travel. workers rights. too name but a few.


Yup, we are not getting anything from the romans , sorry, the EU

It's not always about a fiscal benefit.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

The same could be said for all forms of taxation. Scotland’s oil etc.

Any money the the EU "gives"(ie returns) to us is taken off the rebate. The rebate is 66% off the difference between what we're expected to pay(£350m+/week) and what we get back. Two-thirds of the EU project funding has come straight off the top of our rebate, then add in our net contributions and instances where the nation state is expected to match funding, and it must be well over 75% of the EU money has come from us in the first place.
Eg Expected to pay out £300m,due £200m rebate, then get £30m EU funding and the rebate drops to £180m. We have to pay an extra £20m to get £30m back. Not saying we should get everything back, but it means the EU funding figures are very misleading. It also means the UK pays a lot more for it's EU funded projects than other EU countries, including Germany.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union’s budget chief Guenther Oettinger said on Friday Britain would lose its rebate even in the “pleasant but improbable” event of it staying in the bloc. ...

After Brexit, the EU wants to wind down in stages all the rebates, including those that the Netherlands or Denmark enjoy. The bloc’s executive European Commission has proposed to have none in the next common budget for 2021-2024.

In other words, even if the referendum had decided "remain", we would end up losing the rebate and the £350m/week figure would be TRUE.

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

It does, the ballot should have been explicit in detail.

If a DIY store offers you the choice of a copper or a plastic pipe. you then select one

You don't then get to kick off if it's the wrong size or fitment, you should have asked and made sure at the time of purchase.

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------
Well, apart from, freedom of movement, right to reside, protection of food standards, collaboration on scientific research, cheaper travel. workers rights. too name but a few.

Yup, we are not getting anything from the romans , sorry, the EU

It's not always about a fiscal benefit.

On balance freedom of movement and right to reside do not benefit us since the Eastern European countries joined.
Travel is more expensive because of EU regulations. The extra costs imposed have to come from somewhere.
We could've decided our own food standards which at times are higher than EU standards, yet we have to accept the "sub-standard" EU products.
The UK has scientific collaborations with countries all around the world.



We could legislatively be very lazy and simply match EU regulations, but allow our own minor differences.


Basically your list is negative impacts, or things we could and did have our own rules, or things that will continue to happen anyway.

[mrmistoffelees]

try telling expats in France/Spain/Italy it's a negative impact, and the brits who travel quite freely for work currently.

travel state your sources please
Food standards, you completely ignore the recent American trade deal

What EU products are substandard ?

Right to reside/freedom to work is not a negative. the you've failed to present any tangible evidence that we would of had them.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm sorry, but it is simply naive not to appreciate that politicians have a tendency to lie. I thought everyone knew that.

Thank God for that! I thought that Mrs May was telling us the truth. I knew there was something fishy going on Argghhh!!! I mentioned Fish .. damnit.

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

Ah the smell of taking back control.

Fears Britain will be flooded with chlorinated chicken and hormone-boosted beef as US demands UK DROPS 'barriers' to low-quality food imports in a post-Brexit trade deal

The US wants 'comprehensive market access' for US agricultural products through the reduction or removal of tariffs and the elimination of 'unwarranted barriers' to food and drink imports according to a document released today.

Mr Trump's administration is also demanding full market access for US drug firms and a block on state institutions - such as the NHS - discriminating against American companies when purchasing goods and services.

In the land of the free market, weakness is exploited and the world is sharpening its knives ..

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

Bollocks to that.

Inland Revenue is our place to pay Tax in to UK Coffers not the corrupted EU as well.

When will some of you Remainers get it in to your heads, that the UK is a NET Contributing Member of the Corrupted EU (Hopefully not for much longer). ???

In laymen's terms, if I was to take £5,000 from you and then I gave you back £3,250 and ALSO tell you what to spend it on, I am not investing in you, I am just giving back SOME of what you give me and I am taking a cut for doing bugger all (Except the dictating part)!!!

You’ve literally described all forms of taxation.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

try telling expats in France/Spain/Italy it's a negative impact, and the brits who travel quite freely for work currently.

travel state your sources please
Food standards, you completely ignore the recent American trade deal

What EU products are substandard ?

Right to reside/freedom to work is not a negative. the you've failed to present any tangible evidence that we would of had them.

I said "On balance". Expats in Spain etc are a benefit to those countries, not the UK. They go there with money to spend, whereas others come here with nothing and spend OUR money. They are not all living on the streets, so where did all the houses they are living in, come from. Who didn't get a home because somebody from Romania turned up and was given one instead?

Are you saying that the compensation schemes that the EU has suddenly dreamed up, doesn't add to costs?


We now(if it happens) get to choose the food standards. The EU has insisted on setting the UK's food standards, but one example(that I can remember) from the past is an issue with French UHT milk. It was ruled that we have to accept a standard lower than we insisted from UK farmers.

There is no US trade deal in place.

President of the UK's National Farmer's Union (NFU) Minette Batters said that while Mr Johnson was correct in saying chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef was "safe" to eat, there were other factors that needed considering.
"The difference is welfare standards and environmental protection standards," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Are "welfare standards and environmental protection standards" any better in Romania etc? Eg Horsemeat scandal.

Ms Batters said chicken farms in the US were not required, for example, to include windows in their sheds or clean out in between flocks.

Red Tractor chicken scheme members will be required to have windows fitted in all buildings which house birds by October 2020.

Sounds like EU(including the UK) farmers also don't have to have windows.

But the practice has been banned in the EU since 1997, where only washing with cold air or water is allowed.The EU argues that chlorine washes could increase the risk of bacterial-based diseases such as salmonella on the grounds that dirty abattoirs with sloppy standards would rely on it as a decontaminant rather than making sure their basic hygiene protocols were up to scratch.

So the EU admits it's own abattoirs were not "up to scratch" and that chlorine washes are BETTER than cold air and water. What matters is the safety of the end result. What's the betting that the "welfare standards and environmental protection standards" came long after 1997? It's just a ruse to block imports.

How come in 2017 the US exported more than $3bn worth of chicken, and Brazil more than twice that. Not sure Brazil's standards are going to be that high.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I said "On balance". Expats in Spain etc are a benefit to those countries, not the UK. They go there with money to spend, whereas others come here with nothing and spend OUR money. They are not all living on the streets, so where did all the houses they are living in, come from. Who didn't get a home because somebody from Romania turned up and was given one instead?

Are you saying that the compensation schemes that the EU has suddenly dreamed up, doesn't add to costs?


We now(if it happens) get to choose the food standards. The EU has insisted on setting the UK's food standards, but one example(that I can remember) from the past is an issue with French UHT milk. It was ruled that we have to accept a standard lower than we insisted from UK farmers.

There is no US trade deal in place.
Are "welfare standards and environmental protection standards" any better in Romania etc? Eg Horsemeat scandal.

So the EU admits it's own abattoirs were not "up to scratch" and that chlorine washes are BETTER than cold air and water. What matters is the safety of the end result.


How come in 2017 the US exported more than $3bn worth of chicken, and Brazil more than twice that. Not sure Brazil's standards are going to be that high.

Yet again, you've failed to accept that EU migration to the UK provides a NET benefit. so your first paragraph is rubbish.

Sorry for the lapse on the US trade deal, was typing in multiple windows. Yes, of course no deal currently in place.

The EU's concern as you probably know regarding chlorine washing is that it allows or could be allowed for shortcuts to be taken in the slaughter process which are not as easily introduced via the cold air and water method. You're right, it's about the end result, so lets use the method that introduces least risk into the slaughter process. which is to still ban the use of chlorine washing.

Again, if you think for one second that a nation such as the UK (should Brexit occur) will have any considerable say in any of the major nation trade deals then you're in denial. We are going to be dictated too and we will have to accept what we're given in the vast majority of instances.

However, you were told that before, you didn't listen and there's evidence already of chickens coming home to roost.

BTW Brazil exports more chicken than the US because it's 5th biggest export (meat as a whole) US's meat exports don't even make the top ten.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mythica

Clearly it doesn't though does it. This isn't about leavers or remainers, it's about protecting the country.

No. Leave means leave. There is no threat to the country. All this nonsense is the confusion deliberately thrown in to try to sabatage Brexit. As the date gets nearer, the voices become more shrill.

It's pathetic, really.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Yet again, you've failed to accept that EU migration to the UK provides a NET benefit. so your first paragraph is rubbish.

Sorry for the lapse on the US trade deal, was typing in multiple windows. Yes, of course no deal currently in place.

The EU's concern as you probably know regarding chlorine washing is that it allows or could be allowed for shortcuts to be taken in the slaughter process which are not as easily introduced via the cold air and water method. You're right, it's about the end result, so lets use the method that introduces least risk into the slaughter process. which is to still ban the use of chlorine washing.

Again, if you think for one second that a nation such as the UK (should Brexit occur) will have any considerable say in any of the major nation trade deals then you're in denial. We are going to be dictated too and we will have to accept what we're given in the vast majority of instances.

However, you were told that before, you didn't listen and there's evidence already of chickens coming home to roost.

BTW Brazil exports more chicken than the US because it's 5th biggest export (meat as a whole) US's meat exports don't even make the top ten.

Where is the evidence that US abattoirs are any less safe than EU ones? The supposed reason that chlorinated washing was banned is that it was BETTER for safety and therefore ALLEGEDLY hid problems. A bit like banning washing hands with soap and allowing jsut the use of water because using soap hides the fact that the hands were dirtier in the first place. The same chicken would be safer with a chlorinated wash than just cold air and water.



The large US and Brazilian chicken exports indicate that other countries are more than happy with their produce.

Chicken Exports by Country: Fresh

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of fresh or chilled chicken during 2017, encompassing both cut and uncut fresh meat:

1. Netherlands: US$1.4 billion (23.6% of fresh poultry meat exports)
2. Poland: $896.6 million (15.3%)
3. Belgium: $651 million (11.1%)
4. United States: $591.7 million (10.1%)
5. Germany: $464.4 million (7.9%)

Chicken Exports by Country: Frozen

Fresh chicken meat export leaders United States and Netherlands also make the list of major frozen chicken exporters. However, they fall well short of Brazil in topping international sales of frozen poultry.

Here are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of frozen chicken during 2017:

1. Brazil: US$6.4 billion (39.8% of total frozen poultry exports)
2. United States: $2.6 billion (16.1%)
3. Netherlands: $1.1 billion (6.7%)
4. Hong Kong: $834.7 million (5.2%)

April 2018

BRUSSELS/SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Europe’s decision to ban meat imports from several Brazilian suppliers affects 30 to 35 percent of the country’s exports to the bloc and will force companies to find new markets while officials work to reverse the measure, Brazil’s Agriculture Minister said.

Therefore we could also ban specific problem US suppliers.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

The EU's concern as you probably know regarding chlorine washing is that it allows or could be allowed for shortcuts to be taken in the slaughter process which are not as easily introduced via the cold air and water method. You're right, it's about the end result, so lets use the method that introduces least risk into the slaughter process. which is to still ban the use of chlorine washing.

This is one of the more absurd excuses for protectionism dreamed up by the EU.

The fact is, chlorine-washed poultry has less than a tenth of the bacteria on its surface when it leaves the factory than when air and water treated. Chlorine-washed poultry is vastly safer to handle in a domestic kitchen than air and water treated poultry is.

The EU’s reasoning is that forcing poulterers to supply meat that is less safe than it could be, forces them to be more careful. That is about as logical as forcing auto manufacturers to stop fitting seat belts in the name of road safety.

I’m certain that they are well aware of this absurdity in Brussels, but they don’t care because it has nothing whatever to do with ensuring the safest possible chicken arrives in your kitchen. It is all about protecting European producers who don’t have the resources to invest in chlorine washing, allowing them to continue to supply chicken that is more expensive and less safe, without worrying about competition from cleaner, more efficient producers from outside the EU.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

This is one of the more absurd excuses for protectionism dreamed up by the EU.

1) The fact is, chlorine-washed poultry has less than a tenth of the bacteria on its surface when it leaves the factory than when air and water treated. Chlorine-washed poultry is vastly safer to handle in a domestic kitchen than air and water treated poultry is.

The EU’s reasoning is that forcing poulterers to supply meat that is less safe than it could be, forces them to be more careful. That is about as logical as forcing auto manufacturers to stop fitting seat belts in the name of road safety.

I’m certain that they are well aware of this absurdity in Brussels, but they don’t care because it has nothing whatever to do with ensuring the safest possible chicken arrives in your kitchen. It is all about protecting European producers who don’t have the resources to invest in chlorine washing, allowing them to continue to supply chicken that is more expensive and less safe, without worrying about competition from cleaner, more efficient producers from outside the EU.

1) Wrong
In 2014, an investigation by the respected independent US non-profit organisation, Consumer Reports, found that 97 per cent of 300 chicken breasts it tested from across America contained harmful bacteria including Salmonella, campylobacter and E.Coli.

A 2013 study by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control - the US federal health protection agency - analysed outbreaks of foodborne illnesses between 1998 and 2008 and found that “more deaths were attributable to poultry than any other commodity”.

More than half of the samples in the Consumer Reports study contained faecal contaminants and a similar amount harboured at least one bacterium that was resistant to three or more commonly prescribed antibiotics.

A 2016 study by the UK’s Food Standards Agency found comparable levels of contamination in this country - half of chicken samples taken from retailers were infected with multi antibiotic-resistant campylobacter.

It's the same, without the addition of chlorine.

as part of the wider issue ;


Chlorine-washed chickens are symbolic of much wider concerns around animal welfare and environmental standards that could become a crucial negotiating point in any post-Brexit trade deal between the US and the UK. That trade deal itself is seen as of vital importance to the UK’s future outside the EU.

Other practices such as implanting cattle with man-made growth hormones and selling unlabelled genetically modified foods are also allowed in the US but banned in the UK. These problems are also likely to be on the agenda.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

It does, the ballot should have been explicit in detail.

If a DIY store offers you the choice of a copper or a plastic pipe. you then select one

You don't then get to kick off if it's the wrong size or fitment, you should have asked and made sure at the time of purchase.[COLOR="Silver"]

The ballot was explicit. Leave or stay.

Do you really think that Brexiters did not realise that leaving the EU meant coming out of the single market (customs union)? Do you believe that people didn't not realise that controlling immigration worked both ways? Did the supposed lack of information persuade you to vote remain?

Of course not. Brexiters knew what they were doing. To hear all this nonsense, it is clear that many remainers remain completely confused.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where is the evidence that US abattoirs are any less safe than EU ones? The supposed reason that chlorinated washing was banned is that it was BETTER for safety and therefore ALLEGEDLY hid problems. A bit like banning washing hands with soap and allowing jsut the use of water because using soap hides the fact that the hands were dirtier in the first place. The same chicken would be safer with a chlorinated wash than just cold air and water.



The large US and Brazilian chicken exports indicate that other countries are more than happy with their produce.



April 2018
Therefore we could also ban specific problem US suppliers.

If you think you're going to be able to ban IBP and their like then you have another think coming.


US vs EU Food standards as a whole

https://www.ecowatch.com/13-ways-the...881850175.html

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No. Leave means leave. There is no threat to the country. All this nonsense is the confusion deliberately thrown in to try to sabatage Brexit. As the date gets nearer, the voices become more shrill.

It's pathetic, really.

But it doesn't does it as we've found out. If leave meant leave then we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is no nonsense. Get in the real world and realise that things just aren't as simple as you are making out.