4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

How's that for drivel of the day?

Actually sounds quite realistic. Unless you think a trade agreement with the US is going to be easiest deal in history.

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

How's that for drivel of the day?

https://iegvu.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/CO213127/Perdue-confronts-UK-and-EU-over-chlorine-chicken-myths

45 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Actually sounds quite realistic. Unless you think a trade agreement with the US is going to be easiest deal in history.

It was the way it was written.  Like: eat our funky chickens or no trade deal! The terrible fear mongering continues.

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

But da EU just love bureaucracy innit?

You have no idea how many layers of bureaucracy will appear after any kind of Brexit.

Anything has to be better than this doesn't it?

 

"But critics say the seemingly endless number of bans, prohibitions, restrictions, regulations and edicts being enacted by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels—many of which are being justified by eco-related concerns—smacks of paternalism. They claim it is over-regulation, and an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of 500 million EU citizens, who should be allowed to make their own decisions."

 

 https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4053/eu-regulations

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

It was the way it was written.  Like: eat our funky chickens or no trade deal! The terrible fear mongering continues.

You don’t like things written in a way that layout the uncomfortable truth.

 

Have a go at challenging what I stated (without making stuff up).

 

Reported offensive post removed

16 hours ago, aright said:

More of your misguided commercial.nonsense.

Of course it's a question of decision! Mine! I own the business . If I decide to proceed with certification its down to me, nothing to do with you or the EU, and as I said my decision will be based on affordability and cost benefit and I should add sometimes for personal non commercial reasons.

Why would my employees or myself be headed for the dole office you couldn't possibly know what decision I would make confronted with to certify or not to certify and why would I want to destroy my own business , most of my widgets don't require certification . As for significant expense, before I developed my businesses into  profitable propositions  I had an idea for a product which required finance, research and accreditation which I could ill afford so I sold a part of the idea to a company who could afford it. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

  You and the other brexiteers can then explain to those heading for the dole office how project fear became reality.

You have now upped "Project Fear" to "King Size Project Fear"

 

"Can you point to the business communities world wide who will stop dealing with the EU because of these costs"

 

As requested Specific Countries and Businesses who claim they will no longer trade with the EU because of onerous certification costs please with links? If you can't address the answer head on don't bother replying we recognize your nannie and your project. 

 

 

Obviously there is your idea of CE marking and then there is reality.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-short-film-euan-robinson-eu-theresa-may-peoples-vote-a8546786.html

All went well in Salzburg then.

 

“We all agreed on this today, the proposals in their current state are not acceptable, especially on the economic side of it. The Chequers plan cannot be take it or leave it.”
The message was echoed by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who said: “It was clear today that we need substantial progress by October and that we then aim to finalise everything in November.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-latest-eu-emmanuel-macron-brexiteer-liars-no-deal-a8547146.html

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

All went well in Salzburg then.

 

“We all agreed on this today, the proposals in their current state are not acceptable, especially on the economic side of it. The Chequers plan cannot be take it or leave it.”
The message was echoed by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who said: “It was clear today that we need substantial progress by October and that we then aim to finalise everything in November.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-latest-eu-emmanuel-macron-brexiteer-liars-no-deal-a8547146.html

well, that her plan did not sell was just as expected, has actually been clear for a while

 

more worrying was the way in which the PM tried to sell the plan, the actual words she used in her main pitches

 

Well, if there's one thing that there's been consensus on from both sides of the debate, it's that Chequers was unworkable, despite May's attempt to square the circle. So the Salzburg result shouldn't surprise too many people.

 

Tusk, Barnier, and Rees-Mogg and co have advocated a Free Trade approach, and the Free Trade approach actually delivers on the referendum result, so this looks like the way to go (blind exit and no deal are not serious contenders I hope).

 

If a leaver had been in charge from day1, we would have been most of the way there by now.

8 hours ago, kwilco said:

You have no idea how many layers of bureaucracy will appear after any kind of Brexit.

I wasn't making a comparison but you could be right. But you don't have any idea, either.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You don’t like things written in a way that layout the uncomfortable truth.

 

Have a go at challenging what I stated (without making stuff up).

 

No. Your version of truth is unsubstantiated .If you want to provide some real evidence to backup your claim then I will either accept it or challenge it. As it stands it is just more fear-factor.  

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You don’t like things written in a way that layout the uncomfortable truth.

 

Have a go at challenging what I stated (without making stuff up).

 

 

It IS in part about the way you have worded it IMO Chomper, it sounds like you're almost relishing the fact that, in your opinion, the UK public will be subjugated into eating toxic turkeys and all manner of other revolting GM produce from the US, perhaps this is to vindicate your and others' lauding of the EU and their inimitable system of food hygiene standards, checks and labeling? Obviously this is a two way street and something we can reintroduce on our own, with the right people in place to do it. I wouldn't fully disagree with anyone who says that the EU has done a good job of regulating food and maintaining high standards within its borders, but there are costs of being in a protectionist bloc and as I said it's a two street, best summarised in this elucidating, if lengthy paper - https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Dumping_on_the_Poor_The_Common_Agricultural_Po.htm

 

'The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy is enormously expensive and enormously damaging. A typical family of four currently pays £16 a week in taxes and higher food prices to prop up a regime with a disastrous track record of overproduction, environmental degradation, and food safety scares. If the CAP only affected Europeans, international aid agencies like CAFOD would leave the debate to others, but the CAP also undermines the livelihoods of millions of farmers in developing countries by dumping cheap produce in their markets and denying them export opportunities to the largest single market in the world.' A good summary which is a precursor to a detailed polemic by CAFOD.

 

After reading the Business Insider article, however, it doesn't sound reassuring, that's for sure.

 

"Nothing is completely off the table. We are going to keep the same high level of health and safety standards but we are on course to negotiate with the US for an FTA and that will require compromise," a government source said.

 

Again, not reassuring, BUT, bear in mind the US has FTAs with other more minor business partners and hasn't imposed the same dodgy food standards on them - across the board. The UK is a more major partner (6th in the world in terms of export/import trade) and is the biggest FDI provider into the US too, something that shouldn't be overlooked, although it is also true to say the UK will be seeking a good FTA with the US and will be somewhat out of the driving seat for that reason.

 

I think its prudent to be aware of the possible negatives of an FTA with the US and what that might mean, in practice, for the UK, but we do need a new bilateral trade deal with them and again - a positive for leaving the EU (despite paternalist policy from the protectionist bloc that can in some respects benefit us, at considerable expense, as mentioned in the CAFOD report) is that we have the power to make OUR own trade deals with whoever we want and can write/rewrite said trade deals, whereas within the EU customs union that is an impossibility.

 

So to oversimplify a complex issue by saying we'll all be force fed rotten chickens etc. once we leave the EU and sign an FTA with the US is both overlooking the substantial pitfalls and corruptions of the EU / CAP and undermining the UK's bargaining power and the public's intelligence. In short, I'd agree that it's basically unsubstantiated scaremongering. 

 

 

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

All went well in Salzburg then.

 

“We all agreed on this today, the proposals in their current state are not acceptable, especially on the economic side of it. The Chequers plan cannot be take it or leave it.”
The message was echoed by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who said: “It was clear today that we need substantial progress by October and that we then aim to finalise everything in November.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-latest-eu-emmanuel-macron-brexiteer-liars-no-deal-a8547146.html

 

From the BBC News website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45596470

 

Where does this leave us. Chequers is, and always was, dead. Treason May is not willing to consider any other option. The traitors in Westminster will not vote for a No Deal.  Of course the EUSSR want us to come begging on our knees on the 30th March to be let back in. Can you imagine how they would treat us if we did. We would be Juncker's bitch.

16 minutes ago, Henryford said:

Where does this leave us. Chequers is, and always was, dead. Treason May is not willing to consider any other option. The traitors in Westminster will not vote for a No Deal.  Of course the EUSSR want us to come begging on our knees on the 30th March to be let back in. Can you imagine how they would treat us if we did. We would be Juncker's bitch.

 

In the long term, if UK doesn't want to be part of the EU, EU doesn't want that either. It's not fun to drag along an unwilling member. That benefits no one.

 

The no-deal, where we are heading towards, will hurt both parties. Yet both parties will eventually deal with the new situation. This will hurt quite a lot more in the UK side, but I suppose the country will survive, one way or another. 

 

The no-deal might trigger the end of UK as we know it. Scotland is most likely going to join the EU at some point, what happens in Northern Ireland, I have no idea. Perhaps someone could clarify how they think if UK is based on only 3 separate states?

 

42 minutes ago, oilinki said:

 

In the long term, if UK doesn't want to be part of the EU, EU doesn't want that either. It's not fun to drag along an unwilling member. That benefits no one.

 

The no-deal, where we are heading towards, will hurt both parties. Yet both parties will eventually deal with the new situation. This will hurt quite a lot more in the UK side, but I suppose the country will survive, one way or another. 

 

The no-deal might trigger the end of UK as we know it. Scotland is most likely going to join the EU at some point, what happens in Northern Ireland, I have no idea. Perhaps someone could clarify how they think if UK is based on only 3 separate states?

 

 

With reference to Scotland. You are assuming the the SNP will win the referendum and leave the UK.

 

What happens if they lose again and Scotland votes to stay in the UK?

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

With reference to Scotland. You are assuming the the SNP will win the referendum and leave the UK.

 

What happens if they lose again and Scotland votes to stay in the UK?

Then Scotland stays in the UK.

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

Then Scotland stays in the UK.

That will not make the SNP very happy and should they call an election and lose they will be deep in the soft and smelly.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

From the BBC News website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45596470

 

 

good read,

I see that the lady boss in Scotland argues for delaying Brexit, why is that? what's in it for her?

obviously, that UK (Scotland) will stay in EU during the delay and that's where Scotland wants to be

 

but does this also signal that she has given up hope of Scotland opting out of UK?

 

 

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

That will not make the SNP very happy and should they call an election and lose they will be deep in the soft and smelly.

I guess the result will depend what happens in UK after the Brexit. If it really is no-deal and that is disastrous, then I suppose it will be a boost for Scotland's independence. It's likely that there will be a huge blame game after the brexit, regardless what the result is going to be. 

 

But all that remains to be seen in the future.

11 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

good read,

I see that the lady boss in Scotland argues for delaying Brexit, why is that? what's in it for her?

obviously, that UK (Scotland) will stay in EU during the delay and that's where Scotland wants to be

 

but does this also signal that she has given up hope of Scotland opting out of UK?

Maybe she has more of layered plans for the future.

 

while Delay on Brexit 

  do try to convince UK to stay with EU

 

  If UK stays with EU

    then Scotland stays with UK

    else Scotland votes for independence and joins EU by itself

  fi

 done

 

8 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

good read,

I see that the lady boss in Scotland argues for delaying Brexit, why is that? what's in it for her?

obviously, that UK (Scotland) will stay in EU during the delay and that's where Scotland wants to be

 

but does this also signal that she has given up hope of Scotland opting out of UK?

 

 

But Nicola Sturgeon only speaks for Scotland whilst kicking England every chance that she gets.

 

I think that what is in it for her is that she does not have to call for a Scots referendum while Brexit is not resolved one way or another.

 

I think that if the UK comes out with a semi reasonable Brexit then it will be difficult to win a referendum and if the UK crashes out she might try but if she loses then she and the SNP are in the deep and smelly.

 

However if she wins then I don't think that the EU will accept Scotland until all the details of separation are completed including perhaps a hard border between England and Scotland.

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But Nicola Sturgeon only speaks for Scotland whilst kicking England every chance that she gets.

 

I think that what is in it for her is that she does not have to call for a Scots referendum while Brexit is not resolved one way or another.

 

I think that if the UK comes out with a semi reasonable Brexit then it will be difficult to win a referendum and if the UK crashes out she might try but if she loses then she and the SNP are in the deep and smelly.

 

However if she wins then I don't think that the EU will accept Scotland until all the details of separation are completed including perhaps a hard border between England and Scotland.

 

ok, so your take is that to the lady staying in EU is more important than getting rid of UK

 

don't think I share your views expressed in the last para,

should Scotland opt out she would be fast-tracked back in EU me thinks

hard border; for sure, Scotland can not opt out of Schengen as UK and Ireland did

not only that; there will also be a massive Schengen sea border to take care of

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But Nicola Sturgeon only speaks for Scotland whilst kicking England every chance that she gets.

 

I think that what is in it for her is that she does not have to call for a Scots referendum while Brexit is not resolved one way or another.

 

I think that if the UK comes out with a semi reasonable Brexit then it will be difficult to win a referendum and if the UK crashes out she might try but if she loses then she and the SNP are in the deep and smelly.

 

However if she wins then I don't think that the EU will accept Scotland until all the details of separation are completed including perhaps a hard border between England and Scotland.

 

Agreed, but it does seem beyond ridiculous, satirical even, that Scotland would have a referendum on 'independence' then, IF they voted to leave the Union, would enter the EU and usurp their own autonomy. ?

 

Furthermore they'd be replacing a magnanimous, deeply connected partner with an ambivalent foreign master. They'd be literally INSANE to do it, and the ONLY conceivable chance I can see of it happening is if a no deal Brexit looks disastrous, at first glance.

1 minute ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

Agreed, but it does seem beyond ridiculous, satirical even, that Scotland would have a referendum on 'independence' then, IF they voted to leave the Union, would enter the EU and usurp their own autonomy. ?

 

Furthermore they'd be replacing a magnanimous, deeply connected partner with an ambivalent foreign master. They'd be literally INSANE to do it, and the ONLY conceivable chance I can see of it happening is if a no deal Brexit looks disastrous, at first glance.

No. What's insane is calling the EU a "foreign master."

Just now, bristolboy said:

No. What's insane is calling the EU a "foreign master."

 

 

? ? ? ?

 

I won't even begin to respond to that. Some people are beyond help.

Just now, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

 

? ? ? ?

 

I won't even begin to respond to that. Some people are beyond help.

Thank you for sparing me the hyperbolic nonsense.

Now if the UK were a member of the Eurozone, you would have something of a case.

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Thank you for sparing me the hyperbolic nonsense.

Now if the UK were a member of the Eurozone, you would have something of a case.

You're very welcome. I have limited time in the day to educate those such as yourself on the ins and outs of EU diktat , that's your own personal responsibility. 

 

If we'd listened to the same Europhile doom-mongers that advocated remain decades ago however, we would be a fully trussed up member of the Eurozone. A very lucky escape.